Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

Ok, I wasn't aware that a doctor was officially 'always a doctor' as far as the General Medical Council was concerned, but I'm certainly glad that is the case. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

I don't think you do agree with what I said. You make that pretty apparent with the rest of your post. I don't know how you could say this. Why shouldn't certain nonpublic activities not be regulated by the government? You really haven't given a good reason for that other than some vague notion of what you consider to be hypocrisy. Yes and that minority is protected by a set of fundamental rights laid out in the constitution. That is why your slavery example which you use later on is a false analogy. It fails because slaves happen to also be people for whom those rights extend. The 14th amendment in our constitution clarified that.Certain behaviors that are detrimental to society should not be protected by such idealism. Yes we have right to bear arms but that does not mean that we have a right to build our own nukes. There is a considerable public interest in NOT allowing some backwards militia to build missile silos with ICBMs yet I suppose if you were a constitutional purist you would say that this would be an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights.There is a major issue here of practicality alongside our political ideology. While it may be somewhat non-ideal in the seem of freedoms to force a racist doctor to treat the object of their racism, it IS practical and that is the business the government should be in.Furthermore, I don't see at all how that goes against the notion of a democracy, even the democracy that we live in. Frankly, and this is just my humble option, I think your opinion is total crap. For very legitimate reasons we have restricted this supposed right of medical professionals with a personal agenda because they perform such a vastly important service to society. There a plenty of other examples where the actions of private citizens or institutions are restricted legitimately. Thats just crazy and furthermore totally impractical. I don't know what this "true" democracy you are talking about is but if enough people by fiat of their elected representative want to restrict that activity then I think that is a perfectly valid use of democracy. The people HAVE spoken and said that they want medical professionals held to certain standards because we think that healthcare is that important. The people of the UK have spoken and said that they want adoption agencies to be held to certain standards because they feel that caring for orphaned children citizens is that important. I was just responding to your tangent about how there are things in society which you or I might consider detrimental and yet are not regulated. Even if a majority thinks something needs to be regulated that does not mean that it can be either legally or practically. One of the reasons why we don't pass laws restricting people from participating in certain religious groups is that there simply is no public interest in doing so. OBVIOUSLY there is another very good reason in that it is against the 1st amendment. I don't understand how your comment about torture is relevant. Citizens of the US DO have a right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. You must have something that you consider to be an idealistic view of democracy. I DO think this is exactly how a democracy is supposed to work. We can as a society, democratically, decide that we are going to both outlaw slavery and force standards of care upon doctors and adoption professionals. What part of that you consider to be undemocratic is beyond me. Just because the government protects certain rights of people does not mean that it cannot legitimately create restrictions on a private industry to govern the practicalities of life among its citizenry. There is nothing undemocratic about that.Here is what I consider to be a better example than the case of medical care. The government places restrictions on how much a private company can pollute the environment. I will not hesitate to say that you probably agree that this is a good idea. Now do you believe this to be an undemocratic action that restricts the rights of these companies? Is the government being hypocritical when they free slaves yet at the same time ban these companies from dumping as much mercury as they want into the public water system?Why do you think the government should be allowed to do this? I'll tell you why I think it should. The government should have the power to take away the "right" to pollute from industry because it is of considerable public interest to do so.Just like my robbery example I that you would say that this case is clear because polluting harms people. Failure to provide medical care also harms people. Mismanagement of adoption harms children. That is what makes these things so important to society. A racist doctor is stripped of this "right" in the exact same way a chemical plant is stripped of its "right" not to do anything about the byproducts of its manufacturing. Because not doing something harms people in a substantial enough way that we have decided as a society to regulate it. I think it is pretty clear by now that not only do I think your sense of rights is wrong but also that your sense of what a valid and practical democracy subscribes is wrong. The set of citizens that includes doctors who would refuse medical care based on race is not a minority group that needs protection. In fact it is quite the opposite that is true. It is society that needs protection from them. I see absolutely no correlation. If a racist doctor cannot perform his duties within the regulation then he has the choice of ceasing to be a doctor. A black person in your scenario had no choice to relieve themselves of the regulation. You are completely creating a false equivalency. No it is not a different story. Plain and simply, you don't get to ignore laws just because you think you can isolate yourself under the guise of privatization. Well then you are discussing something else because no one here is arguing that hospitals shouldn't have hiring standards especially when they must comply with the law regarding standards of care.The issue is and always has been if privatization of a particular industry protects you from regulation. Our case example from the OP is adoption agencies. What the heck does this have anything to do with anything we have discussed so far? If I have a company I can choose not to hire someone because they don't have the skills necessary to do the job. It is not Joe's right to be hired for any job he wants. It is Joe's right to receive standard acute medical care. If Joe is a kid in the UK, then he has the right not to have perfectly good prospective guardians eliminated based on discrimination. Slavery is not a public interest because it was determined that the slaves are actually a subset of the public itself!Explain to me how black people sitting in the back of a bus was ever public interest or for that matter equivalent to standards for medical care and adoption. Quite simply, we don't recognize racist doctors or bigot priests as social minorities in need of protection regarding the services they provide. It absolutely is NOT the same line of thinking with regard to the restriction of gay rights. If a racist doctor or a bigot priest cannot perform their duties under regulation then they can stop being doctors and adoption facilitators respectively. A gay person who is restricted from being considered kin of his/her partner cannot choose to do anything to be removed from that restriction. It is ABSOLUTLY different in all ways actual and practical. Refusing medical care harms other people AND harms the public.
Having inadequate standards for adoption harms children AND harms the public (prospective parents). So Apu is behind the counter of the quickie mart and is shot and we consider this bad because Apu is harmed by the action of the shooter.
But if Apu dies because he is refused medical treatment for his gun wound because the ER doc he was taken to hates darkies this is not harm?Inaction is action in this scenario. The difference is pure semantics. Why do you make the exception for cannibals and rapists? The DIRECT ACTION of the priests is not causing these children to be eaten or raped. Why should the government be allowed to step in regarding the INACTION of the priests to query the cannibal or sex offender status of the prospective parents yet not be allowed to step in regarding the discriminative ACTION of the priests that harms both children and gay couples. I would hope that things listed in the bill of rights would be an obvious exclusion to my statement but if not then let this be a clarification to that. Lets not forget though that even the bill of rights can be changed. The protection of the minority from the majority can be democratically removed just as it was democratically instituted. I am of course not advocating that but you seem to be of the opinion that "democracy" means "the things that we have currently decided are good by using democracy". Democracy is a process. It is not a bill of rights, a moral code, or any other kind of social standards.If Iraq is any proof, you can democratically do things that in our country we would consider oppressive. They can democratically institute Koranic law including things we would consider wrong such as censoring blasphemy and banning anthropomorphic art.Edited by Jazzns, : Fixed a stray bold tag. Sorry for seemingly shouting.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Oh, they can be regulated according to how we define our democracy. But how much regulation and for what? Racist doctors are also people. Whether one chooses to be something does not negate their right to be that something.Allow me to wander off a little out of our way here to give a more obvious example. The issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not has been up for debate and debated for years now. While I personally believe that one does not simply choose to be gay or straight (trust me, I've tried it), I think arguing that because it is a choice it must be wrong is hogwash. In other words, I believe that even if it was a choice someone made to be gay, he should still every right to access the benefits we, as a society, reward to straight people. In other words, choice or not should have no bearing on whether a person should get certain rights or not.Same thing with racist doctors. Whether or not they chose to be racists, we probably can't say. But we do know that they chose to be doctors. So what? Oh, absolutely. Behaviors such as murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. are all harmful to society. The argument is over where a person's rights have been violated for the sake of another person. I am certainly not required to to reach out my hand and try to save a person who is hanging by their nails over a cliff even if reaching out my hand posses no threat to myself.(If there is any question about my moral intuition, I can assure you that I hold myself to a higher standard than most people out there. Doesn't mean I have the right to require other people to hold up to the same standard.)But if I am not and should not be required to be altruistic, why should racist doctors be forced to treat black people? Restaurants are allowed to refuse service to homeless people. Even if there is a sick looking little kid starving in front of a restaurant, we don't require the restaurant to feed the kid. Why, then, do we make exceptions when it comes to doctors? I don't know what I would think in such a case. Practical or not is still up for debate, remember? In our democracy, we value free speech and free action within some limits to assure that people are not intentionally and directly harmed. I can't go into a crowded theatre and yell fire because that action directly causes harm to people.But let us look at another example, as long as it's still in my mind.Cops are required to help out people in need of help. If a cop doesn't do his job because the person in need of help is black and the cop is a racist, he can either get disciplined or fired. Private security agencies, on the other hand, can choose to be racist and not suffer any public wrath. Sure, companies, out of good relations with the public, can boycott these racist security agencies, but I am not aware of any policy where if you're a security agency you have to provide service no matter what. No problem. Legitimate or not is what I question. It's the same kind of democracy where the rights of minorities are suppose to be protected. The people HAVE also spoken that gay people should not be allowed to get married or civil unionized and enjoy the thousand or so benefits that are given to straight people. You know that "the people" aren't always in their right minds. I said this in my previous post and I'll say it again. I don't know all the behind the scene politics about this. What I do know is that I recently linked to an article that quoted some officials, including Blair, stressing the public funding issue. Yes, we are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. We are also protected to have our own opinion and not be forced to do otherwise as long as we don't go out harming people. This is why I am not legally required to reach out my hand and save a person from falling to his death. Why, then, are racist doctors excluded from this right? Oh, yes, the people (mob) have spoken... No, it's just a practical view. We protect one group of minorities from the wrath of the majority. I don't see why we can turn around and impose the will of the majority on another minority group. This is a false analogy to what I have been saying.A company that pollutes the environment is like a doctor who have agreed to perform a surgical procedure on a patient decides not to wash his hands or steralize his instruments. Now, if you had said something like a company that produces high definition television but refuses to produce low defintion television even though society has spoken and forces it to produce both televisions, then I'd have something to say there. I agree with you that the industry should be regulated by the government to limit the pollution because pollution... polution... 1 L or 2 L?... the public (which is made up of individual persons) are directly harmed by the industry's actions. Again, an industry that is poluting the environment is like a doctor performing a surgical procedure without washing his hands or sterilizing his instruments. That, we should regulate. So, we are protected from them by violating their right and forcing them to do things against their will? No argument here. I often doubt my own sense as well. Skeptic... Oh, so if tomorrow we find proof that homosexuality is nothing but a choice then the case is put to rest, right? Oh no, you misunderstood me. Laws should never be ignored. But there are just laws and unjust laws. Over a dozen states had laws banning interracial marriage not too long ago. And only in 2001 did we do away with anti-sodomy laws for good. So, you see, whether it is the law or not isn't the argument here.You know what, my response is already a lot longer than your post and I just noticed I've only responded to half of your post. Also, I'm not going to try to make a bigger splash by making every bold and in bigger font. So, I'm going to jump forward a little. Well, I look forward to that day, then

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

I think one of two main points of contention is the issue of harm and your distinction of direct harm versus harm that occurs as a side effect of indirect actions (i.e. doing nothing)I would consider refusing medical care to be harm even though it is indirect. Harm on par with dumping mercury into a river.To me the distinction is not subjective and I'll explain why. You talked about how it is your right not to help someone who is falling over a ledge. That is your right because your chosen profession is not "saver of lives". That IS the profession of a doctor though and a chosen profession at that.It has nothing to do with the doctors choice or non-choice to be racist. It has everything to do with the racists choice or non-choice to be a doctor.The same can be applied to adoption agencies. Not everyone is allowed to operate an adoption clinic and those that CHOOSE to are subject to the regulations therein. If they cannot meet those regulations, they are not qualified to perform that service.The second major point of contention is this notion of conflating a democracy with minority rights. Minority rights are not a property of democracy but rather the byproduct of what THIS democracy has chosen. It is part of why I am proud to be part of THIS democracy versus another one where minority rights are not protected. The point is though that it is not undemocratic to restrict rights.I wanted to respond to a few specifics. First of all, homosexuality has nothing to do with being black. Even if homosexuality was discovered to be a choice being black will never be. Furthermore, no it does not put the case to rest because who you choose to be your kin is very different from what you choose as your profession. That is the problem with trying to create equivalences is that they are rarely actually equivalent. The restrictions placed upon them are different and can be identified objectively. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming that laws should be followed by fiat. I am saying that you cannot escape laws by claiming conditions don't apply to you. That is why, thank God, I will never be refused emergency medical service because I am a dirty A-rab. In life or death I would rather be treated by someone who is only doing it because they have to than not be treated at all. Sorry, that was a typo in a bold tag. I am not going to let you quote me out of context. I specifically said: In other words, you responded to a quote mine of that paragraph rather than the thesis of that paragraph which I hope I clarified in my preceding statements.There are a few things in my obtuse bolded section of my last reply that I would like answered as well. I'll repeat them. If you want to make an equivalence, you actually have to show how something is equivalent. I am calling you out on this.Next, please respond to this and support your position:So Apu is behind the counter of the quickie mart and is shot and we consider this bad because Apu is harmed by the action of the shooter.
But if Apu dies because he is refused medical treatment for his gun wound because the ER doc he was taken to hates darkies this is not harm?Inaction is action in this scenario. The difference is pure semantics.Along the same lines: If the big difference is simply whether or not I get off my ass then please explain this apparent contradiction in your position.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think the differences between the examples being thrown around are ones of authority and responsibility. In this example it is purely a coincidence that Joe is there. It is not his job to be there, he would not be liable if he had not been there. He has no duty of care to Bob, and absolutely no responsibility for Bob's safety. In this example Doctor Joe has a duty of care over Patient Bob. He is trained in life preserving techniques and is in a position of authority, with the power of life and death over patients. People are brought to him for the specific purpose of receiving treatment, it is not a coincidence that Doctor Joe is present when Patient Bob requires help, he was brought to him. Because of the power at Doctor Joe's disposal he cannot be afforded the 'luxury' of choice over who he treats. He trained as a doctor, and has to take on all of a doctors responsibilities. He is ultimately responsible for whatever happens to Patient Bob once Patient Bob has been assigned to him.I believe this is exactly what Jazzns has been saying, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't lost in the discussion of democracy etc.Note this analogy doesn't really require life or death situations. It isn't legal for someone who is providing a service to discriminate against black people, even if they are not receiving government funding (in the UK at least).

You summed it up very nicely thank you. I would in particular like to point out your last comment. This is in particular true for the case in question in the OP which is adoption. If a kid has to wait an extra year to be adopted because perfectly good parents are being screened out based on relgious preferences then is this harm in the same way acute care is harm. I would say yes because just like the case of the doctor you descrbed, these children are placed under the care of the adoption agency and that agency has a responsibility to provide a standard of service to each child. They also have a responsibility to the subset of society that are prospective parents of these kids so in some ways there influence is much more global than the analogous case of acute patient care. TD is only one trying to make the case that these regulations are undemocratic. He has a tough charge because not only are they pretty objectivly democratic, they aren't even contrary to the minority rights ideal that he keeps bringing up as if it was equivalent to democracy.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think this is where we disagree. And I have only said like 10 times already that I'm not just referring to democracy in general but rather the form of democracy we have chosen to be. No, it is not simply the byproduct of what this democracy is. IT IS part of the form of democracy we have chosen. If we look at the bill of rights, just about every amendment is designed to protect individual rights, even if the individual belongs to a minority group. So, I would argue that without the bill of rights, our democracy would drastically change. I agree, which is probably (no, I don't have the probability calculation) why neither of us have agreed to a single analogy the other has given. Yes, and I agree. Let's not forget how all of this commotion came about. We both agreed that the church in England behaved like a spoiled brat thinking it could be exempt from certain regulations. Where we split off was our ideology on how it should have been handled according to our own democracy. Explains it, then I really thought you had popped a few veins in your head... I don't think I quote mined you there. Your opinion is that according to our form of democracy the bill of rights can be changed and the minority rights removed, though you certainly do not hope it will ever occur. What I am trying to say is that according to our form of democracy, minority rights are a part of it. These rights cannot and should not be removed, even by majority rule. If these rights are removed, then our democracy has turned into something else... anything but what we proclaim loudly in the international community. Nope, that's not what I am saying. Idealistically, yes we are an ever changing democracy. But the changes are bounded by certain limits, limits such as not allowing majority rule to oppress the minority. Such limits were largely ignored until the civil rights movement. Even today, a lot of people (mostly christians of course... when are they not the oppressors?) try to ignore this very basic civil right concept by trying to oppress a specific minority group. You said earlier:

quote:

---

I would hope that things listed in the bill of rights would be an obvious exclusion to my statement but if not then let this be a clarification to that. Lets not forget though that even the bill of rights can be changed. The protection of the minority from the majority can be democratically removed just as it was democratically instituted. I am of course not advocating that but you seem to be of the opinion that "democracy" means "the things that we have currently decided are good by using democracy".

---

Slavery and segregation were examples of minority rights democratically taken away. How did you think this happen? Because at the time it was considered a public interest to force certain peoples to do slave labor for the good of the economy. It was then, at the time, considered a public interest to seperate the races and treat non-white folks like crap.You see, what is defined as "public interest" has changed dramatically over the decades. Obviously, people did not define "public interest" the same way we define it today. Personally, I think it's still pretty bad that the racist doctor would refuse treatment, just as it is still bad that I would not reach out and try to save someone in need of saving. But the racist doctor did not shoot Apu just as I did not push the hypothetical person over the edge. No, it is not! Refusal to not do something is not the same thing as actually doing it.But I can't help but question how the racist ER doctor even got there in the first place? If the hospital wants good relation with the people, it is in their best interest to not have hired him at all or fire his ass. It it was a racist hospital, then the community at large could try to do something about it. If the community itself is racist, then the surrounding communities could boycott or do whatever to apply pressure.I really think there are other ways to make medical treatment safe and available to all people without making it illegal to not treat people. Remember that regardless of where we each stand I'm on your side. It is the direct action of the priests that is putting the children directly in harm's way by placing them knowingly with cannibals and rapists.

CBS news story

quote:

---

(AP) Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.

​

The study, published in the new issue of the American Sociological Review, found that couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them, eating together and talking with them about their problems.

---

quote:

---

Powell and his colleagues examined data from 13,000 households with first-graders in the family. The data was part of a detailed survey called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and other agencies.

---

quote:

---

The researchers said their findings call into question the long-standing argument that children are best off with their biological parents. Such arguments were included in state Supreme Court rulings last year in New York and Washington that upheld laws against same-sex marriage.

​

The researchers said gay and lesbian parents may react to discrimination by taking extra, compensatory steps to promote their children's welfare.

---

Read the whole thing at the link.