LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Here's a more comprehensive one describing the same incident.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

So much for the sanctity of life.

That physiatrist needs to be fired yesterday. She went against the hospital's policies and deliberately interfered with that guy's treatment.

Seriously, how do you have someone like that on staff?

edited 10th Sep '13 2:27:15 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

She needs to be in prison.

that too.

Serious, how the hell do you decide to spend your life taking care of people and do THAT? Talk about What the Hell, Hero?.

edited 10th Sep '13 2:43:16 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

Someone convinced her it was God's will. You don't say no to somebody who can torment you for eternity if he wants.

edited 10th Sep '13 3:52:40 PM by Morgikit

"This is what he gets for going against God's will."

No. That is what he gets for having unprotected sex with a man with HIV. If he had had done the same with a woman, or had received a blood transplant from someone with HIV, he would still have gotten it. If he had had protected sex with a man who had it or unprotected sex with a man who didn't have it, he would not have contracted HIV.

Jesus Christ, lady. You have a medical degree. How do you not know about viruses? Rub two people together, and bam! Viral transmission. No divine light. No choir of angels. Bodily fluids.

Sheesh.

But yeah, great job on the whole, "Violating medical ethics and Christian morals for a rule that was never actually officially brought up in the New Testament," thing. Your selfless example of malpractice has stopped a man who engaged in an activity that's sinful in your religion from getting the treatment and support he needed at the time. You've made Jesus proud.

Fire, air, water, earth...legend has it that when these four elements are gathered, they will form the fifth element...boron.

Then she shouldn't have been working in a Catholic Hospital. The sanctity of life is, in case any of you missed one of the abortion controversies, is one of, if not the most important value of the Catholic church.

I'm baaaaaaack

Which makes this rather ironic. And if the hospital had a problem with it, why didn't they stop her?

edited 10th Sep '13 5:07:13 PM by Morgikit

It goes with the unfortunate bit that life is sacred..as long as its politically convenient to rile the masses to action.

Same reason republicans love the military..until they come back from war and can speak for themselves.

Actually, I'm sure there's plenty of people who would object to taking pictures of public prayer. But there's enough other people who would gladly do it that anyone turned away from those businesses probably wouldn't bother with a lawsuit, just get a new photographer to do it.

Nobody thinks I'm a pervert? I'm hurt!

Ironically, I find myself somewhat with Soban on this issue. What's the point of "We can refuse service to anyone" if they actually can't? If you get a gay guy in a restaurant who's being a total douche, insulting the servers and ruining other people's dining, does that mean the restaurant can't kick him out because he's "protected"? Because that's kind of the vibe I'm getting.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

By that logic you can't throw anyone out, so why blame gays? Besides, a restaurant is a private business. Different rules, right?

@morg- The hospital didn't know she was going to pull that, the upper management can't know everything at once. I'd bet you she's been fired by now.

I'm baaaaaaack

Surely she had some sort of supervisor who knew what she was doing. Unless she lied about treating him I guess.

X4 You can still kick him out, but you have to kick him out for being a git, not for being gay.

It's the same how you can't kick someone out of your restaurant just because they are black/white/Christian/Jewish, you can still kick them out for being a douche.

A question to those on the right to discriminate side, you are okay with this extending fully right? So if you can refuse to photograph a wedding because the couple are gay, you're totally okay with people being able to do so because the couple are black/Christian/Jewish?

edited 10th Sep '13 5:32:19 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

She might have been the top of her particular chain of command. Who knows? Three days isn't a very long time and I doubt "Have you tried to kill any patients recently?" Is a common question from the bosses. I think theres a lot of trust in a hospital setting, which makes her actions all the more disgusting.

The nurses are at fault to some extent as well, but nurses are practically infamous for just saying what you want to hear and not doing anything on it.

It's up to that person, I'm sure there's photographers who have done exactly that. To me it's screwed up but they have the right.

edited 10th Sep '13 5:36:52 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

they technically have that right.

Granted, the word of mouth will kill their business so its about as smart an idea as just lightning your studio on fire.

Yay Capitalism!

I'm baaaaaaack

pretty much.

When you own a portrait or wedding or other pay by commission from random citizens studio, you kind of have to toe the line of what the area considers socially acceptable.

Because if you dont have customers coming in, you are screeeewed. And you have any idea how much running a studio costs?

I'll give you a hint. One flash bulb for one professional flash on a boom?

30 bucks.

The housing for that bulb is about a thousand.

also you need a 500 dollar power pack for it.

and a background. and light modifiers,. and various lenses. and possibly costume props

edited 10th Sep '13 6:03:16 PM by midgetsnowman

and given what they charge, one event can be the difference between making a profit that month and going on a ramen diet.

I'm baaaaaaack

They have the right to reject patients, but generally, after they've admitted you, it's expected that they actually treat you. Or at least let you take your medication, or use the phone to contact your doctor.

Fire, air, water, earth...legend has it that when these four elements are gathered, they will form the fifth element...boron.

No. I've volunteered in hospitals for quite some time, and in every hospital I've been in, every single treatment (or notable lack thereof) has to be charted up and reported to somebody. So either the hospital was negligent, the doctor falsified medical forms (which she doesn't seem to have been charged with), or the hospital knew about it and didn't do anything.

edited 10th Sep '13 6:57:38 PM by Muramasan13

Smile for me!

well the 2 articles on the subject were both fairly sparse on the specifics, hopefully we'll find out more as time goes on. Given that she confronted his doctor and the nurses weren't allowed to give him his medication, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if she did falsify the records. might be some negligence as well.

edited 10th Sep '13 7:39:58 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

You know something, that disgraceful hypocrite that really should be doing time in prison is the very reason that religious freedom gets curbed.

It was an honor

I don't see religious freedom curbed.

My President is Funny Valentine.