you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Someone being LGBT doesn't mean McDonald's is allowed to refuse them service, or ESSO is allowed to refuse to sell them gas, or a gym can refuse them membership. Why the fuck do you think a doctor should be allowed to refuse them treatment for a disease?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Someone being LGBT doesn’t mean McDonald’s is allowed to refuse them service, or ESSO is allowed to refuse to sell them gas, or a gym can refuse them membership.

    Patience, patience ... the GOP is working on this as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago*

    Technically they aren't. By their plan, someone who is LGBT couldn't be refused service at McDonalds because they are to be arrested and thrown in jail on sight. Like, how would they have even gotten into McDonalds much less have the gall to ask for a Big Mac?...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Doesn't this fall under the Hippocratic oath anyways? Or am I mistaken

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Hippocratic oath doesn't cover this at all and actually explicitly forbids abortion and euthanasia. It's really quite antiquated which is why I wrote an oath for myself that I hold to.

    There's a lot of debate about the specific meanings of the text, but there are many Christian physicians that will latch onto those passages as an excuse to apply their own beliefs to patient care. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The oath is a promise, not a law. People break promises all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wasn't there a bakery that won a case allowing them not to sell wedding cakes to gay couples?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    No. The supreme court case you're thinking of only ruled that the state commission acted unfairly towards the bakery, not necessarily that the bakery was right or wrong in their discrimination.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What? They can totally do those things. They are private businesses who can reject whomever they want. Protected classes are only protected for things like housing, employment, and public things (school/utilities/etc.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If that were true, the US would still have segregated lunch counters, grocery stores, and private buses. The Supreme Court may be getting us on the way there one day, but right now the only way that private businesses are allowed to discriminate against protected classes is to call the output work a "creative expression" like website design, floral arrangement, or cake decoration, and that's from the 303 Creative case.

    Besides, how would it make sense if a company could bar you as a customer for being gay, but be compelled to employ you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment