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

I'm asking you now. Did the church endorse the nazis or not? Did the church know about the persecutions of jews and other "outcasts" or not?

Is it really that hard to answer directly to a direct question?

While I agree that use of public funds should not be the issue, it is the issue according to our current system. I am talking as a non-believer in either democracy or capitalism.I think if we are to carry out our current political system, we ought to be letting people discriminate as they wish as long as it is not a drain on public resources. White supremacist churches ought to be able to refuse membership to blacks and hispanics, and by the same token white supremacist doctors ought to be able to refuse treatment to anyone he deems not worthy of his medical help. Then, of course, the organization that employs the doctor has every right to refuse continued employment of the said doctor.The current laws in the US that force medical professionals to provide acute care to anyone, I think, is purely for political correctness. I could also say that by the same logic there would be nothing preventing unfit parents to keep popping out as many children as they want. There are parents out there who brainwash their children from birth to indoctrinate them with myths about Hank. There are also parents out there who raise their children to grow up being racists and biggots. There seems to be no law against any of these parents. It's their money and it's their "volunteers". Yes, I do have a problem with them discriminating against people. But I, as part of the public, only have a say if they use my tax dollars to discriminate. I can't tell them what to do with their own money anymore than I can't tell my neighbor John what to do with his money.

First of all, I point out that I agree completely with everything you said. The disagreement originated from the fact that regulation of nonpublic activities should or shouldn't be allowed in a democracy. Again, this is one of the reasons why I do not believe in democracy. Then it is anything but democratic, or at least the version that we ascribed ourselves to be. While it is true that the majority rule in this country, it is also true that ideally the minority should be protected against majority rule. While I believe racism, at least to some degree, is still majority in this country, the outspoken ones are a minority. Racist/bigotted doctors are an even smaller minority. Frankly, and this is just my humble opinion, if a bunch of racist doctors decided to get together and have a completely private hospital, they ought to be protected from the majority opinion and have the right to deny treatment of black people, that is if we are really in the kind of democracy we often described ourselves to be. Absolutely! I think such a scenario would be horrific. However, it is their money and it is their opinion that black people should be left to die. Perhaps in a true democracy the majority could post signs warning black people not to enter the city? Perhaps we could boycott such medical places? I must admit that I don't know enough about the politics behind the scene to make a call. What I do know is that the article I recently cited did quote some people stressing the public funding issue. Now, that's pretty scary. Perhaps one day we "as a society" would decide that middle ages forms of physical torture is and should be an acceptable method of interrogation?Again, that's not how democracy, or at least our form of democracy, is suppose to work. We have agreed that things like slavery and discriminatory segregation are wrong because they violate the rights of minorities. But if we go down this path, we also have to face the ugly side, which is that the rights of the racists must also be protected as long as they cannot publically and directly harm other people. As far as I know, I am not required to try to go out of my way to save someone in need of help. There is a law that requires me to at least make a phone call for help for the person. Why should racist doctors be stripped of this right? I never said it was a good idea. In fact, I think it is a damn bad idea. But remember that I am arguing from a standpoint of the democracy we are suppose to be, which is to protect the rights of minority groups, and sadly this protection should have been extended to racist doctors and bigotted priests. Then we are no better than the racists in the old days who decided that blacks should be forced to treat whites as their betters. You forgot to mention the part where he was working for a pharmacy that did not have a problem with prescription of morning after pill. Now, if he owned the place and decided not to carry morning after pills, then it's a different story. No, I'm discussing the right of a private institution such as a hospital to look after its well being and refuse to employ racist doctors who refuse to treat minorities. Let me ask you, say that microsoft decides to not hire Joe as a programmer because Joe happens to believe that microchip technology is work of the devil and would only use transistor or vacuum tube based computers. Oh, and Joe would only program in fortran 77 because all other languages are mud languages. Is not hiring people like Joe institutional exclusion or just for the sake of the company? It's only an opinion. I even said "I think" in there. So, no, I can't substantiate. I'll retract the statement if you really want me to. Just because it is a "public interest" doesn't mean it is right. Slavery was a public interest. Black people sitting in the back of the bus was a public interest.What I am saying is that we describe ourselves as a form of democracy that is based on majority rule with minority rights. But obviously, we as a society, seem to be made up of hypocrits. We claim to value minority rights and yet we think it is right to exclude personal rights of people like racist doctors and bigot priests. This is the same line of thinking bigots use to argue against gay rights. Perhaps I have not made myself clear.It is not just my tax dollars that determines my say in the matter I have been trying to stress the fact that people should have the right to do as they please as long as it does not harm other people or the public. Now, the degree of harm is up for debate, but something as obvious as robbery... you know better than to use it as an example. The quicke mart being robbed has everything to do with me because harm has been done to certain member(s) of the society I live in by a direct action of someone.This does not apply to racist doctors because it is their inaction that is in question, and we should not penalize people for not doing something. It can't be thievery unless there's a victim. And I can't remember if I have ever given the impression that the involvement of tax dollars is the only important thing, because I don't believe it is.Now, if the bigot priests, through their private fundings, decide to give orphans to cannibals or rapists, then yes I do agree that the public must step in to regulate the activity on that ground. Other than that, the bigot priests should be allowed to refuse anyone to adopt from their agencies as long as they don't use my tax dollars to run their bigotted operations. I don't like it, but it's their money and their volunteers. I really think this is a very dangerous way to approach public issues. Sure, we currently live in a society that isn't so bleedingly and obviously enforcing its will on the the minority groups. But let us not forget that society in general once upon a time decided that kidnapping people from another continent and enslaving them was right. If you are transported back in time to pre-civil war era, would you then argue that slavery was right because society in general had decided that it was right? Find someone else to argue this point with, because I am not disagreeing with you on this point.

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 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.