I expect to get slammed for this hypothetical question, but it's an honest quest

[Texacon]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218056736

  LuckyCharms
I expect to get slammed for this hypothetical question, but it's an honest question.

You're an ER physician at a hospital. You're the only doctor in the ER one particular evening, along with your support staff of nurses and other medical technologists.

As a physician, you have a certain set of creative, artistic and certainly...technical skills and knowledge. Also, you are Jewish.

A patient arrives in an ambulance who has been in a terrible car accident. He needs life saving care immediately. The patient is covered with many tattoos consisting of of swastikas and anti-Jewish sayings.

Based on the recent supreme court ruling, can you as a physician refuse to apply your creativity, artistry, knowledge and technical expertise in order to apply the measures that are necessary to save this patients life because his beliefs are offensive to your religion?

Here’s a better hypothetical for you;

You’re a doctor during a pandemic and a patient comes in with flu like symptoms. After questioning the patient you find out they didn’t get an experimental vaccine like the government told them to.

Do you still have to treat them?  Or even be nice to them?

Don’t lie DUmmies, I saw your hate and still see your hate for those who are unvaccinated.

KC

[RuralNc]

Hmm.. can a Muslim clerk decide to not sell Bacon or Booze?

Its all a mystery for the DUmp.. 

[DUmpDiver]

That's not an honest question. It's typical DUmmie BS.

[Muddling 2]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218056736


Here’s a better hypothetical for you;

You’re a doctor during a pandemic and a patient comes in with flu like symptoms. After questioning the patient you find out they didn’t get an experimental vaccine like the government told them to.

Do you still have to treat them?  Or even be nice to them?

Don’t lie DUmmies, I saw your hate and still see your hate for those who are unvaccinated.

KC

It's always amusing when the Left tries to make a point not covered in the ruling. 

The court didn't say it was okay to refuse service to homosexuals.  It did say that homosexuals couldn't compel speech or expression supporting homosexuality.  Had some homosexuals come in and wanted a website set up to support their business that would be one thing.  Asking the developer to create a website specifically for a homosexual wedding falls under compelled expression/speech.

The equivalent for 'LuckyCharms' would be if the tattooed patient was able to compel the medical personnel to say "Jewish people are evil".

[ADsOutburst]

I expect to get slammed for this hypothetical question...

This level of foresight is almost unknown at DU.

[DefiantSix]

This level of foresight is almost unknown at DU.

Almost makes you wonder if the MIRT folks need to be checking the DUm'Rat for evidence of ThoughtCrime, don't it...

[USA4ME]

How is "create a website for me that violates your religious convictions" even remotely close to "need(ing) life saving care immediately"?

Honestly, leftists have absolutely no sense of proportion or equality of situations.

.

[Delmar]

These primitives who are too stupid to be ditch diggers pondering what educated people like doctors would do and then reasoning it out by how TV sitcom doctors handled themselves.

[Old n Grumpy]

The whole point of this OP is that the recent misguided decisions of the supreme court has opened up a can of worms the size of Jupiter due to the unintended consequences of their decisions on the bench.

The only can of worms that is opened is in your head’s.you miserable little people waste your life trying to inject hatred into everything that you see and hear..you all are pathetic 

[SVPete]

Yaaaaawwwwwwwwwwn ... analogies must be analogous. ChuckyLarms' hypothetical is not. Here are several which are analogous to the case:

A vegan restaurant cannot refuse to serve an omnivore, but omnivores cannot force the vegan restaurant to serve meat or cheese or honey.

A Jewish kosher fish monger cannot refuse to sell to non-Jews, but non-Jews cannot force the fish monger to sell shrimp.

A Christian website designer cannot refuse to design a website for all gays, but gays cannot force the Christian to violate his/her religious beliefs

A Halal restaurant cannot refuse to serve non-Muslims, but non-Muslims cannot force the Halal restaurant to serve ham.

A black-owned dry cleaner cannot refuse to serve whites because they might be racists, but a KKK member cannot force the dry cleaner to clean Klan robes. H/T ACLJ

IRL, the website designer had done work for gay/lesbian business people, knowing they were gay/lesbian. The designer refused to do a website promoting a same-sex wedding in violation of his/her Christian beliefs.

[Old n Grumpy]

It’s all about power, gays know they are protected and will use lawfare to destroy people just to use that power and be vindictive

[Ralph Wiggum]

Yaaaaawwwwwwwwwwn ... analogies must be analogous. ChuckyLarms' hypothetical is not. Here are several which are analogous to the case:

A vegan restaurant cannot refuse to serve an omnivore, but omnivores cannot force the vegan restaurant to serve meat or cheese or honey.

A Jewish kosher fish monger cannot refuse to sell to non-Jews, but non-Jews cannot force the fish monger to sell shrimp.

A Christian website designer cannot refuse to design a website for all gays, but gays cannot force the Christian to violate his/her religious beliefs

A Halal restaurant cannot refuse to serve non-Muslims, but non-Muslims cannot force the Halal restaurant to serve ham.

A black-owned dry cleaner cannot refuse to serve whites because they might be racists, but a KKK member cannot force the dry cleaner to clean Klan robes. H/T ACLJ

IRL, the website designer had done work for gay/lesbian business people, knowing they were gay/lesbian. The designer refused to do a website promoting a same-sex wedding in violation of his/her Christian beliefs.

Didn't really give much of a worry about this case other than that hopefully the high court would reassert one of the basic 5 freedoms in the 1st Amendment.

I'll provide another analogy from my own sideline gig which would be very applicable to this decision: writing and performing trivia shows. If someone offered to hire me to write and perform an LGBT (blah blah blah) related show, I'd most likely do it.  However, if I were asked to write questions regarding the performance of gay sex I would be allowed to decline. As I should have that prerogative.

The least interesting thing about anyone is their personal sexual habits in the privacy of their own domicile. The lesbian and gay folks that I consider great friends are wonderful people on the content of their character, not who they might be diddling. 

[Old n Grumpy]

Here’s one for you suppose you went to a house of ill repute and all the women were busy but a tranny offered you some oral relief would you be homophonic if you refused?