Michigan doctor refuses to treat same-sex couple’s baby

[MachZer0]

Ascribing actions and thoughts to others without any supporting evidence in an attempt to castigate those with whom you disagree. Though it is very meta.

I linked to the "thoughts and actions" of the two lesbians earlier. Sorry if you missed that and it led you to an incorrect conclusion

 

[Belk]

I linked to the "thoughts and actions" of the two lesbians earlier. Sorry if you missed that and it led you to an incorrect conclusion

Oh no, I saw the mental gymnastics you went through. It was quite entertaining. Keep up the good work.

 

[Cute Tink]

I linked to the "thoughts and actions" of the two lesbians earlier. Sorry if you missed that and it led you to an incorrect conclusion

You linked to the statement that said they want to end discrimination, then you added to their statement, seemingly to make them fit this narrative you have been running with through this topic.

 

[Cute Tink]

Mach, I'm curious as to your reaction to this guy, as per our previous discussion.

 

[MachZer0]

You linked to the statement that said they want to end discrimination, then you added to their statement, seemingly to make them fit this narrative you have been running with through this topic.

No, I linked to them calling for laws to prevent people like the good doctor from being able to turn down clients based on their religious beliefs. Subsequently, you noted that the outcome of said laws would be to PUNISH the violators. Thus it is clear that the lesbians desire to inflict harm on people like the good doctor

 

[MachZer0]

Mach, I'm curious as to your reaction to this guy, as per our previous discussion.

He sounds like a loon, no better than the two lesbians

 

[Cute Tink]

No, I linked to them calling for laws to prevent people like the good doctor from being able to turn down clients based on their religious beliefs.

And why did they state they wanted this law? Did they say they wanted to punish or harm anyone?

Subsequently, you noted that the outcome of said laws would be to PUNISH the violators. Thus it is clear that the lesbians desire to inflict harm on people like the good doctor

You are ascribing motivations to two women that I don't know because of my statement rather than their own words? Yes, I totally believe they are motivated by my statement rather than having desires of their own, as they stated in words you quoted.

 

[Cute Tink]

He sounds like a loon, no better than the two lesbians

No better, but what about worse?

Petitioning to make mass murder legal because of who people are is simply "no better" than wanting to end discrimination.

 

[MachZer0]

And why did they state they wanted this law? Did they say they wanted to punish or harm anyone?



You are ascribing motivations to two women that I don't know because of my statement rather than their own words? Yes, I totally believe they are motivated by my statement rather than having desires of their own, as they stated in words you quoted.

When they call for a law that carries punishment for violators, then they themselves are calling for the punishment. Simple concept

 

[MachZer0]

No better, but what about worse?

Petitioning to make mass murder legal because of who people are is simply "no better" than wanting to end discrimination.

The motivations are the same, bigotry. The difference is that the lawyers proposal stands no chance of becoming law, and I'm sure he knows that. The lesbians on the other hand do stand a chance and is therefore more dangerous.

 

[Cute Tink]

When they call for a law that carries punishment for violators, then they themselves are calling for the punishment. Simple concept

You are still ascribing motivations that aren't supported by anything. Simple concept. You said they "want" to punish/harm people, yet you cannot provide a source that says so.

The motivations are the same, bigotry.

The results are vastly different. I still find it interesting that he is merely "no better", but wanting to end discrimination deserves page after page of "bigot".

The difference is that the lawyers proposal stands no chance of becoming law, and I'm sure he knows that. The lesbians on the other hand do stand a chance and is therefore more dangerous.

I agree his law stands no chance in the US.

The chances of getting laws ending discrimination are by no means certain at this point in time in the US. Some states are succeeding in reversing these laws, so let's not pretend.

 

[MachZer0]

You are still ascribing motivations that aren't supported by anything. Simple concept. You said they "want" to punish/harm people, yet you cannot provide a source that says so.

That's more than obvious

The results are vastly different. I still find it interesting that he is merely "no better", but wanting to end discrimination deserves page after page of "bigot".



I agree his law stands no chance in the US.

The chances of getting laws ending discrimination are by no means certain at this point in time in the US. Some states are succeeding in reversing these laws, so let's not pretend.

And that's why the proposal by the bigoted lesbians is far more dangerous

 

[Cute Tink]

That's more than obvious

For the last time, you are ascribing motivations without any actual support.

And that's why the proposal by the bigoted lesbians is far more dangerous

Even though the chance of any law, especially since they aren't even proposing one at this point, depend on the state they are in when calling for it. So no, this is by no means "more dangerous" at all.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

She made a stand for her religious beliefs and she's behaved maturely during the ordeal, unlike the two lesbians

No she didn't. She just merely said she prayed and came to the conclusion that she couldn't cultivate the relationship she would need to be this baby's doctor.

How is that a "religious stand"?

Ah, I wasn't aware of the good doctor's gender -- only the one who turned away the child.

Well, now you're just confusing Mach, because to him, the good doctor is the one who referred the baby to another doctor in the practice.

I do note, with amusement, your use of language as well "the one who turned away the child". That's as good as "the good doctor".

 

[MachZer0]

For the last time, you are ascribing motivations without any actual support.



Even though the chance of any law, especially since they aren't even proposing one at this point, depend on the state they are in when calling for it. So no, this is by no means "more dangerous" at all.

They noted their motivations and I linked it

 

[Cute Tink]

They noted their motivations and I linked it

Their motivations were not noted as "wanting to punish or cause harm" as you have repeatedly stated.

Since your posts lack any admissions to the above, I'm done attempting to discuss this with you.

 

[MachZer0]

Their motivations were not noted as "wanting to punish or cause harm" as you have repeatedly stated.

Since your posts lack any admissions to the above, I'm done attempting to discuss this with you.

Sorry but if your method of preventing behavior you ( you being in the general sense of usage of course) don't like is to pass laws that punish that behavior, then you by default want to punish and inflict harm on people who exhibit that behavior

 

[TLK Valentine]

No she didn't. She just merely said she prayed and came to the conclusion that she couldn't cultivate the relationship she would need to be this baby's doctor.

How is that a "religious stand"?

I suppose it depends on whether the prayer yielded any results.

Well, now you're just confusing Mach, because to him, the good doctor is the one who referred the baby to another doctor in the practice.

I'm aware of his beliefs on the matter; I won't take responsibility for confusing him.

I do note, with amusement, your use of language as well "the one who turned away the child". That's as good as "the good doctor".

Look again: "I wasn't aware of the good doctor's gender -- only (the gender of) the one who turned away the child."

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Sorry but if your method of preventing behavior you ( you being in the general sense of usage of course) don't like is to pass laws that punish that behavior, then you by default want to punish and inflict harm on people who exhibit that behavior

My irony meter just totally exploded into a million tiny shards.

Look again: "I wasn't aware of the good doctor's gender -- only (the gender of) the one who turned away the child."

Except the child was not turned away. That was my point. He is using incendiary language and so are you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except the child was not turned away. That was my point. He is using incendiary language and so are you.

The doctor turned away the child. The clinic did not.