5 ms·

This is going to be a shitshow soon, so here's a terrible comment to kick things off: Will surgeons soon be able to refuse to operate on patients because they'

This is going to be a shitshow soon, so here's a terrible comment to kick things off: Will surgeons soon be able to refuse to operate on patients because they're gay? After all, it's a service in an open market. edit: it has been legal and common practice for doctors to refuse service to gay and trans people for at least two years. see thread below

dijit 8y ago
This seems like an odd statement because the bakers refused service only because the content of what they were creating was not in line with whatever morals they had. It would be _more_ like a doctor not performing a transgender operation.
- scottmf 8y ago
  They had not even discussed the content of the cake when they were refused service.
compiler-guy 8y ago
Without making a statement either way in regards to the ruling, one of the most critical issues in this case is whether or not writing a message on the cake is expressive. Which is to say, that freedom of speech (or to not make speech) is at the center of this case. There is quite a bit of debate on whether or not decorating the cake is expressive conduct. I can't see any way in which a surgeon operating on a patient is expressive, and therefore freedom of speech wouldn't come into it. Which means--even if the baker had won on expressive grounds (he didn't)--that the surgeon would still have no grounds for refusing the operate.
nitrix 8y ago
Except the surgeon has no reason to care about the sexual orientation of their patient. In the baker's defense, the couple's sexuality influences the end result of the cake that will then be put on display. Baking, in that regard, is an art form and it'd be silly to force the man to work on a piece of art that he cannot pour all of his soul into. Be it for lack of experience or religious conviction, forcing people is disgusting. On the premise that it affects the decisions necessary for him to complete his work, I think it's reasonable for him to decide whether or not he wants to work on it. I see nothing discriminatory here.
zrail 8y ago
This happens today with trans people and it's a travesty.
- h0rse 8y ago
  I don't believe you.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - zrail 8y ago
    Please see the sibling comment for recent news stories and a Snopes link.
  - scottmf 8y ago
    Of course you don’t. Why even make such a comment without at least googling it for 30 seconds? Since this whole thread has been flagged anyway I’m gonna go ahead and say I assume from your lazy display of ignorance that you throw the phrases “virtue signaling” and “snowflakes” around a lot.
- exabrial 8y ago
  I think it would be wise for doctors to do this. Does your family physician administrate chemotherapy drugs? No, he refers you to a specialist. It would be wise for any doctor to do the same when he's unfamiliar with the patients uniqueness.
  - kevinh 8y ago
    And when it's ER staff that provide negligent care? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter
  - zrail 8y ago
    In patients presenting with problems related to their reproductive organs I tend to agree. That's not actually what's happening, though.
Matticus_Rex 8y ago
Do you want or trust a surgeon who hates you to operate on you?
- sgift 8y ago
  Yes. That's part of what makes that surgeon a professional - that they ignore their bias and do their job. If they cannot provide that standard of conduct they are unfit to be a surgeon.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    What's better, a world where we have X surgeons who will do a good job for everyone, or a world where we have those X surgeons plus Y surgeons who refuse to operate on certain people, but do a good job for everyone else? It's not a choice between case 2 and a magical fairy tale case where we get X+Y surgeons who will do a good job for everyone.
    - evanlivingston 8y ago
      separate but equal.
- geofft 8y ago
  Compared to not being treated at all? I might very well be willing to take my chances. Also, the market's capacity to support surgeons is limited; not everyone who wants to can be a surgeon. And you get better at what you do with experience/practice and with employment in a place where you learn from other qualified folks. Laws that make life hard for surgeons who hate some of their patients have the effect of opening up positions for potential surgeons who wouldn't hate some of their patients. There is a question of just how fair this is to the surgeon / whether it violates some fundamental rights (which is what SCOTUS was addressing here), but there is absolutely a benefit to society in legislating hateful surgeons out of their jobs.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
kevinh 8y ago
An HHS change added this year allows aims to do just that: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hhs-allow-doctors-to-refuse-lgbtq/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hhs-allow-doctors-to-refus...
nateless 8y ago
Well, some bars can kick off Trump supporters. It's a free market. Don't like the service - go elsewhere.
- cdelsolar 8y ago
  well, luckily, a Trump supporter is not a protected class
koolba 8y ago
> Will surgeons soon be able to refuse to operate on patients because they're gay? After all, it's a service in an open market. No my interpretation of this doesn't allow that, nor should it. What it would allow is for a tattoo artist to refuse to ink a gay (or straight, or really anything else) message on someone's arm. Maybe if it's an elective surgery that could be considered to be purely artistic (rhinoplasty?) then the surgeon could refuse but that'd be fairly narrow.
snorlaxle 8y ago
Maybe if it's a sex reassignment surgery? The baker just refused to bake a wedding cake specifically.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dijit 8y ago

This seems like an odd statement because the bakers refused service only because the content of what they were creating was not in line with whatever morals they had. It would be _more_ like a doctor not performing a transgender operation.

scottmf 8y ago
They had not even discussed the content of the cake when they were refused service.

compiler-guy 8y ago

Without making a statement either way in regards to the ruling, one of the most critical issues in this case is whether or not writing a message on the cake is expressive. Which is to say, that freedom of speech (or to not make speech) is at the center of this case. There is quite a bit of debate on whether or not decorating the cake is expressive conduct. I can't see any way in which a surgeon operating on a patient is expressive, and therefore freedom of speech wouldn't come into it. Which means--even if the baker had won on expressive grounds (he didn't)--that the surgeon would still have no grounds for refusing the operate.

nitrix 8y ago

Except the surgeon has no reason to care about the sexual orientation of their patient. In the baker's defense, the couple's sexuality influences the end result of the cake that will then be put on display. Baking, in that regard, is an art form and it'd be silly to force the man to work on a piece of art that he cannot pour all of his soul into. Be it for lack of experience or religious conviction, forcing people is disgusting. On the premise that it affects the decisions necessary for him to complete his work, I think it's reasonable for him to decide whether or not he wants to work on it. I see nothing discriminatory here.

zrail 8y ago

This happens today with trans people and it's a travesty.

h0rse 8y ago
I don't believe you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- zrail 8y ago
  Please see the sibling comment for recent news stories and a Snopes link.
- scottmf 8y ago
  Of course you don’t. Why even make such a comment without at least googling it for 30 seconds? Since this whole thread has been flagged anyway I’m gonna go ahead and say I assume from your lazy display of ignorance that you throw the phrases “virtue signaling” and “snowflakes” around a lot.
exabrial 8y ago
I think it would be wise for doctors to do this. Does your family physician administrate chemotherapy drugs? No, he refers you to a specialist. It would be wise for any doctor to do the same when he's unfamiliar with the patients uniqueness.
- kevinh 8y ago
  And when it's ER staff that provide negligent care? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter
- zrail 8y ago
  In patients presenting with problems related to their reproductive organs I tend to agree. That's not actually what's happening, though.

Matticus_Rex 8y ago

Do you want or trust a surgeon who hates you to operate on you?

sgift 8y ago
Yes. That's part of what makes that surgeon a professional - that they ignore their bias and do their job. If they cannot provide that standard of conduct they are unfit to be a surgeon.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  What's better, a world where we have X surgeons who will do a good job for everyone, or a world where we have those X surgeons plus Y surgeons who refuse to operate on certain people, but do a good job for everyone else? It's not a choice between case 2 and a magical fairy tale case where we get X+Y surgeons who will do a good job for everyone.
  - evanlivingston 8y ago
    separate but equal.
geofft 8y ago
Compared to not being treated at all? I might very well be willing to take my chances. Also, the market's capacity to support surgeons is limited; not everyone who wants to can be a surgeon. And you get better at what you do with experience/practice and with employment in a place where you learn from other qualified folks. Laws that make life hard for surgeons who hate some of their patients have the effect of opening up positions for potential surgeons who wouldn't hate some of their patients. There is a question of just how fair this is to the surgeon / whether it violates some fundamental rights (which is what SCOTUS was addressing here), but there is absolutely a benefit to society in legislating hateful surgeons out of their jobs.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago

kevinh 8y ago

An HHS change added this year allows aims to do just that: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hhs-allow-doctors-to-refuse-lgbtq/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hhs-allow-doctors-to-refus...

nateless 8y ago

Well, some bars can kick off Trump supporters. It's a free market. Don't like the service - go elsewhere.

cdelsolar 8y ago
well, luckily, a Trump supporter is not a protected class

koolba 8y ago

> Will surgeons soon be able to refuse to operate on patients because they're gay? After all, it's a service in an open market. No my interpretation of this doesn't allow that, nor should it. What it would allow is for a tattoo artist to refuse to ink a gay (or straight, or really anything else) message on someone's arm. Maybe if it's an elective surgery that could be considered to be purely artistic (rhinoplasty?) then the surgeon could refuse but that'd be fairly narrow.

snorlaxle 8y ago

Maybe if it's a sex reassignment surgery? The baker just refused to bake a wedding cake specifically.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]