Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
A patient isn't equipped to diagnose themselves.
Seriously bro? Damn, I didn't know that. Glad a smart Canadian told me.

Good thing I didn't mention diagnose. Once a doctor makes a diagnosis, he must perscribe a pharmeseutical drug. If he completely refuses drugs he would be guilty of malpractice when a patient doesn't follow the doctor's diet.

Obama tried to make it a law if a doctor needs help performing murder, I mean an abortion, sorry. Anyway, if a nurse or doctor refuses, they lose their ability to practice medicine.

Now that we both got the patronizing out of the way, can you kindly answer the question?

If a doctor is forced to prescribe certain medications with a known diagnosis, and/or forced to perform/assist in an abortion, if the doctor refuses because he feels the medical community is wrong, should there be manditory medical guidelines he must follow? Should his oath to do no harm be igored because other doctors think he's an idiot and/or he is violating their rights to "proper" medical treatment? Do you believe like Kp that if you don't like those rules you shouldn't become a doctor? Thank you for the kind response.
 

greentrip

New Member
If a doctor is forced to prescribe certain medications with a known diagnosis, and/or forced to perform/assist in an abortion, if the doctor refuses because he feels the medical community is wrong, should there be manditory medical guidelines he must follow? Should his oath to do no harm be igored because other doctors think he's an idiot and/or he is violating their rights to "proper" medical treatment? Do you believe like Kp that if you don't like those rules you shouldn't become a doctor? Thank you for the kind response.

Maybe if you live in China or Kenya any normal American would never agree with it.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Seriously bro? Damn, I didn't know that. Glad a smart Canadian told me.

Good thing I didn't mention diagnose. Once a doctor makes a diagnosis, he must perscribe a pharmeseutical drug. If he completely refuses drugs he would be guilty of malpractice when a patient doesn't follow the doctor's diet.

Obama tried to make it a law if a doctor needs help performing murder, I mean an abortion, sorry. Anyway, if a nurse or doctor refuses, they lose their ability to practice medicine.

Now that we both got the patronizing out of the way, can you kindly answer the question?

If a doctor is forced to prescribe certain medications with a known diagnosis, and/or forced to perform/assist in an abortion, if the doctor refuses because he feels the medical community is wrong, should there be manditory medical guidelines he must follow?
Tough question, but I'd say yes. As a medical professional, when peoples lives are at risk, you have an obligation to perform your duties regardless of if you 'want to' or not. Just like if a murderer came into a hospital badly injured, doctors still have to operate on them, and attempt to save their life.

Should his oath to do no harm be igored because other doctors think he's an idiot and/or he is violating their rights to "proper" medical treatment? Do you believe like Kp that if you don't like those rules you shouldn't become a doctor? Thank you for the kind response.
As a medical professional, you are also a scientist. Your trade was crafted using science, and you need to put your religion aside when practicing it. You are ignorantly only looking at the 'harm' that would be done to a fetus, and not the harm that the mother must endure.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
That 1st amendment just keeps getting in a poor liberals way.
If your religious belief causes neglect, you're still not allowed to practice it regardless of the 1st. Look at what happens to people who practice faith healing and people die, or people who practice ritualistic murder, or people who practice polygamy, etc., etc.,
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
That 1st amendment just keeps getting in a poor liberals way.
They just cant accept that first part... CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...

What people are advocating here is a law that says you have to set aside your religion to work in America... Now, that kinda sounds like a LAW to me... Which would put it in direct violation of...

This would of course apply to muslims too right??
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
They just cant accept that first part... CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...

What people are advocating here is a law that says you have to set aside your religion to work in America... Now, that kinda sounds like a LAW to me... Which would put it in direct violation of...

This would of course apply to muslims too right??
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Court read the Free Exercise Clause as protecting religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.

[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]
There can[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][/FONT]still be laws that forbid religious practices, but no one will show up at your house demanding you give up your religious beliefs.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Tough question, but I'd say yes. As a medical professional, when peoples lives are at risk, you have an obligation to perform your duties regardless of if you 'want to' or not. Just like if a murderer came into a hospital badly injured, doctors still have to operate on them, and attempt to save their life.



As a medical professional, you are also a scientist. Your trade was crafted using science, and you need to put your religion aside when practicing it. You are ignorantly only looking at the 'harm' that would be done to a fetus, and not the harm that the mother must endure.
Except science is no longer science. It's whomever has the most money who defines science from religion. Here's an example.

In 1981 Donald Rumsfeld was still CEO of Searle, who owned the patent for NutraSweet (aspartame). Rumsfeld was one of Reagan's advisors while still CEO of Searle, now Monsanto. He convinced Reagan to dismiss the current FDA Commissioner and instead appoint Hayes. Hayes then got a panel of 5 scientists all sympathetic to the cause Aspartame being safe. He was wrong and it was a 3-2 decision opposing Aspartame. So Hayes appointed another panel member, it was then tied, and the FDA commissioner has the authority to vote in cases of ties. After the FDA approved Aspartame as generally regarded to as safe, Hayes quit and became the senior medical advisor for Burson-Marsteller, the PR relations firm for both Monsanto and Searle. In 1985 when Monsanto bought out Searle, Rumsfeld got a $12 million bonus!

As for abortion, the original hippocratic oath states that abortion is harming the life growing inside the mother's body and a doctor has a duty not to kill his patient gestating in the womb.

Why does your religion trump what a private doctor does? I say you can compromise and if a doctor refuses, he is required to give contact the medical board and they assign you a doctor who will do such action which you refuse.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I guess every profession is a poor choice then as the government seems to be able to force people to do things against their religion (despite the first amendment) if they dare attempt to work for a living...

If you lay around and collect welfare you are not subject to these sanctions however... OBAMANATION!!!
so sorry, bigot.

a cake shop is not a church.

go be a racist bigot elsewhere, you must have no shame to still be posting here after all of the stupid things you have said.
 

Sand4x105

Well-Known Member
The real issue with this forcing a bible thumping nut to make my gay wedding cake...
Really... You want someone to bake you a cake that does not want to bake you a cake...
Seriously?
When you start the cake eat, and realize what they put into making you this beautiful cake...
Just remember...
You can't have your cake with lesbian two...
 

midgetaus

Member
I would like to know where in the religious text of the "christian bible" it says to discriminate against homosexual people due to their orientation.

I can understand if it states in the bible to do so... then it could be called "religious belief" however this is not the case....


I suppose love thy neighbor isnt supposed to be taken literally like most teaching in the bible when you stump a chrisitan
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Except science is no longer science. It's whomever has the most money who defines science from religion. Here's an example.

In 1981 Donald Rumsfeld was still CEO of Searle, who owned the patent for NutraSweet (aspartame). Rumsfeld was one of Reagan's advisors while still CEO of Searle, now Monsanto. He convinced Reagan to dismiss the current FDA Commissioner and instead appoint Hayes. Hayes then got a panel of 5 scientists all sympathetic to the cause Aspartame being safe. He was wrong and it was a 3-2 decision opposing Aspartame. So Hayes appointed another panel member, it was then tied, and the FDA commissioner has the authority to vote in cases of ties. After the FDA approved Aspartame as generally regarded to as safe, Hayes quit and became the senior medical advisor for Burson-Marsteller, the PR relations firm for both Monsanto and Searle. In 1985 when Monsanto bought out Searle, Rumsfeld got a $12 million bonus!

As for abortion, the original hippocratic oath states that abortion is harming the life growing inside the mother's body and a doctor has a duty not to kill his patient gestating in the womb.

Why does your religion trump what a private doctor does? I say you can compromise and if a doctor refuses, he is required to give contact the medical board and they assign you a doctor who will do such action which you refuse.
Since we don't pray to Apollo anymore, we can forget the original Hippocratic Oath.

The new one is as follows;

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Or the Osteopathic Oath is used;


I do hereby affirm my loyalty to the profession I am about to enter. I will be mindful always of my great responsibility to preserve the health and the life of my patients, to retain their confidence and respect both as a physician and a friend who will guard their secrets with scrupulous honor and fidelity, to perform faithfully my professional duties, to employ only those recognized methods of treatment consistent with good judgment and with my skill and ability, keeping in mind always nature's laws and the body's inherent capacity for recovery.
I will be ever vigilant in aiding in the general welfare of the community, sustaining its laws and institutions, not engaging in those practices which will in any way bring shame or discredit upon myself or my profession. I will give no drugs for deadly purposes to any person, though it be asked of me.
I will endeavor to work in accord with my colleagues in a spirit of progressive cooperation and never by word or by act cast imputations upon them or their rightful practices.
I will look with respect and esteem upon all those who have taught me my art. To my college I will be loyal and strive always for its best interests and for the interests of the students who will come after me. I will be ever alert to further the application of basic biologic truths to the healing arts and to develop the principles of osteopathy which were first enunciated


I don't have a religion. Religions require faith and dogma, I follow no such things. Posting a single example and attempting to discredit all of science based on that single example is a stupid route to take. "Science isn't science anymore"... lol You're a joke.

A woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases, to a point. Before the child can survive outside the woman, it's not a viable life.

It's hilarious that you care more about the baby that isn't even alive yet, than the mother who is a living, breathing, entity.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The real issue with this forcing a bible thumping nut to make my gay wedding cake...
Really... You want someone to bake you a cake that does not want to bake you a cake...
Seriously?
When you start the cake eat, and realize what they put into making you this beautiful cake...
Just remember...
You can't have your cake with lesbian two...
seriously, why would gays expect to have access to the same set of goods and services that the rest of us have access to?

talk about intolerant, whiny, entitled fuckers.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
I do have faith. No God exists,he and those who worship him can fuck off. The only thing that exists is your own energy which you can learn to cultivate which allows you to become in harmony with all living things, even the "unborn," who also have their own enegy.
 

greentrip

New Member
S
A woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases, to a point. Before the child can survive outside the woman, it's not a viable life.

It's hilarious that you care more about the baby that isn't even alive yet, than the mother who is a living, breathing, entity.
You do know that Obama as well as most liberals support partial birth abortions past the point a fetus can survive.
 

greentrip

New Member
The real issue with this forcing a bible thumping nut to make my gay wedding cake...
Really... You want someone to bake you a cake that does not want to bake you a cake...
Seriously?
When you start the cake eat, and realize what they put into making you this beautiful cake...
Just remember...
You can't have your cake with lesbian two...
Just curious do you consider the term bible thumping nut to describe a Christian any more derogatory than the term dick thumping nut to describe a homosexual?
 

midgetaus

Member
Just curious do you consider the term bible thumping nut to describe a Christian any more derogatory than the term dick thumping nut to describe a homosexual?


homosexuals are always out there discriminating against others for not being homosexual right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top