Pediatrician refuses to care for lesbians' baby

[Town Heretic]

Kind of like a guy on a date with a girl that agrees to sex at every point until she gets her clothes off and then says "no"?

More like a man who says, drive out of your way to come where I am and I will exchange X for value, an agreement in principle, that he then reneges on it once you arrive.

Should we scorn the girl on the date for saying "no" at the last minute?

Not really a parallel given the girl is set to lose something of value, not gain. Unless the girl is a waffling prostitute.

Is the girl in your hypothetical a waffling prostitute?

The timing is quite upsetting to the other party, but most of the people speaking against the doctor are upset that she said "no".

Maybe. I'm not. I just think it's a bit cowardly and potentially actionable.

When are these people complaining against the doctor's actions going to learn that "no means no"?

And yes, in formation of contract, means yes. Especially when the other party has done everything that can be done to signify acceptance of the offer you make to the general public and have particularly accepted by making the appointment.

 

[Lon]

Baking a cake isn't a need. This is a need. It doesn't require that I disobey God to treat the child. We had a lesbian couple in one of the church plants I was in. The pastor decided to allow them to attend, because they were hearing the gospel message and as importantly, their children. They eventually left because they wanted to teach their own kids, Sunday School. That wasn't going to happen.

Gays and their lisps, bother me and I'm uncomfortable around a valley-girl guy, because there is no gene for that.

I do not want to deny them basic rights/needs any more than I want to deny an adulterer basic rights/needs, or a drug-addict's basic rights/needs, or an atheist's basic right/needs. They have a need to hear the gospel, and the more exposed to it, the better. TOL makes a LOT of sense in this light and we can become even more effective at it by not hating them, but loving the gospel more around them. Jesus and the disciples had no problem calling sin, sin. Calling Simon Peter "Satan" was a harsh rebuke. If a lesbian tried to remove gospel verses from my wall, I'd rebuke them too, so that the rebuke fit the infraction. I 'think' sometimes (or more) on TOL, we go overboard.

Someone is likely going to rebuke me here, and I'll likely deserve it. I'm okay with that, if it is done for the right reasons.

I believe the story of the good Samaritan fits.

In Christ

-Lon

 

[Rusha]

Baking a cake isn't a need. This is a need. It doesn't require that I disobey God to treat the child. We had a lesbian couple in one of the church plants I was in. The pastor decided to allow them to attend, because they were hearing the gospel message and as importantly, their children. They eventually left because they wanted to teach their own kids, Sunday School. That wasn't going to happen.

Gays and their lisps, bother me and I'm uncomfortable around a valley-girl guy, because there is no gene for that. I do not want to deny them basic rights any more than I want to deny an adulterer basic rights, or a drug-addict basic rights, or an atheist basic rights (rights meaning needs). They have a need to hear the gospel, and the more exposed to it, the better. TOL makes a LOT of sense in this light and we can become even more effective at it by not hating them, but loving the gospel more around them. Jesus and the disciples had no problem calling sin, sin. Calling Simon Peter "Satan" was a harsh rebuke. If a lesbian tried to remove gospel verses from my wall, I'd rebuke them too, so that the rebuke fit the infraction. I 'think' sometimes (or more) on TOL, we go overboard.

Someone is likely going to rebuke me here, and I'll likely deserve it. I'm okay with that, if it is done for the right reasons.

In Christ

-Lon

:BRAVO:

 

[genuineoriginal]

More like a man who says, drive out of your way to come where I am and I will exchange X for value, an agreement in principle, that he then reneges on it once you arrive.

So you see this as being about a man trading a horse who decides to keep the horse instead of trading?

Maybe. I'm not. I just think it's a bit cowardly and potentially actionable.

Lawyers are trained to see everything as potentially actionable, no matter whether there is any harm done.

And yes, in formation of contract, means yes. Especially when the other party has done everything that can be done to signify acceptance of the offer you make to the general public and have particularly accepted by making the appointment.

At what time after acceptance of the doctor's service could the parents have changed their minds and gone to a different doctor without the doctor being able to sue them for breach of contract?

If the doctor had no ability to sue the parents for breach of contract for not using her services, then the parents have no legal standing to sue the doctor for not providing her services.

 

[Town Heretic]

So you see this as being about a man trading a horse who decides to keep the horse instead of trading?

I think it's about the beginning of a professional relationship and unprofessional conduct on the part of the physician. A bit more formal than two kids in the back seat of a Ford.

Lawyers are trained to see everything as potentially actionable, no matter whether there is any harm done.

No, we're trained to determine if a thing is actionable and the basis of the claim. Frivolous lawsuits are themselves subject to penalty after all.

At what time after acceptance of the doctor's service could the parents have changed their minds and gone to a different doctor without the doctor being able to sue them for breach of contract?

The other doctor doesn't factor. The claim of the physician depends on whether or not there's a stated policy regarding cancellations and that policy has been communicated to the patient. And it would likely need proof of actual damages.

If the doctor had no ability to sue the parents for breach of contract for not using her services,

The statute of frauds allow suit for an oral contract relating to a service that can be accomplished in under a year and/or for a thing or service the value of which is not greater than five hundred dollars. Again, if the doctor has a stated and communicated policy about cancellations and the penalty attached it's actionable and some routinely send a bill on the point. Beyond that the doctor has no injury.

then the parents have no legal standing to sue the doctor for not providing her services.

I wouldn't sue over breach. The stronger action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress, given the manner in which the refusal was communicated and the timing.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Pediatrician Refuses Care for Baby of Lesbians

So is this different than the whole "wedding" cake issue for same-sex couples? My take is that it is different - a pediatrician cares for a child who finds itself in the situation it's in through no choice of its own. This is about caring for the child, not the guardians of the child...

Same ole story (the LGBTQueer movement playing the victim and making people of faith look like hate mongering bigots) just different homosexuals involved.

Note that the baby was being taken in for it's first exam, so it's not like it was a life threatening emergency. Mommy and mommy could have found a pro sodomite doctor somewhere that could have done the exam on their little "trophy" AND also helped arrange a sex change operation if the child were to decide by the time she was five that she was really a little boy trapped in a little girl's body.

http://www.youngcons.com/ryland-the...ed-into-a-boy-isnt-transgender-shes-confused/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You don't care for Christ by doing what you think is right; you show your love for Christ by doing as He instructed by word and example. Resolving the conflict is done by aligning your own heart with His. So are you actually trying to tell us that if a lesbian, or a prostitute, took their child to Him to be healed He would have turned the child away?

Are we talking about the same Jesus that said:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) (So much for Jesus Christ being a limp wristed-turn the cheek pacifist like liberals make him out to be).

Being that Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God in the flesh abhorred homosexual behavior, He would have taken the child away from these two proud and unrepentant perverts and caste them into the sea with millstones around their necks.

 

[Morpheus]

Are we talking about the same Jesus that said:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) (So much for Jesus Christ being a limp wristed-turn the cheek pacifist like liberals make him out to be).

Being that Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God in the flesh abhorred homosexual behavior, He would have taken the child away from these two proud and unrepentant perverts and caste them into the sea with millstones around their necks.

So you actually believe that if lesbians, or a prostitute brought a child to Him for healing he would take the child and kill the parent? Or would he just refuse to heal the child? You really don't know Jesus at all. You suffer from the same blindness as the Pharisees. You waste your life focusing on the sins of everyone else, while remaining blind to your own. Pride sends the goats to Hell. Until you humble yourself you may learn about Christ, but without humility you will never know Him. Once you realize, I mean REALLY realize, that your sins are just as terrible as those of a murderer or child molester your perspective of others will change. They may owe a debt worthy of death, but so do you. Christ can forgive that debt, but He will only do it if you recognize that you owe it and ask Him to forgive it.

Luke 7:36-48
36 Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to [aa]dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 And there was a woman in the city who was a [ab]sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, 38 and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a [ac]sinner.”

Parable of Two Debtors
40 And Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he [ad]replied, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred [ae]denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” 44 Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 47 For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.”

So which person in this passage better resembles your attitudes?

[Edit]. I needed to add:

James 2:8-13
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the [j]law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole [k]law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the [l]law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy [m]triumphs over judgment.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Are we talking about the same Jesus that said:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) (So much for Jesus Christ being a limp wristed-turn the cheek pacifist like liberals make him out to be).

Being that Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God in the flesh abhorred homosexual behavior, He would have taken the child away from these two proud and unrepentant perverts and caste them into the sea with millstones around their necks.

So you actually believe that if lesbians, or a prostitute brought a child to Him for healing he would take the child and kill the parent? Or would he just refuse to heal the child? You really don't know Jesus at all.

I know that the Son of God/God in the flesh isn't the limp wristed-turn the other cheek pacifist you liberals want him to be.

Now to answer your question:

If two proud and unrepentant homosexuals brought their "child" (which according to my 9th grade biology class and the Book of Genesis is literally impossible) to Jesus Christ and told Him

that they were proud and unrepentant homosexuals and that if He didn't heal their child they'd not only sue Him in civil court but have Him jailed under Hate Crime legislation, without a doubt Jesus would do what He said He'd do in Matthew 18:6.

The innocent baby of course would be healed and given to a loving man and woman who would raise him or her in a God-fearing home.

 

[Morpheus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Are we talking about the same Jesus that said:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) (So much for Jesus Christ being a limp wristed-turn the cheek pacifist like liberals make him out to be).

Being that Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God in the flesh abhorred homosexual behavior, He would have taken the child away from these two proud and unrepentant perverts and caste them into the sea with millstones around their necks.




I know that the Son of God/God in the flesh isn't the limp wristed-turn the other cheek pacifist you liberals want him to be.

Now to answer your question:

If two proud and unrepentant homosexuals brought their "child" (which according to my 9th grade biology class and the Book of Genesis is literally impossible) to Jesus Christ and told Him

that they were proud and unrepentant homosexuals and that if He didn't heal their child they'd not only sue Him in civil court but have Him jailed under Hate Crime legislation, without a doubt Jesus would do what He said He'd do in Matthew 18:6.

The innocent baby of course would be healed and given to a loving man and woman who would raise him or her in a God-fearing home.

First, you probably missed the edit. Second, the couple did not go to the doctor with threats, so your premise is faulty. Third, biologically it is impossible for them to have their own bio-child, but one is the actual mother and the other is adoptive. If they love and care for that child then you actually believe Christ would take it away and kill them? You are as guilty of sin as they are. Or do you actually believe you are sinless, or that your sins are OK since they aren't really "that bad"?

I will repeat:

James 2:13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy [m]triumphs over judgment.

 

[Morpheus]

To add to the above post, you forgot that when Jesus cleaned house or scolded people it was always those who considered themselves religious. He never attacked outsiders or common people.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

First, you probably missed the edit.

I've dealt with your out of context-bastardize Holy Scripture to meet your own selfish agenda posts before. I wasn't impressed then nor am I now.

Second, the couple did not go to the doctor with threats, so your premise is faulty.

So they graciously said "We respect your right as a Christian to not examine this little "trophy" of ours because we proudly and unrepentantly do things that your Lord and Savior abhors, so we'll find a doctor who has no moral conscience whatsoever when it comes to dealing with moral degenerates like us"?

(The incident didn't make national news because they were gracious about the doctor's refusal to examine their "trophy").

Third, biologically it is impossible for them to have their own bio-child, but one is the actual mother and the other is adoptive. If they love and care for that child then you actually believe Christ would take it away and kill them?

I'd ask you to show me anywhere in Holy Scripture where Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh approves of proud and unrepentant sinful behavior...especially a behavior that He abhorred so much that He destroyed two cities because of it and told the Jews to give the ultimate penalty of death to those caught and convicted of such act.

But since you're known for bastardizing Holy Scripture, I'll take a pass.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

To add to the above post, you forgot that when Jesus cleaned house or scolded people it was always those who considered themselves religious. He never attacked outsiders or common people.

Ah yes, the "Jesus was an anarchist" ploy. So what you're saying is that Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh didn't care what "outsiders or common people" did (raped, murdered or robbed) as long as they didn't claim that they were "religious"?

 

[Morpheus]

I've dealt with your out of context-bastardize Holy Scripture to meet your own selfish agenda posts before. I wasn't impressed then nor am I now.



So they graciously said "We respect your right as a Christian to not examine this little "trophy" of ours because we proudly and unrepentantly do things that your Lord and Savior abhors, so we'll find a doctor who has no moral conscience whatsoever when it comes to dealing with moral degenerates like us"?

(The incident didn't make national news because they were gracious about the doctor's refusal to examine their "trophy").



I'd ask you to show me anywhere in Holy Scripture where Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh approves of proud and unrepentant sinful behavior...especially a behavior that He abhorred so much that He destroyed two cities because of it and told the Jews to give the ultimate penalty of death to those caught and convicted of such act.

But since you're known for bastardizing Holy Scripture, I'll take a pass.

I never said that He approved he behavior. Not once. That includes your "proud unrepentant behavior". Where He differentiated in His approach was that he dealt gently and wisely with unbelievers and the common believers who struggled with their sins; but He occasionally spoke or dealt sharply with those prideful "religious" churchy folks who presumed to lord it over others or profit off of His church. He travelled and hung out with prostitutes, tax-gathers and drunks. I'm sure that if you saw a homosexual beaten up on the roadside the best you would do is avoid him. More likely you would mock his misery. There's another relevant story here.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Second, the couple did not go to the doctor with threats, so your premise is faulty.

From the article:

For Jami and Krista Contreras, the medical policies are comforting, but they're not enough. It's time, they said, for the laws to change so that no LGBT person experiences what they did in the pediatrician's office.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...BlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

Yes, it's time that those God-fearing homophobic bigots that refuse to goosestep with the LGBTQueer agenda pay the price for not doing so!

Hate crime! Hate crime!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I never said that He approved he behavior. Not once. That includes your "proud unrepentant behavior". Where He differentiated in His approach was that he dealt gently and wisely with unbelievers and the common believers who struggled with their sins; but He occasionally spoke or dealt sharply with those prideful "religious" churchy folks who presumed to lord it over others or profit off of His church. He travelled and hung out with prostitutes, tax-gathers and drunks....

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233702&postcount=476

 

[Morpheus]

Ah yes, the "Jesus was an anarchist" ploy. So what you're saying is that Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh didn't care what "outsiders or common people" did (raped, murdered or robbed) as long as they didn't claim that they were "religious"?

No, I'm saying that He DID care. He cared about them. That's why he dealt gently with them. Attacks NEVER show love.

Those inside the church are supposed to know already. We will be judged just as harshly as we judge.

 

[Town Heretic]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233702&postcount=476

Is it that you don't really understand him or that you just don't have an answer for him, because that link was just an empty gust of wind the first time around.

That's not a call to anarchy unless you own a bad dictionary. Christ was hard on hypocrites, on people who knew better and misled. To a woman who could have been stoned to death he said what? Neither do I condemn/go and sin no more.

He didn't say, "Take her somewhere else, I can't deal with it."

And he could have hurled the first stone, by the way. In case you didn't notice that part.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No, I'm saying that He DID care. He cared about them. That's why he dealt gently with them. Attacks NEVER show love.

Those inside the church are supposed to know already. We will be judged just as harshly as we judge.

One more thing before I move on...

Is there anywhere in Holy Scripture showing that Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh went into criminal court and pleaded with the Magistrates/Judges to not punish those accused and convicted of crimes such as murder, rape, theft, or your beloved homosexuality?

Since you know the Bible inside and out, if it's there you'd obviously know about it.

 

[Morpheus]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233702&postcount=476

Is there supposed to be a point to this post? Your link doesn't show me making a claim that Christ approved of sinful behavior.