namelesstavern.net

durrrrrrrrrrrrr

Gypsiyee wrote:People are paid for a service. They absolutely *should* be fired if they REFUSE to provide that service

Girls pursue the OB/GYN route because it's generally the highest paying position for females in medicine. These people work their asses off thru eight years or more of school to have the job they have, and you think you deserve the right to criticize them? How ridiculous. You know a vast majority of hospitals are funded and created by religious people, right? For healing? Sacred Heart, the biggest hospital here in Eugene, was founded by a group of catholic nuns. I'd really like to see you argue to their board about this. It would be very lol

Seperation of church and state is not relevant to church and business. That's just your take on it. Do you walk into the Christian bookstore and get pissed because they're not selling the necronomicon? Do you go to a restaurant and get pissed because they don't offer your favorite seafood alfredo? Service is selective. Don't cry about it because it's not exactly the way you think it should be (which leads back to the whole selfishness issue)

Like others and myself said before, if you don't like what a particular doctor offers, go see another one.

A hospital's like any other business. They should reserve the right to serve who they want, when they want. Not what you want, when you want.

Thanks for that quote out of context of the rest of my post, but it was a blanket statement for people who refuse to do a job. If an employee refuses to do their job, they should be fired. That doesn't say force them to do anything, that says if they refuse and aren't doing their job, they should be fired. Life is about choices - you can choose to do whatever you want at your job or your practice, but you should not be protected from repercussions.

Comparing a religious bookstore to a public hospital is ludicrous. Service is selective, yes, in private organizations. I don't go to a mexican restaurant and expect seafood alfredo. I don't go to a dentist and expect a pap. I DO go to a pasta restaurant expecting pasta. I DO go to an OBGYN expecting means of obtaining birth control. Do you not see the correlation here at all? You're comparing two totally different things, they're not even in the same group.

Who said anything about separation of church and state? I said separation of business and personal. You're missing the point entirely in your crusade to rage against anyone who disagrees with you - these people DO have the right to serve who they want and when they want, the point is that within a business, if the owner or supervisor of said business wants to fire them for refusing to perform their tasks, they should not be protected just because they have a personal excuse not to perform. This is not about what a BUSINESS does, but what an INDIVIDUAL does WITHIN THAT BUSINESS. Also, I never criticized ANYONE in the position. I never said OBGYNs are lazy SOBs, I said (again, I feel like a broken record here) people shouldn't be protected for refusing to do a job. This isn't protecting them from the consumer, it's protecting them from their employer.

now for the third time, how do you feel about Kevorkian? Should he have stayed out of jail? I think so, but not based on morals - based on consent of his patients to end their pain. The people who felt he deserved to be imprisoned are going to be the same people who think the other side of the fence should be protected. For the thousandth time for your selective eyes that only focuses on pieces of a post, it is hypocritical. If one rule applies to one, it should apply to all. You cannot do that with a law like this, because then people will have excuses not to do everything and nothing will get done. Apply the rule to all moral principles, or apply the rule to none - it's a snowball effect that's only going to worsen over time, and for now all you're seeing is the narrow scope of what this proposal represents.

PS- All my OBGYNs in my life have been male. I'm not sure why sex is relevant here at all.

Gypsiyee wrote:Thanks for that quote out of context of the rest of my post, but it was a blanket statement for people who refuse to do a job. If an employee refuses to do their job, they should be fired. That doesn't say force them to do anything, that says if they refuse and aren't doing their job, they should be fired. Life is about choices - you can choose to do whatever you want at your job or your practice, but you should not be protected from repercussions.

Comparing a religious bookstore to a public hospital is ludicrous. Service is selective, yes, in private organizations. I don't go to a mexican restaurant and expect seafood alfredo. I don't go to a dentist and expect a pap. I DO go to a pasta restaurant expecting pasta. I DO go to an OBGYN expecting means of obtaining birth control. Do you not see the correlation here at all? You're comparing two totally different things, they're not even in the same group.

Who said anything about separation of church and state? I said separation of business and personal. You're missing the point entirely in your crusade to rage against anyone who disagrees with you - these people DO have the right to serve who they want and when they want, the point is that within a business, if the owner or supervisor of said business wants to fire them for refusing to perform their tasks, they should not be protected just because they have a personal excuse not to perform. This is not about what a BUSINESS does, but what an INDIVIDUAL does WITHIN THAT BUSINESS. Also, I never criticized ANYONE in the position. I never said OBGYNs are lazy SOBs, I said (again, I feel like a broken record here) people shouldn't be protected for refusing to do a job. This isn't protecting them from the consumer, it's protecting them from their employer.

now for the third time, how do you feel about Kevorkian? Should he have stayed out of jail? I think so, but not based on morals - based on consent of his patients to end their pain. The people who felt he deserved to be imprisoned are going to be the same people who think the other side of the fence should be protected. For the thousandth time for your selective eyes that only focuses on pieces of a post, it is hypocritical. If one rule applies to one, it should apply to all. You cannot do that with a law like this, because then people will have excuses not to do everything and nothing will get done. Apply the rule to all moral principles, or apply the rule to none - it's a snowball effect that's only going to worsen over time, and for now all you're seeing is the narrow scope of what this proposal represents.

PS- All my OBGYNs in my life have been male. I'm not sure why sex is relevant here at all.

Wow. Just wow. I'm only gonna dispute one of your ridiculous points because it's so stupid. I'm comparing a private business refusing service to another private business refusing service. Unless you're a fucking idiot, I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY the same thing. They are not completely different things at all, because the underlying principle is 100% the same. OB/GYNs are not in practice to give idiots like you birth control. You should not "expect" them to help you. That's one aspect of a larger field. Go to Planned Parenthood or something if you want to get the pill. Hospitals aren't there to assist every fucked up girl that wants to go out and have rampant sex or get rid of their unborn fetus. As Maeya said earlier, the only place that something like this would raise a problem is like a town in the boonies that has only one doctor. If a place won't do abortions or etc., they'll almost always refer you to someone that will.

I'm gonna digress from the rest of your arbitrary accusations and sassy retorts and get to the point:

keep imagining a day and age that private businesses can't do whatever they want within the boundaries of the law (Kevorkian wasn't). If that ever happens, come back and tell me about how you got an abortion from a catholic hospital and I'll give you a pat on the back. Until then, private business makes its own rules and decides what it wants to do. Now, considering almost every hospital on the planet is a private business funded by private parties, I'll let you think about what I just said. Because obviously you have no. fucking. clue.

I've been around medicine and hospitals since approximately I could walk and talk and everything you're saying is just screaming "E-nerd has to win the argument!!!!!!" to me. Pointless. zzzzzzzz

christ, Drem, you are one of the most impossible people to speak with that I've ever met. You come in the thread acting like an emo condescending snot, then accuse someone else of insults when they retort in the same manner you did.

for the 15th time, it's not about the business, its about the individual and what the business deems appropriate within its practice as far as employee performance. I'm not sure what about that you don't understand. It's anyone's right to do whatever they want within their business, it's also an employees right to refuse to do something - no one is forcing their hand in anything as it stands now, they're well within their rights to refuse but that does NOT mean they should have some shield exempting them from supervisory discipline for not doing their job. my stance is not "every healthcare employee opposed to bc should be fired" - my stance is "if they don't agree, fine, but it should be the choice of the employer how a refusal to perform is dealt with, not the governments to protect them." I never mentioned shit about abortion and am pro-life except in the case of extreme circumstances, so I'm not quite sure where you're pulling that from either.

when you're done with your emo tirade and want to talk like an adult instead of some kid pouting in the corner, then I'll give any of your words merit. until then, you can go ahead and continue to act like a petulant child sticking your tongue out, flinging insults and insinuating someone else's stupidity as a means of getting your point across. perhaps you could take a lesson from maeya and martrae and learn to argue your point without being a little shithead about it.

Gypsiyee wrote:christ, Drem, you are one of the most impossible people to speak with that I've ever met.

You come in the thread acting like an emo condescending snot, then accuse someone else of insults when they retort in the same manner you did.

for the 15th time, it's not about the business, its about the individual and what the business deems appropriate within its practice as far as employee performance. I'm not sure what about that you don't understand. It's anyone's right to do whatever they want within their business, it's also an employees right to refuse to do something - no one is forcing their hand in anything as it stands now, they're well within their rights to refuse but that does NOT mean they should have some shield exempting them from supervisory discipline for not doing their job. my stance is not "every healthcare employee opposed to bc should be fired" - my stance is "if they don't agree, fine, but it should be the choice of the employer how a refusal to perform is dealt with, not the governments to protect them." I never mentioned shit about abortion and am pro-life except in the case of extreme circumstances, so I'm not quite sure where you're pulling that from either.

when you're done with your emo tirade and want to talk like an adult instead of some kid pouting in the corner, then I'll give any of your words merit. until then, you can go ahead and continue to act like a petulant child sticking your tongue out, flinging insults and insinuating someone else's stupidity as a means of getting your point across. perhaps you could take a lesson from maeya and martrae and learn to argue your point without being a little shithead about it.

Ok so I said I was done but this time, I can't walk away from accusations like that.

So: Fuck you. I came into this thread extremely composed and rational. I didn't use any "insult" til after you'd called me on being on some sort of ridiculous "crusade" and after many of your cunty "oh for cripes sake" type of shit that you say and when you started arguing semantics. Now you're wondering why I'm talking about abortion. Like the fucking article wasn't 100% about it. Are you really this stubborn? You are not in the right here. I was reasonable and nice until the last post I made. If you can't handle someone calling you "selfish" then that sounds like a personal problem (and also makes me think I'm right jeje). All of your points in this thread are off-base. Like for one, why are you talking about getting protection from being fired? Why are you bringing up Kevorkian? Because morals are involved? I thought we were talking about business. Yunno, WHAT THE ARTICLE WAS ABOUT. Kevorkian went outside the boundaries of the law. Abortion is not outside those same boundaries. They're not even relevant to eachother yet you keep bringing up this point. The article said the administration would just cut funding to groups that don't support abortion or birth control. That shouldn't be a big deal at all considering federal funding for hospitals is extremely small compared to the amount of private funds.

If you can't handle someone calling you out after you say something ridiculous, then you feel the need to poke and prod them til they take it to another level and then claim it's all their fault and they need to stop sticking their tongue out like a baby (wtf?) you really need to check your communication skills. In real life I would honestly probably backhand or slap you for saying what you just did to me. But in real life you'd probably never be this stupid. At least I'd hope no one could be.

I mean honestly what do you expect me to do? Agree with such un-informed opinions? I already tried being nice for two posts but you kept being a jerk until I started swearing, too, and then you just forgot the whole argument in general and turned it into a personal attack. What an unbelievably American way to handle a situation.

Lol even I stayed out of this one...

Drem wrote:So by your logic, and it is very discriminative

You can't really argue against it... it's extremely selfish, imo, to think these people should be fired because their profession now has to deal with things that are morally disturbing to them that aren't to you.

your first post in this thread, immediately on the offensive. I had said nothing to you. my response had nothing personal toward you in it, just me reiterating what I had said in the first place.

durrrrrrrrrrrrr

These people work their asses off thru eight years or more of school to have the job they have, and you think you deserve the right to criticize them? How ridiculous. You know a vast majority of hospitals are funded and created by religious people, right? For healing? Sacred Heart, the biggest hospital here in Eugene, was founded by a group of catholic nuns. I'd really like to see you argue to their board about this. It would be very lol

your second post. not only do you call me stupid here, you're attacking me by calling me critical when I criticized no one, and hinted how hilarious it would be if I was to express my viewpoint elsewhere because my opinion is so stupid. there's strike 2. again in my response, I said nothing to you about your personal being.

your third post:

Unless you're a fucking idiot, I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY the same thing. They are not completely different things at all, because the underlying principle is 100% the same. OB/GYNs are not in practice to give idiots like you birth control. You should not "expect" them to help you. That's one aspect of a larger field. Go to Planned Parenthood or something if you want to get the pill. Hospitals aren't there to assist every fucked up girl that wants to go out and have rampant sex or get rid of their unborn fetus.

you call me a idiot twice, strike 3. then and only then do I respond that you're acting like a child. your response? to say fuck you and would hit me if you saw me irl - again, you call me stupid, and my opinions uninformed. well that's effective. and you question MY communication skills? I guess I missed the part where your opinions became more qualified since they are, you know, opinions - and being that this is a thread about OBGYN's and only one of us has a vagina...

there is no right or wrong in the matter of opinions, and perhaps one day when you grow up you'll realize that. i don't agree with yours, but I understand that it's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. you completely missed my entire point throughout the thread, and that's fine too, but to call me stupid 3 times and tell me that you would hit me.. well, that just put you in the 'this guy's a joke' category.

I thought we were talking about business. Yunno, WHAT THE ARTICLE WAS ABOUT.

and since your intellect is so far superior to mine, drem, I'm actually quite surprised that you didnt seem to understand the article? perhaps I could wipe the drool off of my retarded chin long enough to tell you - the article was about a proposition for businesses to have to submit in writing that they will not reprimand actions (or lack thereof) in the workplace based on moral beliefs regarding this topic or they'll get their federal funding cut. so essentially, a federally funded hospital goes broke if they don't agree to cater to people of a certain belief - this includes free clinics for less fortunate families, you see. the proposition takes away some rights of the business in that aspect, not just the consumer, and the rights lean more toward people who agree with the person who made this proposal. it's 'agree that pro-life anti-contraceptive people are protected from you vile creatures who provide this service or lose your funding!' fearmongering. it wasn't about privatized practice, it was a threat of cutting federal funding.. the thread went on a tangent elsewhere that had nothing to do with the very basis of the article, as you might be aware happens often on the internet.

but I'm sure you knew that, what with your superior intelligence and opinions.

This thread needs a "you need to seek psychiatric help" to become message board gold.