Do you vote for a president with Jewish values or money?

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:20 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I once got very nervous when the doctor assigned to knock me out was named Mohammad. It turned out fine and I am obviously still here but I knew that he knew that I am Jewish and hoped that he could put that aside. I have been in online discussions with people in the LGBT community who said that even if they were not outright turned down, they would rather know that the person was bigoted against them than to just trust that the person would render the same care. They all said that if the person said, "I can't turn you down but I just want you to know, my religion opposes your marriage," they would find someone else.

Would the Jew hating top specialist really care how my child does under his care or would he tell me that there is nothing that he can do because really, he does not want to treat my child? Can I force him to care and provide the same level of care that he provides to his fellow religionists?

Are you concerned about protecting your right not to be discriminated against or your right to discriminate against others?

Do you want to live in a society where you can be turned down for a job because you have a Jewish-sounding name?

southernbubby

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:27 pm

marina wrote:

Yes, the threat of a malpractice/discrimination lawsuit would likely keep the physician in line. Not possible if the law allows that kind of discrimination.

Here is the case:https://thinkprogress.org/it-was-perfectly-legal-for-this-doctor-to-refuse-to-treat-a-same-relations-couples-newborn-f89411561d1f/

And after reading it, do you think that the parents were better off with a doctor who didn't think much of them, or should the doctor have been forced to treat them or risk a malpractice suit? Was this child denied care or did she receive care from someone who wanted to be part of her family's journey?

For that matter, should a potential surrogate mother or woman giving up a baby for adoption be allowed to discriminate or should people lose these choices?

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:31 pm

Quote:

So according to Levin and Cummings, IRS abuses weren't "targeted"; it was just a case of "gross mismanagement." And the DOJ just paid out money to settle lawsuits related to the abuses and the IRS issued an apology. So the IRS, under the administration of a Democratic President, wasn't really misusing their power to further their political agenda. They were just seriously incompetent! Gosh, why doesn't that make me feel better?

What has been debunked over and over (but apparently still not to your satisfaction) was that there was a concerted plot by the IRS to selectively scrutinize tax-exempt applications for RW groups while letting similar LW groups sail on through. Years of investigation turned up no such evidence.

.

Fox

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:32 pm

Jeanette wrote:

You're veering off into an entirely different area of law and regulation. If Dr. Mohammed wishes to work in a medical practice where he will be expected to treat people regardless of religion or s-xual orientation, then there is no problem.

If, however, Dr. Mohammed says, "As a devout Muslim, I am commanded to kill infidels and homosexuals," then I think some discrimination would be pretty appropriate.

Moreover, I'd much prefer that Dr. Mohammed be honest with himself and potential employers. I'd rather he set up his own clinic catering only to Muslims than even unconsciously give me substandard care because his religious beliefs.

However, none of this has anything to do with last names.

southernbubby

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:34 pm

Jeanette wrote:

It is hard to prove discrimination when hundreds of people apply for a job, even if the one chosen is a white xtian. Unless the interviewer or other employer specifically mentions my religion, it is hard to prove that the reason for the employer picking someone else is due to discrimination. Unless the workplace is open 24 hours and can therefore allow me to work on the 11pm to 7am shift Saturday night, they can say that they need a worker for Saturdays during the day. For example, I know a frum woman who was a make-up artist and wanted to work for a department store but the store needed the most help on Saturdays when the women came in for makeovers for Saturday night dates. This was not considered discrimination because those were the hours that they needed the help and they needed very little help on the other days of the week.

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:35 pm

Fox wrote:

What's discriminatory is the assumption that because the doctor's name is Dr. Mohamed, he will try to kill me as soon as I'm under anesthesia because I'm an infidel.

Fox

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:39 pm

Jeanette wrote:

So we've gone from "not a scandal" to "gross incompetence" to "not a concerted plot."

Okay. How is "gross incompetence" less damning than "a concerted plot"?

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:42 pm

I'd much prefer that Dr. Cohen be honest with himself and potential employers. I'd rather he set up his own clinic catering only to Jews than even unconsciously give me substandard care because his religious beliefs. I would also be creeped out at the possibility of him drawing blood from my child to bake into his passover cakes. Eeek!

southernbubby

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:45 pm

Jeanette wrote:

What's discriminatory is the assumption that because the doctor's name is Dr. Mohamed, he will try to kill me as soon as I'm under anesthesia because I'm an infidel.

I tried to tell myself that when I realized that my anesthesiologist was Dr Mohamed. I figured that my doctor (and Hashem) was responsible so if something happened, Dr Mohamed wouldn't get away with it. I can't say, however, that I wasn't nervous about Dr Mohamed but then, I realize that I am just a bigot, and that you, Jeanette would never even hesitate to think that Dr Mohamed would rely on what his religion or culture had taught him about you. And truthfully, some of the more "modern" Muslims wouldn't view non-Muslims as infidels but it is still hard to get past that cultural divide.

Fox

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:47 pm

Jeanette wrote:

What's discriminatory is the assumption that because the doctor's name is Dr. Mohamed, he will try to kill me as soon as I'm under anesthesia because I'm an infidel.

How do you determine someone's religious beliefs based on his/her name? I might assume that Dr. Mohammed is of Islamic heritage, just as I might assume that Dr. Christopher O'Malley is of Gaelic Christian heritage. But I wouldn't necessarily assume anything beyond that.

Dr. Mohammed may be a convert to Christianity who has chosen not to change his name, and Dr. O'Malley may be a secret jihadist. Or they both may be atheists.

Which comes back to the fact that at least some degree of freedom of association is better for everyone. I'd prefer to know that Dr. Mohammed is on board with the clinic's non-discrimination policy, and I'd prefer that Dr. O'Malley be honest and let me take my business to a non-jihadist practice.

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:47 pm

Fox wrote:

So we've gone from "not a scandal" to "gross incompetence" to "not a concerted plot."

Okay. How is "gross incompetence" less damning than "a concerted plot"?

Because RW media was not going wild for the past eight years about gross incompetence at the IRS. If they left it at that nobody would disagree with them! Their claim was that Tea Party groups were being specifically targeted. That was the supposed scandal. That was the subject of the investigation. That was debunked.

The only reason this non-scandal came up in this thread is because southerbubby expressed concern that the tax-exempt status of religious groups would be discriminated against by the left. I thought she was referring to this. She clarified that she is referring to plans to revoke the tax-exempt status of groups that read anti-gay texts at their meetings; I.e Chumash Vayikra. So far I have seen no such attempts but I'll be sure to alert the ACLU if anyone tries to pull that schtick.

Last edited by Jeanette on Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:49 pm

Jeanette wrote:

This makes no sense. The Koran explicitly calls for the death of infidels. The Torah does not call for baking blood in matzos. You are attempting to conflate a fact with a fiction.

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:51 pm

Fox wrote:

This makes no sense. The Koran explicitly calls for the death of infidels. The Torah does not call for baking blood in matzos. You are attempting to conflate a fact with a fiction.

You are making assumptions about Dr. Mohamed's religious views and interpretation of Koran based solely on his last name.

Sites like stormfront et al will selectively quote for you every reference in the Talmud that is unflattering to gentiles. Should you have to give a line-item veto of every one of those statements in order to qualify for a job?

southernbubby

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:52 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Uh, Jeanette, I hope that you are Jewish but face it, everyone on here has seen posts about doctors who blamed their (or members of their family) symptoms or illnesses on their weight, their age, their gender, or possibly that fact that they are Ultra Orthodox, and in some cases people have died needlessly because of doctors' pre-conceived prejudices. I wonder how many blacks would say that they have gotten second class service from doctors who didn't return phone calls for hours or who gave them very little time at appointments. Prejudice may play a bigger role in health care than you realize.

Maybe because you are a liberal, you will avoid Dr Cohen and travel to another part of town and look up Dr Mohammud. Certainly he will not use your child's blood for anything other than lab results.

Fox

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:55 pm

Jeanette wrote:

The vast, right-wing conspiracy strikes again! Seriously, DOJ payouts, an IRS apology, and sealed testimony from Lois Lerner and Holly Paz . . . ? I guess Jeff Sessions didn't realize that all the allegations had been debunked.

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:56 pm

southernbubby wrote:

You lost me.

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 5:59 pm

Fox wrote:

Years of investigation turned up no evidence of a concerted effort to discriminate against RW groups.

What Jeff Sessions thinks is immaterial. Jeff Sessions didn't realize that his campaign had contacts with Russians either. Jeff Sessions doesn't realize a lot of things.

southernbubby

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 6:00 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I know plenty of liberals, some who are LGBT and march in parades, work for SPLC, etc and are angry that their tax dollars go to offset the lack of taxation to bigoted religious congregations. They would love to see us lose tax exempt status and don't want to see their tax dollars paying for police protection for our schools. In addition, they would like to force our schools to include LGBT awareness like the schools in Great Britain are required to do. Do you get books from PJ Library? A few years ago, they got into controversy because they only gave LGBT themed children's books to those who specifically requested them, rather than mailing them out to everyone, including the Orthodox. Basically, they want to change us by force and don't respect our rights to what we believe.

Jeanette

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 6:02 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I oppose efforts to withhold tax-exempt status from groups based on religious beliefs, provided they meet the other criteria for tax exemption.