bedub1 wrote:Has this ruling been over turned yet?
Why would it be ? Essentially there is no case here, just another chancer playing the ' victim ' card .
Indeed. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law and current interpretation of it knows she has no case. She refused to do what her education said she should do, so she got kicked out. End of story.
It's like saying that as a vegetarian you aren't allowed to touch meat and then being suprised you're fired from your job at the butcher.
Can you get kicked out of a cooking class for being a vegetarian? Or will you just fail the class? Getting kicked out is discrimination, failing is because you didn't fulfill the requirements.
If cooking meat is a requirement of the curriculum and you decline, you can be failed AND kicked out. Most schools have minimum requirements to stay in.. completing requirements, maintaining a specific grade point average are pretty standard.
.
bedub1 wrote:But you can't get kicked out of school and expelled for not taking a class. I would find that to be illegal.
Not even close to illegal. More like standard practice. When you enroll in a school, you agree to certain requirements. What those requirements are varies, but most schools don't want to waste time with students who plain refuse to do the work. There are plenty of others who want in. And no.. you usually do NOT get a refund for screwing up.
bedub1 wrote:Has this ruling been over turned yet?
Why would it be ? Essentially there is no case here, just another chancer playing the ' victim ' card .
Indeed. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law and current interpretation of it knows she has no case. She refused to do what her education said she should do, so she got kicked out. End of story.
It's like saying that as a vegetarian you aren't allowed to touch meat and then being suprised you're fired from your job at the butcher.
Can you get kicked out of a cooking class for being a vegetarian? Or will you just fail the class? Getting kicked out is discrimination, failing is because you didn't fulfill the requirements. Now if this is a job that you are being paid for it's different. One example you pay somebody for an education, the other you are paid to do something.
If you fail to do your job you can get fired. If you fail to fullfill the requirements of a class you can fail the class. If you never pass a required class you won't graduate. But you can't get kicked out of school and expelled for not taking a class. I would find that to be illegal.
IE it's not okay to discriminate against a vegetarian that discriminates against meat.
She got kicked out because she tried to reassign a case to somebody else and then there were all sorts of meetings and disciplenary hearings and whatnot. This is not simply a class she didn't do, this is her violating the ethics while practicing the profession to some degree. She dealt with patients, not taking a written exam.
If I in two years get to treat someone and refuse to give a blood-transfusion, or while sitting in as GP tell some kid that pre-marital sex is wrong, I fully expect to get kicked out. If a trainee-lawyer violates confidentiality he should get kicked out.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case? Use your blood transfusion scenario genius - if i as a doctor or intern have someone else do a blood transfusion am i violating some obscure ethical formula? Hell no! Lawyers reassign cases, doctors cover patients for each other, counselors reassign cases if they feel someone else is better qualified for that client. WTF?
Seems to me that the gayboys are ready to scream "hate crime!" anytime someone looks at them crosswise.
b.k. barunt wrote:Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case?
The ethics of not reassigning a case unless real problems develop regardless of one's beliefs?
Use your blood transfusion scenario genius - if i as a doctor or intern have someone else do a blood transfusion am i violating some obscure ethical formula? Hell no!
Hell yes if you always refused to do it and told others that it is immoral. You must oblige by all guidelines. If it violates your personal beliefs you can either suck it up or go home. Doctors can be kicked out for advocating alternative medicine, why can't they be kicked out for refusing to do stuff any doctor should do?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
b.k. barunt wrote:Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case? Use your blood transfusion scenario genius - if i as a doctor or intern have someone else do a blood transfusion am i violating some obscure ethical formula? Hell no! Lawyers reassign cases, doctors cover patients for each other, counselors reassign cases if they feel someone else is better qualified for that client. WTF?
Seems to me that the gayboys are ready to scream "hate crime!" anytime someone looks at them crosswise.
Honibaz
OMG! OMG! OMG! You all were here for it. b.k. barunt has spoke intelligently for the first time on bumpage!
b.k. barunt wrote:Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case? Use your blood transfusion scenario genius - if i as a doctor or intern have someone else do a blood transfusion am i violating some obscure ethical formula? Hell no! Lawyers reassign cases, doctors cover patients for each other, counselors reassign cases if they feel someone else is better qualified for that client. WTF?
Seems to me that the gayboys are ready to scream "hate crime!" anytime someone looks at them crosswise.
Honibaz
OMG! OMG! OMG! You all were here for it. b.k. barunt has spoke intelligently for the first time on bumpage!
bedub1 wrote:Has this ruling been over turned yet?
Why would it be ? Essentially there is no case here, just another chancer playing the ' victim ' card .
Indeed. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law and current interpretation of it knows she has no case. She refused to do what her education said she should do, so she got kicked out. End of story.
It's like saying that as a vegetarian you aren't allowed to touch meat and then being suprised you're fired from your job at the butcher.
Snorrri1234 (and PLAYER57832); I rebuffed your lame concepts up and down and since then you've still pretended to speak like your authorities on things. Don't pretend that you have a 'basic' understanding of this snorrri124. If you started out with such an appeal I could chalk it up to ignorance. But after you were rebuffed thorougly, I have to chalk it up to perpetual ignorance and serial denial.
bedub1 wrote:Has this ruling been over turned yet?
Why would it be ? Essentially there is no case here, just another chancer playing the ' victim ' card .
Indeed. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law and current interpretation of it knows she has no case. She refused to do what her education said she should do, so she got kicked out. End of story.
It's like saying that as a vegetarian you aren't allowed to touch meat and then being suprised you're fired from your job at the butcher.
Snorrri1234 (and PLAYER57832); I rebuffed your lame concepts up and down and since then you've still pretended to speak like your authorities on things. Don't pretend that you have a 'basic' understanding of this snorrri124. If you started out with such an appeal I could chalk it up to ignorance. But after you were rebuffed thorougly, I have to chalk it up to perpetual ignorance and serial denial.
I certainly noted how you rebutted PLAYER's freaking documentation with your freaking opinion. That part was particularly unimpressive.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
b.k. barunt wrote:Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case? Use your blood transfusion scenario genius - if i as a doctor or intern have someone else do a blood transfusion am i violating some obscure ethical formula? Hell no! Lawyers reassign cases, doctors cover patients for each other, counselors reassign cases if they feel someone else is better qualified for that client. WTF?
Seems to me that the gayboys are ready to scream "hate crime!" anytime someone looks at them crosswise.
Honibaz
OMG! OMG! OMG! You all were here for it. b.k. barunt has spoke intelligently for the first time on bumpage!
You're so good at making friends.
Don't worry. I'll let you know when you make your first intelligent post also. I'm not holding my breath.
Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.
bedub1 wrote:Has this ruling been over turned yet?
Why would it be ? Essentially there is no case here, just another chancer playing the ' victim ' card .
Indeed. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law and current interpretation of it knows she has no case. She refused to do what her education said she should do, so she got kicked out. End of story.
It's like saying that as a vegetarian you aren't allowed to touch meat and then being suprised you're fired from your job at the butcher.
Snorrri1234 (and PLAYER57832); I rebuffed your lame concepts up and down and since then you've still pretended to speak like your authorities on things. Don't pretend that you have a 'basic' understanding of this snorrri124. If you started out with such an appeal I could chalk it up to ignorance. But after you were rebuffed thorougly, I have to chalk it up to perpetual ignorance and serial denial.
I certainly noted how you rebutted PLAYER's freaking documentation with your freaking opinion. That part was particularly unimpressive.
If you bothered to read the previous posts, you would know that I refuted many of their claims as being false and sufficiently proved many fallacies of logic. Their errors were so gross that I was not even envoking the battle of opinions. Please be informed next time rather than making senseless snipes based on your bias against me.
Frigidus wrote:Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.
Oh you've called me out with your useless opinion. Oh I'm so hurt. I speak quite intelligably and even my honorable foes would not say otherwise. But I'm sure you'll find some of your mindless minstrels to validate your claim.
Frigidus wrote:Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.
I have come to the conclusion that ViperOverLord is our fora's ultra-conservative response to Saxitoxin/KingDoctor/Rabbiton. I'm just curious as to who precisely is pulling the puppet strings.
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:Snorrri1234 (and PLAYER57832); I rebuffed your lame concepts up and down and since then you've still pretended to speak like your authorities on things. Don't pretend that you have a 'basic' understanding of this snorrri124. If you started out with such an appeal I could chalk it up to ignorance. But after you were rebuffed thorougly, I have to chalk it up to perpetual ignorance and serial denial.
I certainly noted how you rebutted PLAYER's freaking documentation with your freaking opinion. That part was particularly unimpressive.
If you bothered to read the previous posts, you would know that I refuted many of their claims as being false and sufficiently proved many fallacies of logic. Their errors were so gross that I was not even envoking the battle of opinions. Please be informed next time rather than making senseless snipes based on your bias against me.
You proved that DOCUMENTATION was inaccurate by stating your opinion? Because I didn't see anywhere that you provided DOCUMENTATION to support your points. Or is that coming later on?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Frigidus wrote:Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.
Oh you've called me out with your useless opinion. Oh I'm so hurt. I speak quite intelligably and even my honorable foes would not say otherwise.
I'm not sure even your conservative compadres would agree with that, actually...would anyone like to speak up in ViperOverLord's defense?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Frigidus wrote:Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.
I have come to the conclusion that ViperOverLord is our fora's ultra-conservative response to Saxitoxin/KingDoctor/Rabbiton. I'm just curious as to who precisely is pulling the puppet strings.
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:Snorrri1234 (and PLAYER57832); I rebuffed your lame concepts up and down and since then you've still pretended to speak like your authorities on things. Don't pretend that you have a 'basic' understanding of this snorrri124. If you started out with such an appeal I could chalk it up to ignorance. But after you were rebuffed thorougly, I have to chalk it up to perpetual ignorance and serial denial.
I certainly noted how you rebutted PLAYER's freaking documentation with your freaking opinion. That part was particularly unimpressive.
If you bothered to read the previous posts, you would know that I refuted many of their claims as being false and sufficiently proved many fallacies of logic. Their errors were so gross that I was not even envoking the battle of opinions. Please be informed next time rather than making senseless snipes based on your bias against me.
You proved that DOCUMENTATION was inaccurate by stating your opinion? Because I didn't see anywhere that you provided DOCUMENTATION to support your points. Or is that coming later on?
What is this DOCUMENTATION you speak of? Go back and view the posts for yourself and you will see that I speak truth.
Frigidus wrote:Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.
Oh you've called me out with your useless opinion. Oh I'm so hurt. I speak quite intelligably and even my honorable foes would not say otherwise.
I'm not sure even your conservative compadres would agree with that, actually...would anyone like to speak up in ViperOverLord's defense?
Another fallacy of logic; they are quite common in this thread. Likeability is not a correlative of intelligence. Consequently I take limited stock in who likes me or not. And who are these conservative compadres you speak of? You make it sound like this board is a us vs. them proposition. It would seem that you are unconciously speaking your own measurement system for validating your own thoughts, beliefs and opinions.
If you bothered to read the previous posts, you would know that I refuted many of their claims as being false and sufficiently proved many fallacies of logic. Their errors were so gross that I was not even envoking the battle of opinions. Please be informed next time rather than making senseless snipes based on your bias against me.
When exactly did you do that? I'm in awe of your powers of debate, I just need you to point me at the exact posts you made that did this.
I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs.... If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong.
Frigidus wrote:Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.
Oh you've called me out with your useless opinion. Oh I'm so hurt. I speak quite intelligably and even my honorable foes would not say otherwise.
I'm not sure even your conservative compadres would agree with that, actually...would anyone like to speak up in ViperOverLord's defense?
Another fallacy of logic; they are quite common in this thread. Likeability is not a correlative of intelligence.
It was a direct response to your claim that "even your honorable foes would not say otherwise" about your intelligent posting. I'm not speaking about "likeability", I'm speaking about your precise statement...so stop trying to build up those strawmen before you need them (you seem quite concerned).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
bedub1 wrote:I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs.... If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong.
I would not in any way support any counselor (gay or not) who would refuse to counsel a patient based on their own personal morality.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
bedub1 wrote:I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs.... If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong.
I would not in any way support any counselor (gay or not) who would refuse to counsel a patient based on their own personal morality.
I absolutely would. Especially if they realize they aren't qualified and shouldn't be offering advice to the person in general. To just pretend there isn't a conflict and deceive your patients and the others around you is definitely punishable by firing/expulsion.
It's like the lady just got fired for coming out of the closet. I mean come on, are we still in the middle ages or what?
Part of the oath doctors take is to do no harm. I don't know if she has the same things. But a religious counselor giving advice to a gay person could definitely be considered harmful. She might consider it to be helping, but knows her patients will see it as harmful, so tries to follow the code of ethics she agreed to and decline to assist and try to transfer?
bedub1 wrote:I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs.... If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong.
Pfffft, what? Nobody would support that. Any potential counselor that refuses to treat someone for a reason with no reasonable grounding shouldn't be a counselor. Period.
bedub1 wrote:I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs.... If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong.
Pfffft, what? Nobody would support that. Any potential counselor that refuses to treat someone for a reason with no reasonable grounding shouldn't be a counselor. Period.
You don't find religion or sexual preference to be reasonable grounds? What is then? Species? Ex-wife?
Last edited by bedub1 on Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
bedub1 wrote:I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs.... If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong.
Pfffft, what? Nobody would support that. Any potential counselor that refuses to treat someone for a reason with no reasonable grounding shouldn't be a counselor. Period.
You don't find religion or sexual preference to be reasonable grounds?
Hell no. The only reasonable grounding I can think of is if the counselor somehow felt threatened by their patient.
