(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613

Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.

This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Maybe so-and-so at the hospital down the street doesn't want to deal with teh gayz, and I'm not going to go to him, given the choice. But what happens when I'm bleeding to death and he's the only ER doctor?'

It'd be real stupid of him to refuse treatment when he knows he'd be civilly liable for wrongful death which would ruin his career and cost him his entire life's fortune. Not to mention the hospital would be on the hook too. They probably wouldn't be pleased with a doctor refusing to work.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

It'd be real stupid of him to refuse treatment when he knows he'd be civilly liable for wrongful death which would ruin his career and cost him his entire life's fortune.

But aren't these forms of civil liability just alternative ways to rob him of his freedom of association, in your view? I mean, think this through.

If he allowed me to die and he subsequently became liable for "wrongful death," that would necessarily require a finding by a court that he had a duty to treat me, despite his preferences. But that's precisely the kind of duty you say he doesn't have, and would in fact constitute an imposition upon his freedom. And if he did have such a duty (as you seem here to be suggesting), after all, then what problem is posed by making it a statutory requirement of his licensure, rather than a after-the-fact cause of action?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'If he allowed me to die and he subsequently became liable for "wrongful death," that would necessarily require a finding by a court that he had a duty to treat me, despite his preferences. But that's precisely the kind of duty you say he doesn't have, and would in fact constitute an imposition upon his freedom.'

Wrongful death comes down to a jury deciding liability. We've had wrongful death suits dealing with people who had minimal contact with the deceased but their willful actions led to the death.

Someone with knowledge to help, in a profession designed to help willfully not helping is the kind of thing that is made for wrongful death lawsuits.

Plus with a hospital, there's reasonable belief you'd be given help.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Wrongful death comes down to a jury deciding liability. We've had wrongful death suits dealing with people who had minimal contact with the deceased but their willful actions led to the death.

Juries don't determine what legal duties are owed to whom. You can't be liable for wrongful death without a court deciding, as a matter of law, that there is a duty to do something to prevent the death.

Someone with knowledge to help, in a profession designed to help willfully not helping is the kind of thing that is made for wrongful death lawsuits. Plus with a hospital, there's reasonable belief you'd be given help.

So are you saying, then, that someone providing medical services, and especially if they're doing so in a hospital, does not have, and should not expect, a full freedom of association?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

To put it another way - look at the other examples that have been raised here: the racist CHL instructor and the racist shop owner. In both cases, you've said that these people have the right to discriminate against anyone they please. But here you seem to be fine with the idea that a person who discriminates according to their preferences could be liable, after the fact, to the person against which they discriminate. So what if it were the case that, at common law, there were a cause of action for the wrongful denial of services, which could cover acts of invidious discrimination such as these? Would you object to such a cause of action, as being essentially illiberal?

And, if not, what if the state were to create such a cause of action, by statute? (Which it can and often does.) What then?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

It'd be real stupid of him to refuse treatment when he knows he'd be civilly liable for wrongful death which would ruin his career and cost him his entire life's fortune.

Unless the community refused to prosecute him because the person who died as a result of the lack of care was a dirty (insert pejorative here) and deserved to die, and everyone praised the hospital for backing that brave doctor for getting rid of yet another (insert pejorative here).

Common historical situations like this are why regulations have been crafted to prevent rampant discrimination.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Wrongful death is a civil matter.

And to a degree, if a hospital is registered for emergency services with the local municipality, then I don't see how they'd get away with refusing emergency services.

That is a legally tricky area between public and private.