you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Trucker_Joe 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

One is a giant public service paid for by the people they want to turn away, one is small private business that didn't collect any money beforehand. One is an essential health service, one is a non-essential culinary art service. Vital differences and it's completely ridiculous to try to equate the two situations. There's a lot of nuance.

Hardly anyone on the right would have a problem with some leftist bakery denying someone a cake as long as all bakeries are permitted to do so. No one's gonna die or have their health put in jeopardy from being denied a cake.

[–]Otacon 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Something something publicly funded.

Catholic hospitals are free to exclude as they please, and regularly excercise that right and yet receive funding the same as any hospital. That second story is an example of them refusing emergency services to a woman in a life-threatening situation, so there isn't even a grey area about it only happening with non-emergency procedures.

And I am not aware of any conservative politicians, whether they're a twitter talking head or an actual politician, that are opposed to these rules around catholic hospitals.

[–]khsdafhlsadf 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Something something publicly funded.

Pure mushmouth retardation. "Gender affirming"? FFS. It's a fucking sex change op. Completely elective, and there are still plenty of options for getting it done. This ain't even in the same league. If I was a mushmouth retard like you, I would just say "whataboutism." But, I'm not, and I won't. That argument is even more retarded than you're terrible illogical mess.

[–]Otacon 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So not only did you shift the goalpost from "a publicly funded institution denying a taxpayer service is always bad" to "a publicly funded institution denying a taxpayer service is only bad if it's life threatening". Great.

Not only have we moved the goalposts but we've now willfuly ignored the second article I posted of a woman being denied a LIFE SAVING operation due to deadly complications with her miscarriage, and the subsequent paragraph I posted afterwards.

Why even reply if you're a dishonest mouthbreather?

[–]khsdafhlsadf 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So not only did you shift the goalpost from "a publicly funded institution denying a taxpayer service is always bad" to "a publicly funded institution denying a taxpayer service is only bad if it's life threatening". Great.

No I didn't. This is idiotic to even suggest.

I posted of a woman being denied a LIFE SAVING operation due to deadly complications with her miscarriage, and the subsequent paragraph I posted afterwards.

Perhaps you shouldn't have led with the sex-change op story. I did go back and read that Huff Po article. It's a complete disaster. They've clubbed out the nuance and fail to give any real details (mercifully, I might add, I've been through a miscarriage with my ex-wife and would rather not read about one in detail but I would). That article reeks of agenda, and the fact that it is so light on details does not lend credibility to the author. If anything, attempting to use that article at all is more proof that you're not able to examine this with a critical eye.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

oh jesus, talk about lowering the pyramid of debate

what a fucking shill

[–]Otacon 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm lowering the pyramid. Get real

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it doesn’t. And yet you are.