Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lawsuit: Race-based request sidelined Michigan nurse


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#76 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,966 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:49 PM

Is this a serious question? Yes they absolutely are. It's the kkk. They aren't selling girl scout cookies, they're preaching hatred.


And here's where we come to the heart of the issue...

What do you do, legally, to stop them?

They have the same First Amendment rights you do, remember? You may not like it, but unless you're ready to make some major changes to the Constitution, you can't change it. And lemme tell ya, you don't really want those kinds of changes made.

This is why your argument fails, because you're not recognizing that there's a significant difference between what's unpleasant and what's unlawful.

#77 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,966 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:51 PM

See, this is why we're governed by laws rather than emotions.

We see something that's unjust. Automatically we think "Somebody's gotta pay".

Fine, except there's no way to make the guy who's actually at the heart of this pay for what he did because he didn't break any actual laws.

"Okay, so let's make the hospital pay. They let this happen."

Except again, the hospital didn't actually cause any harm to the nurse. She didn't lose money, time, status or anything else. All that ultimately happened was she was offended (and I seriously doubt she was the only one).

"But they facilitated this guy being a racist."

No, they were put in a no-win situation and made the best choice in a lousy situation. Chances are the people who made the decision weren't exactly happy about it either, but felt it was what they had to do.

"Well, they still should pay, because somebody should."

Is that your definition of justice? It's not a very good one.

Again, the bottom line is that the hospital had to hold it's nose and do something they wouldn't have wanted to in order to avoid the risk of something even worse. Yeah, it's bad, but it's ultimately the right call.

And it's not worthy of a lawsuit.

#78 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,400 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:02 PM

And here's where we come to the heart of the issue...

What do you do, legally, to stop them?

They have the same First Amendment rights you do, remember?

This is why your argument fails, because you're not recognizing that there's a significant difference between what's unpleasant and what's unlawful.


You said nothing about stopping them nor did I, you said was the town participating in racism by allowing them to do it. Yes they are. Of course it is in their rights to do so. That doesn't mean we can't call it what it really is.

I didn't peg you as a bigots rights advocate Mr. Scot lol, but hey have at it.

We aren't going to agree, we are essentially two brick walls repeatedly running into each other.

I said good say sir!

#79 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,966 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:08 PM

You said nothing about stopping them nor did I, you said the was the town participating in racism by allowing them to do it. Yes they are. Of course it is in their rights to do so. That doesn't mean we can't call it what it really is.

I didn't peg you as a bigots rights advocate Mr. Scot lol, but hey have at it.

We aren't going to agree, we are essentially two brick walls repeatedly running into each other.

I said good say sir!


Using that logic, the whole country is participating in it because they don't just outlaw people being bigots.

You can regulate institutional practices, but as mentioned many times, this case isn't one of institutional racism. It's one of a hospital making the best of a bad situation to avoid larger problems.

I'll add a pertinent quote.

"You can't take away people's right to be assholes."

- Simon Phoenix



#80 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,400 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:12 PM

We truely have reached the bottom of the barrel in discussion if we are quoting Demolition Man lol.

#81 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,966 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:14 PM

We truely have reached the bottom of the barrel in discussion if we are quoting Demolition Man lol.


Nah.

When somebody quotes Pauly Shore, then we've gone to hell in a handbasket.

#82 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,712 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:17 PM


"In the long run no individual and no race can succeed which sets itself at war against the common good; for "in the gain or loss of one race, all the rest have equal claim."

-Booker T Washington

"The only time when the ***** problem is insoluble is when men insist on settling it wrong by asking absolutely contradictory things. You cannot make 10,000,000 people at one and the same time servile and dignified, docile and self-reliant, servants and independent leaders, segregated and yet part of the industrial organism, disfranchised and citizens of a democracy, ignorant and intelligent. This is impossible and the impossibility is not factitious; it is in the very nature of things."

-W.E.B. Dubois in a letter to then President Woodrow Wilson



This whole conversation smells awfully like the separate but equal debate.

i.e. "Segregation/discrimination is okay because it doesn't really hurt anyone."

#83 SmootsDaddy89

SmootsDaddy89

    Just Say No To Boo

  • ALL-PRO
  • 10,191 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:31 PM

So I talked to a lawyer friend of mine who is totally not made up and if you wanna look him up his name is Lawyer J. Lawyerpants.


He said that, while reassigning her against her will by itself wasn't grounds for discrimination, the written memos are. Basically what you have here is something written officially by the hospital's management, making it an official policy of the hospital that no black nurses can care for this retard's baby. Whether originally facilitated by the patient's husband or not, the higher ups essentially codified it into written policy when they put that note on the baby's medical chart. So if she can prove it, the hospital is fuged.

#84 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,102 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:11 AM

So I talked to a lawyer friend of mine who is totally not made up and if you wanna look him up his name is Lawyer J. Lawyerpants.


He said that, while reassigning her against her will by itself wasn't grounds for discrimination, the written memos are. Basically what you have here is something written officially by the hospital's management, making it an official policy of the hospital that no black nurses can care for this retard's baby. Whether originally facilitated by the patient's husband or not, the higher ups essentially codified it into written policy when they put that note on the baby's medical chart. So if she can prove it, the hospital is fuged.


whoa wait a minute does this mean that when a racist asks you to do a racist thing and then you do it, you are in fact doing a racist thing? nope not buying it

#85 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,681 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:32 AM

My nurse friend mentioned a discussion that had gone on at her particular hospital on the topic of sexism.

She stated that for female victims of domestic violence, it's common for the hospital to make sure that only female personnel are assigned to treatment. In my mind, I'd say that's a reasonable thing to do.

However, in cases where the victim of domestic violence is male (and yes, such cases exist) no actual provisions are made to shield the victim from people matching the sex of the abuser, whether male or female. It's just whomever's available at the time.

There's been some grumbling about that, but per her, no action being taken about it.


Domestic violence cases are definitely different. The victim should be allowed to request any gender, race, experience nurse/doctor they want. With the trauma they have been through, their mental health and needs should be paramount.

Again, everyone on here thinks the guy is a POS. most would have like to see the hospital tell the guy to flake off. The hospital was trying to diffuse a hostile situation.

She has a right to be pusses. But her anger should be at the man. The lawsuit is nothing more than someone trying to get a payday for something where they suffered zero damages.



#86 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:07 AM

Please explain why you think she deserves a big payday from this?


To discourage it from ever happening again. Other hospitals will see this happening and refuse to abide by idiotic racial demands made by patients. or in this case, parents of patients.

#87 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:15 AM

The lawsuit is nothing more than someone trying to get a payday for something where they suffered zero damages.



Rosa Parks suffered zero damages. She should have just got up and moved to the back and diffused the situation. Don't blame the bus company, blame the man who wanted her to move so he could sit down.


See how silly this sounds?

#88 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,151 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:13 AM

Could the nurse not have been offended and just said she was?
Only she knows. Like I said earlier, this caveman who asked for this may have done her a huge favor. Get great compensation and more than likely transfer to a new hospital. I think she is going to feel much better soon.

#89 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,181 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:16 AM

Rosa Parks suffered zero damages. She should have just got up and moved to the back and diffused the situation. Don't blame the bus company, blame the man who wanted her to move so he could sit down.


See how silly this sounds?


Rosa Parks was segregated which is specifically prohibited under discrimination laws. The hospital lady was not part of a segregation.

#90 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,712 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:38 AM

Merriam-Webster defines it as

segregate -

transitive verb

1 : to separate or set apart from others or from the general mass : isolate


2: to cause or force the separation of (as from the rest of society)

intransitive verb


1: separate, withdraw


2: to practice or enforce a policy of segregation


3: to undergo genetic segregation


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com