Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lawsuit: Race-based request sidelined Michigan nurse


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#71 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,921
  • Reputation: 7,768
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:57 PM

What would you do? Tell the guy "too bad" and then watch him either blow up in the middle of an NICU? Is that really something you wanna deal with?

Or worse. Maybe you watch him slink away mad and then he waits around, follows the nurse out and goes after her later? The Nazi tattoo pretty much tells you this guy's not all there, and it's not like hospital security can escort her all the way home and stay with her for the next month.

Call the police and have him arrested? For what? being an ass isn't a crime. Have them offer the nurse protection? Did he actually make a verbal threat or did he just seem menacing?

Oh wait, you escorted him off the premises at a time when his wife was admitted and his baby was in intensive care? On what grounds? That he's a racist? That he said something racist? And then something happened to his baby when he wasn't there? Oops. Now you're looking at trouble.

What you're not getting is that there are a lot worse ways this could have come out. Instead, the hospital goes to the nurse and says "Yeah, this guy's a twit, but we have to deal with him. You're not losing any pay or any time, we just can't have you working on this baby."

That's the big picture.


They can simply tell him no, we cannot do that. If he has an issue with that decision, hospital security should be glad to talk to him. If your argument for allowing racist behavior is fear of threats or retaliation on whichever parties involved then hey let's just allow all racism to slide. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.

The hospital absolutely accommodated racism, what is there to dispute about that? I will ask the question again. If this sitaution was no big deal at all and completely within the laws as you keep suggesting. Why did the lawyer for the hospital get upset and have to intervene on a clearly poor decision?

#72 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,777
  • Reputation: 13,323
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:05 PM

They can simply tell him no, we cannot do that. If he has an issue with that decision, hospital security should be glad to talk to him. If your argument for allowing racist behavior is fear of threats or retaliation on whichever parties involved then hey let's just allow all racism to slide. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.

The hospital absolutely accommodated racism, what is there to dispute about that? I will ask the question again. If this sitaution was no big deal at all and completely within the laws as you keep suggesting. Why did the lawyer for the hospital get upset and have to intervene on a clearly poor decision?


No, we wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, and that's kind of an important factor here.

You really think hospital security is so intimidating that this guy is just gonna back down and do nothing? Unless this hospital has the most badass security guards in the country, I wouldn't bet on it (obviously they didn't think so).

As far as the lawyers, they're a lot like HR guys. It's their job to be paranoid.

You can be flip about that sitting in front of your computer, but being in the actual situation with an obviously off-kilter guy right there in front of you, not so much. You act like risking harm to the nurse is no big deal. Seriously? :blink:

#73 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,921
  • Reputation: 7,768
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:13 PM

No, we wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, and that's kind of an important factor here.

You really think hospital security is so intimidating that this guy is just gonna back down and do nothing? Unless this hospital has the most badass security guards in the country, I wouldn't bet on it (obviously they didn't think so).

As far as the lawyers, they're a lot like HR guys. It's their job to be paranoid.

You can be flip about that sitting in front of your computer, but being in the actual situation with an obviously off-kilter guy right there in front of you, not so much. You act like risking harm to the nurse is no big deal. Seriously? :blink:


I was being sarcastic. I wonder how the civil rights movement would have gone if all those people had simply sat down, shut up and just took the racism because of fear from the various means of intimidation by the bigots that existed and still exist today. I guess that's the way some in this country wish it could be. Good thing it isn't.

My word Mr. Scot you are giving this clown waaaaaay too much credit, what is he some super villain?

#74 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,777
  • Reputation: 13,323
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:23 PM

I was being sarcastic. I wonder how the civil rights movement would have gone if all those people had simply sat down, shut up and just took the racism because of fear from the various means of intimidation by the bigots in this country. I guess that's the way some in this country wish it could be. Good thing it isn't.

My word Mr. Scot you are giving this clown waaaaaay too much credit, what is he some super villain?


You don't exactly have to be a super villain to wait in a parking lot and jump somebody (or follow them home and go after them, for that matter).

And do you really wanna compare institutional racism to one guy being an asshole?

Are towns that allow Klan members to hold demonstrations or display racist symbols "accommodating racism"?

The hospital's prime concern is going to be the baby. It has to be. Taking this nurse off the baby's care isn't adversely affecting. Having to deal with the father's anger at his wishes not being met could be adverse to a lot of people.

Sometimes unpleasant people do unpleasant things. You might hate it, but often there's nothing that can be done about it.

#75 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,921
  • Reputation: 7,768
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:48 PM

You don't exactly have to be a super villain to wait in a parking lot and jump somebody (or follow them home and go after them, for that matter).


Why do we keep returning to this retaliation angle? So basically someone can do whatever they want if they are threatening. Got it.

And do you really wanna compare institutional racism to one guy being an asshole?


Being a white supremacist/neo nazi is hardly the same as your average run of the mill asshole.

Are towns that allow Klan members to hold demonstrations or display racist symbols "accommodating racism"?


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

The hospital's prime concern is going to be the baby. It has to be. Taking this nurse off the baby's care isn't adversely affecting. Having to deal with the father's anger at his wishes not being met could be adverse to a lot of people.

Sometimes unpleasant people do unpleasant things. You might hate it, but often there's nothing that can be done about it.


Yes the baby AND the mother, not some prick father who chooses a hospital of all places to force his flawed idealogy on the general population.

#76 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,777
  • Reputation: 13,323
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,777
  • Reputation: 13,323
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

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'

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,921
  • Reputation: 7,768
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,777
  • Reputation: 13,323
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

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'

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,921
  • Reputation: 7,768
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
HUDDLER

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users