It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should People Be forced to Participate in Things they don't agree with?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Don't worry, eventually you'll be given jail time for not wanting a relationship with the same sex.


thats not much of a choise, i think i would choose prison, but then again, i heard you might get raped in there...




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I do believe that the article implied he did not want to participate in LGBT activities that the hospital was promoting, he stated with good conscience why he did not want to participate and asked to be removed from receiving email of said events. But those emails still were coming so he felt he was being pressured to support LGBT events against his own good conscience.


edit on 6-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
The story linked too is of a Doctor being fired supposedly because he does not agree with the Hospital agenda. This article has some interesting features 1) there are no religious views being claimed to oppose, 2) his reasons are valid for not wanting to be involved in and 3) He's not allowed to follow his own conscience on this issue.

Should people be forced to participate in something they disagree with just to keep their jobs?

www.foxnews.com...

A prominent Boston doctor and Harvard Medical School professor says a prestigious hospital canned him because he refused to endorse the LGBT lifestyle, which he believes is dangerous and unhealthy.


I am just wondering why people must be forced to participate in that they don't agree with.
]


I'm going to reword your question. Should a privately owned entity be able to hire and fire people based on set standards they establish to their employees?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is not a rewording that is an entirely different question.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Call it what you will, but it is a question that should be asked about YOUR opinion in regards to this OP.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Since does anyone have to endorse something like the LGBT to practice medicine. Doctors don't endorse stuff like that, it has nothing to do with healthcare. I can see them making a doctor treat everyone, every race, gender, and sexual preference but that does not mean they have to endorse it. I suppose they will make doctors endorse drug addicts and dealers also since they give the hospital a lot of business.

I wouldn't work for a hospital that had such irrational people running it. My advice is that he should look for a better place to work. It is not the job of a hospital to endorse things outside of the medical field except for things like paramedics, firemen, and possibly nutrition and mental health programs.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
The story linked too is of a Doctor being fired supposedly because he does not agree with the Hospital agenda. This article has some interesting features 1) there are no religious views being claimed to oppose, 2) his reasons are valid for not wanting to be involved in and 3) He's not allowed to follow his own conscience on this issue.

Should people be forced to participate in something they disagree with just to keep their jobs?

www.foxnews.com...

A prominent Boston doctor and Harvard Medical School professor says a prestigious hospital canned him because he refused to endorse the LGBT lifestyle, which he believes is dangerous and unhealthy.


I am just wondering why people must be forced to participate in that they don't agree with.
]


I'm going to reword your question. Should a privately owned entity be able to hire and fire people based on set standards they establish to their employees?


Actually the answer to your question is yes. If you work for a place that requires certain things than you need to do it or quit your job. That is the right of the employer to set standards. If it is a public hospital receiving any government public subsidy money than it has to follow government protocol. The government does not endorse that organization, but it does not allow anyone to discriminate.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

So then the hospital has every right to fire this guy then. Especially considering the circumstances surrounding his firing. You know since he was warned multiple times about it and all.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I do believe that the article implied he did not want to participate in LGBT activities that the hospital was promoting, he stated with good conscience why he did not want to participate and asked to be removed from receiving email of said events. But those emails still were coming so he felt he was being pressured to support LGBT events against his own good conscience.



in these days, it is pretty hard to own an email, without receiving some junkmail once in awhile
he wasnt forced to participate in anything! he recieved emails, and he answered those emails, and stated his mind, should he be fired for that? well i wouldnt fire him for disagreeing with me, and why they didnt just remove him from the email list, i do not know. But, he wasnt forced to do anything, he got paid to work, didnt he?? so i guess money ment more to him, since he insisted on working in a place, that promoted something he dissagreed with, right??



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
I never said he was being forced to participate in LGBT lifestyle, that is the article that says that.


The article does not say that. The word "force" does not appear in the article.

It was YOU who suggested he was "forced" to do something, but you have yet to say what that was...



Should a person be forced to participate in the promotion of (insert your own) something they themselves don't agree with?


How is he being forced to participate?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

No, he was probably forced to stop saying he didn't think their activities were healthy.

Imagine a hospital that told doctors stop telling patients that smoking was unhealthy. Sort of like that.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

No, he was probably forced to stop saying he didn't think their activities were healthy.


"Probably"? There is nothing in any of the articles I've read on this story that say he was forced (or even asked) to stop telling his patients that their activity was unhealthy.

He wasn't fired for that. He was fired for harassing his employers and other staff with his anti-LGBT emails.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

No...what the good doctor is attempting to do is spread his own agenda in regards to the LGBT community. As a Doctor he should counsel a patient on risky behavior that can lead to complications. But as a doctor he needs to realize the truth that HIV/STD's are not a result of the LGBT life style but because of choices made by individuals in all life styles. Heterosexuals are just as prone to HIV/STD's as any other group...these problems are not Homosexual diseases but sexual diseases and if an individual makes the choice of having unprotected sex, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual then the individual risks contracting a disease. As a Doctor, he should know this.

I am sure the hospital promotes many other unhealthy life style choices with soda machines readily available in the hallways, and they more than likely serve a variety of unhealthy foods in their cafeteria. Does the good Doctor refuse to promote those risky items ?Individuals should be allowed to make their own choices and the Doctor is welcome to hold his own beliefs but not promote his own agenda over the hospital intranet and not expect to be challenged.
edit on 1/6/2016 by DJMSN because: addition



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No the hospital was requiring him to attend functions that promoted the LGBT lifestyle he disagreed with.

He gave them the data on why why he did not support it and asked not to be required. But the hospital refused.

I used the word forced because to require it or your fired is using force.


edit on 6-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No thehospital was requiring him to attend functions that promoted the LGBT lifestyle he disagreed with.


Where is it stated that he was being required to attend LGBT functions? Can you quote from the article? Or ANY article on this story? Or is that something you made up?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Boadicea

No...what the good doctor is attempting to do is spread his own agenda in regards to the LGBT community. As a Doctor he should counsel a patient on risky behavior that can lead to complications.


As I understand it from other sources, that is exactly what he was trying to do; for example, counseling against unprotected sex, especially with acquaintances and/or multiple partners. I've actually read more about his concerns regarding mental and emotional health, and the negative effects of current therapy/counseling, and his concern that it is actually contributing to the high suicide rates. Concerns shared by others, though -- obviously -- not all.


But as a doctor he needs to realize the truth that HIV/STD's are not a result of the LGBT life style but because of choices made by individuals in all life styles. Heterosexuals are just as prone to HIV/STD's as any other group...these problems are not Homosexual diseases but sexual diseases and if an individual makes the choice of having unprotected sex, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual then the individual risks contracting a disease. As a Doctor, he should know this.


And I'm sure he does both in theory and in practice, giving the same advice to anyone practicing risky behavior. The problem seems to be that any such criticism towards gays is considered intolerance and an attack on the gay lifestyle, which is met with a very loud and activist backlash, effectively shutting down all discussion... and therefore denoying appropriate education, and the appropriate precaution.


I am sure the hospital promotes many other unhealthy life style choices with soda machines readily available in the hallways, and they more than likely serve a variety of unhealthy foods in their cafeteria.


Unfortunately, I'm sure they do. All the more reason to be concerned when these same people become the sole arbiters of what we can know, and can shut down all discussion of matters pertaining to our health and life.


Does the good Doctor refuse to promote those risky items?


Well, I don't know for sure, and I get the feeling you don't either, but I'm pretty sure the doctor's not telling his patients, "Rah! Rah! Soda!!! Drink all you can, whenever you can!"


Individuals should be allowed to make their own choices and the Doctor is welcome to hold his own beliefs but not promote his own agenda over the hospital intranet and not expect to be challenged.


Of course... but that goes both ways. Neither should the hospital be denying important information to their patients, and especially without challenge. Patients deserve all pertinent information, and the freedom to do with it what they will.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
As I understand it from other sources, that is exactly what he was trying to do; for example, counseling against unprotected sex, especially with acquaintances and/or multiple partners.


Would you mind posting some of those other sources? Because I have found no such information in my research.

This isn't about what the doctor was sharing with his patients. There's no indication that he was saying this stuff to his PATIENTS. It's about his harassment of his employers and peers.

If your boss was backing the TPP 100% and you sent emails to everyone in the company for FOUR YEARS stating the danger of the TPP, you could very well be fired. That's all that happened here.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
He has the right to hold his views and also the right to not participate in promoted events. I didn't see anything there about him refusing to treat patients or criticising patient lifestyles as part of his day to day duties and there was nothing there to indicate he wasnt good at his job. Maybe the problem was just being too vocal about it all instead of quietly doing his own thing away from it.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS




Its kind of like racism; you can hate whoever you want for any or all of the wrong reasons.........just keep it to yourself.
because it would be a lack there of that would cause someone to "just keep it to yourself" ....Its called selling your soul in some circles .



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Would you mind posting some of those other sources? Because I have found no such information in my research.


You're absolutely right. My mistake -- and my profound apologies. I totally confused Church with McHugh, who was fired from John Hopkins -- not Beth Israel -- for similar reasons. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy! So I hang my head in shame, and slink off to hide under a rock...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join