The writing is on the wall—literally: “This is a private office. Appearance and behavior standards apply.” For Dr. Gary Merrill of Christian Medical Services, that means no tattoos, body piercings, and a host of other requirements—all standards Merrill has set based upon his Christian faith.
According to the American Medical Association and other doctors, he reserves that right. “In the same sense that any other business person has the opportunity to decline service, be it a restaurant if they’re not dressed properly, be it any other type of business,” said Dr. Ronald Morton, Kern County Medical Society.
Source: KGET
I'm sure that many Christians will support Dr. Gary Merrill, but how many would be equally supportive of a Muslim doctor who refused to see a woman who doesn't have her head covered? Or a Muslim doctor who refused to see a woman who is not accompanied by a male relative? I would expect a great outcry against such practices, but I don't foresee any outcry against a Christian doing something similar. Why would it be OK for a Christian to discriminate on the basis of Christian beliefs, but not OK for a Muslim to discriminate on the basis of Muslim beliefs?
“She had to go that entire night with her ear infection with no medicine because he has his policy,” Tasha Childress said.
“I felt totally discriminated against, like I wasn’t good enough to talk to,” Tasha Childress said, “like he didn’t have to give me any reason for not wanting to see my daughter because I have tattoos and piercings.”
Businesses have a right to set certain standards for decorum - a loud person who disrupts a doctor's waiting room can legitimately be asked to leave. It's not so legitimate, however, to refuse to treat a little girl simply because her mother fails to adhere to certain traditional Christian standards of apparel. Refusing to teat a girl's illness because her mother has tattoos is not like refusing to serve someone at McDonald's because they aren't wearing a shirt or shoes.
This all seems to go back to the argument that our protections against discrimination supersede full control of property, and provides a clear example of why discrimination should be prohibited. If the doctor’s office serves the public good as a business, it should not only be prohibited from discriminating, but prohibited to a higher standard since it threatens the very life of a person, especially since the discrimination has a religious basis.
Moreover, the idea that a child is culpable for the “indecency” of the parent strikes me as archaic thinking.
Once again, people are placed on a lower rung than god.
True, though I would put it slightly differently: serving the alleged interests of a supposed god is placed before serving the real interests of real human beings.
I find it inappropriate that you first made the assumption that an outcry would occur if it were a Muslim doctor, and the concluded that it’s not fair that the two are not held to equal standards. This is a very big fallacy, and it’s a little embarassing. I’m an atheist and all that, but… I think you really need to work on your arugemtative writing, it just ruins the whole point of your article to have a big fat fallacy glaring out of the center of it. You need to actually find an instance of inequality, or hypocricy before making the assumption that society would react differently to it. You’ve just given people against atheism something to point at and go “see… they make wild assumptions and tout them as truths!”… please, try not to make the same mistake in the future.
Great point and thank you for it!
And the doctor has every right to do so (muslim christian or atheist) if it is not an emergency. You need to look at the 13th amendment before bashing what you think a Christian’s reaction would be. BTW I thought you looked like an arrogant douche from your picture but after reading your article I know you are an arrogant douche.
Lynn:
How can this be a fallacy? There is no error in logic here.
When asked, I am sure that many Christians would object to the way Dr. Merrill treated (or failed to treat, I guess) his young patient. I don’t believe they would be vocal about it since a non-Christian was at the receiving end.
I am also convinced that the situation would be very different if a Christian had been at the receiving end of a Muslim fundamentalist doctor’s religious-based discrimination. To my knowledge this has not happened, so it is hypothetical.
Perhaps you could accuse Austin of picking on Muslims, but the point could be made equally well with an example of a Jewish doctor who refuses to treat a male boy because he is not circumsized. Same idea, equally hypothetical.
The article would have been more effective in making its point had an actual case of Christian outcry against discrimination by a non-Christian doctor been cited. I would not be surprised that such cases have been reported.
In many states doctors can refuse to provide service if they feel it is unethical and against their religious beliefs to do so. This case is not even in the grey zone. Dr. Merrill’s inaction resulted in prolonged suffering of a child for no valid reason. The man should be reprimanded and his license suspended.
At least the Muslim doctor would have actual, recognized dictates of his system to point to. Where in Christianity does it even proscribe tattoos *for*women*? There’s an OT proscription against self-mutilation that can be construed to apply to tattoos (Orthodox Jews interpret it that way) but it is NOT gender-specific!
Where, exactly, is the fallacy?
I think you mean that I need to find some reason to think that people would object to a Muslim doctor acting in that manner. How about people objecting to a Muslim cab driver refusing to take fares from people carrying alcohol – or to take fare from blind people with guide dogs?
I don’t make any assumptions and then tout them as truths. I said I would expect people to object to a Muslim discriminating based on his beliefs and ask why that would be acceptable. That’s a conditional statement, not a statement of fact.
To me, the part of this which offends me the most is what Kafir said about punishing the child for the alleged “sins” of the mother. The child did nothing to “offend” the doctor in any way. If the doctor felt so offended by the mother’s appearance, he should have STILL treated the child, then perhaps chewed out the mother (not that the mother deserved to be chewed out, of course).
I mean for you to find an example of where a muslim doctor refused to treat a christian, show us the documentation of it, and provide the results it had on society. Using hypothetical assumption in an arguement for atheism is… well, quasi-ironic, at best. We need to remove all “think” “assume” “believe” and “guess” from the equation.
Instead of saying “I think George would be angry if I stole his last cookie.” you need to actually either go and steal the cookie, and record the reaction, OR find someone who has stolen a cookie from George in the past and show us what that person observed.
See what I’m getting at? It’s an argumentative fallacy to use “dummy points” not backed by solid data.
1. I didn’t say anything about Muslims refusing to treat Christians; my comment was about a Muslim refusing to treat a patient because of religious beliefs.
2. I don’t have examples of Muslim doctors doing this, but I do have examples of Muslims in another profession doing this (denying service to someone) — that’s why I phrased what I wrote as a hypothetical.
I didn’t make an argument for atheism.
Do you have an objection to hypothetical statements generally or do you have any objection to this hypothetical statement in particular? Either way, would you please explain and substantiate your objection?
And what about your claim that a logical fallacy was committed?
No, I don’t see what you’re getting at and have no idea what “dummy points” are, much less why you think I “used” them or how using them qualifies as an “argumentative fallacy.”
Now I wonder how the supporters of this doctor would react if an active marine with a “semper fidelis” tattoo had brought his daughter for treatment and been turned away.
I wonder if the good doctor thinks that Jesus himself would have turned away the child? Didn’t Jesus reserve the lowest parts of hell for those who would offend children? It seems to me that DELIBERATELY making the child suffer would qualify for such a destination. Lucky for the Doctor there is no hell waiting for him. These people believe in religion not spirituality. The simplest kind of morality evades them.
well this is very sad news. this doctor should understand his calling as to not outrightly judge a person out of first appearances who knows what struggles this woman could be going through? it is his service as a christian to preach the Gospel of Jesus to all, whether jew or gentile, not to have selectivity by serving people of a better moral standing! when we were sinners we had earthly morals that were foolishness to God but now we have a chance to have Godly morals and Godly principles.
i hope no one makes a hasty generalization and point fingers at all christians for this man’s mistake, for this man could be serving a different God to us, or following some false narrow minded views due to false interpretation of doctrine.
well i do pray that God may reveal the truth to him on this occurrence and how bad he is making teh Lord look, and gentiles who blaspheme against the Lord such as on this site geta chance to gather evidence so as to accuse the Lord God and further forsake his mercy.
while this doctor did overreact, he has every right to do so. It’s the principle that applies under the law, not the particular family (an ear infection will not kill anyone). Today it might be a woman with a lot of tattoos, but tomorrow it might be a naked transvestite with a dog on a leash. I’m not discriminating against naked transvestites (I’m wearing a nurse suit right now.. lol) but we must understand that if private property is going to mean anything, then we will have to put up with this. Just like there can be businesses where we can have strippers give you lap dances and you can touch their boobs for 50 bucks, there can be businesses where the owners have their own standards. this isn’t a big deal and ya’ll need to get over it.
I find it sickening that many people believe that America is a “Christian country”. America was sought after and founded for 2 important reasons:
1: Wealth
2: (the more important one) Religous freedom.
The first amendment clearly states that the populace of america has their own right to practice their own theism at will and no one can object to it.
And yet some “True christians” believe the complete opposite. This country was supposed to be an example of religous freedom for the rest of the world to follow.
What have we done to our lives…