No. She refuses to treat their child because of who they are and that conflicts with her religious beliefs. Where is the love in that?
She never refused to give any needed care...
She refused to provide any care.
I am sorry that you cannot grasp the concept of this being what was loving when otherwise it would almost surely result in conflict and stress, such as them pressuring her to affirm their union and homosexual rearing, or of them objecting to Christian aspects of her care (praying for the child?), and which she felt she could not submit to, then thus indeed it would be better to have someone else handle it.
No, I don't see it. Refusing to have anything to do someone does not seem to be an act of love to me. Just the opposite.
Don't you think conflict would develop, and that it was best to prevent attempting a working relationship with that family rather than have to break ir off later or endure a rocky one, with possible lawsuits?
As I said before, I support this doctor's right to choose to treat anyone she wants and not treat anyone she wants. What I disagree with you on is that love for the parents of the child had anything to do with her decision.
Even if a liberal flag burning antiwar activist brought his truck, which driven in his protest parades, into a conservative patriot body shop worker and said "I want to you to customize my truck," I think that at least for the sake of the good truck he might want to let his liberal mechanic take care for it instead.
And that is the body shop owners right. But don't pretend that act is done out of love either.
So you continue to insist she was lying about her wanting the best for her patients and as "I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients" due to he beliefs thus she made sure another doctor would care for them.
She refused to provide any care.
In the context of ongoing examinations. But not that she would refuse to give any needed essential, as if she left the kid bleeding on the floor. A different context.
No, I don't see it. Refusing to have anything to do someone does not seem to be an act of love to me. Just the opposite.
Well then you need to understand love means doing what is best for the person, which may mean avoiding conflict, and some cases if may be best to let someone else do the driving rather than risk detrimental conflict.
Even family members who love each other sometimes act wisely in avoiding situations ripe for conflict, even if it is Sox vs. Yankees.
The difference is btwn not wanting anything at all to do with a person, versus in a certain context. You must assume the doctor has no desire to help homosexuals at all, and would not do so in a different context, which i said would be wrong, versus not wanting to engage in a long term program with those in an immoral homosexual union training a child which would include promoting a fundamental perversity. Even if they were heterosexuals living together the doc could have done the same. Yet she did help them by ensuring they had care.
What I disagree with you on is that love for the parents of the child had anything to do with her decision.
Due to your view of what love can feel compelled to do in a certain situation, and your assumption that she would not help them at all in a different situation. And which is what this women should have made clear and offered. Even go out to dinner with them and have a heart to heart talk. But not everyone can do that easily. We are not to be homophobic as usually charged, but have compassion, yet with salt and without compromise.
And that is the body shop owners right. But don't pretend that act is done out of love either.
It may not be, but avoiding a working relationship with people you care about can be due to the likelihood of conflicts can be. Even God can refuse to help us in our sinful endeavors.