Goth guy initially resfused treatment at Rockyview Hospital

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

I got run over by a pretzel truck once, and I went home to put on a snazzy polo and a pair of peter12-approved leather loafers before heading over to the hospital. It worked as they put me into the luxury section of emergency, with the complimentary handjobs and extra vials of morphine.

Trust me, I probably wouldn't approve.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Just a human troll! Sets out to personally offend random people by wearing a cross upside down, succeeds and then complains about it.And the article says that he was the one that walked away. LOL

It's a hospital. I don't care how offended you are (by a necklace of all things, how petty can you get?), you do NOT get to choose not to admit someone because of it.

This person deserves a strong reprimand, this sort of sh*t is unacceptable and it blew me away when I saw this on Reddit that it happened in my city, of all places.

[Sliver]

haha I know it sounds ridiculous, but the results of my non-scientific study aren't lying.

[Shaggin Wagon]

I think Doctors should be allowed to refuse service. If the doctor felt that he couldn't preform their job up to the necessary standard of care due to being offended over the necklace then that patient should see a different doctor. It's not like we are in Churchill.

Take religion out of this. If the doctor recently had their mother die and a patient has a T-shirt that says I f@#$'d your Mom. Do you think that doctor will do their job to the best of their ability?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Shaggin Wagon

I think Doctors should be allowed to refuse service. If the doctor felt that he couldn't preform their job up to the necessary standard of care due to being offended over the necklace then that patient should see a different doctor. It's not like we are in Churchill.

Take religion out of this. If the doctor recently had their mother die and a patient has a T-shirt that says I f@#$'d your Mom. Do you think that doctor will do their job to the best of their ability?

Yes

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Shaggin Wagon

I think Doctors should be allowed to refuse service. If the doctor felt that he couldn't preform their job up to the necessary standard of care due to being offended over the necklace then that patient should see a different doctor. It's not like we are in Churchill.

Take religion out of this. If the doctor recently had their mother die and a patient has a T-shirt that says I f@#$'d your Mom. Do you think that doctor will do their job to the best of their ability?

I think any doctor who refused service, or performed at anything but their full capabilities, due to being offended by a t-shirt should promptly have their medical license pulled.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Shaggin Wagon

I think Doctors should be allowed to refuse service. If the doctor felt that he couldn't preform their job up to the necessary standard of care due to being offended over the necklace then that patient should see a different doctor. It's not like we are in Churchill.

Take religion out of this. If the doctor recently had their mother die and a patient has a T-shirt that says I f@#$'d your Mom. Do you think that doctor will do their job to the best of their ability?

If we took religion out of this, the idiot clerk wouldn't have been 'offended' over an inverted cross, and this wouldn't be news.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by fotze

True. The person should still be fired. Refusing on the basis that the person is wearing a necklace with two perpendicular sticks, where the horizontal stick is a quarter of an inch lower than you would like indicates severley limited intelligence and possibly the indication of ######ism.

...are you saying someone should be fired because they're possibly ######ed? That's as stupid as someone being refused service because they're wearing a pendant upside down.

Granted, the kid wearing the upside down cross is doing so as a religious/political statement, and a very public one at that - so if he's making the statement, he should be open to the response, otherwise don't wear the flippin' thing.

If I went to a Black Panther meeting in a KKK grubs I wouldn't expect to be welcomed with open arms either. Or if I went to a Canucks game in Vancouver wearing a Flames jersey, I also expect to be hassled. A large part of the population view the cross as a significant/important image, so to openly wear an inverted one is no different than me wearing a gigantic "I HATE N-WORDS" t-shirt. It's a statement that is going to offend people.

Should he have been refused treatment? No, of course not. At least, not in a perfect world - but this is a world filled with people with their own beliefs and opinions - if you're going to wear something as (potentially) offensive as an upside-down cross, you better be prepared to deal with how other people react to it.

[macker]

Poster child of what most people don't want their kids to grow up to be

[Shaggin Wagon]

I actually read the article. My bad, I thought it was the doctor who refused service not the admitting clerk. That clerk had one job, admitting, and he screwed that up.

[Buff]

Based on the goth guy's account the clerk was being unprofessional. We don't have the clerk's account to make a proper decision as to what definitely did happen. That said, I've seen those triage clerks make some poor judgment calls in the past. One of them happened to my friend.

My friend has one good eye, and while playing with his daughters, who were both under the age of 4 at the time, he got an accidental whack to his good eye, causing him pain and blurred vision. So his wife called me up to take him to the hospital so she can stay home with the kids. I did. When he explained the situation to the triage clerk she told him to have a seat. I waited with him for a while, but it was taking long so I left to workout and he would text me when he was ready to go home. Four hours later he finally got in to see the doctor. When he told the doctor what happened he was told that he should have said so to begin with (which he did) because they thought he was in a bar fight and decided to make him wait for being injured under such childish conditions.

[TorqueDog]

Reading the comments from some of the people on the Herald is shocking. Some of them read like we live in the Bible belt. Damn, we have some stupid, short-sighted people here.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

...are you saying someone should be fired because they're possibly ######ed? That's as stupid as someone being refused service because they're wearing a pendant upside down.

I would say reprimanded, though not necessarily fired (unless this isn't the first time). Your beliefs grant you no right to discriminate against others, especially when we're talking about a public service.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If I went to a Black Panther meeting in a KKK grubs I wouldn't expect to be welcomed with open arms either.

Yes, because that's a comparable scenario to walking into a hospital with an inverted cross. Absolutely the same thing.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Granted, the kid wearing the upside down cross is doing so as a religious/political statement, and a very public one at that - so if he's making the statement, he should be open to the response, otherwise don't wear the flippin' thing.

Should he have been refused treatment? No, of course not. At least, not in a perfect world - but this is a world filled with people with their own beliefs and opinions - if you're going to wear something as (potentially) offensive as an upside-down cross, you better be prepared to deal with how other people react to it.

Sorry, this doesn't fly. You're providing a public service, paid for by taxpayers.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If I went to a Black Panther meeting in a KKK grubs I wouldn't expect to be welcomed with open arms either. Or if I went to a Canucks game in Vancouver wearing a Flames jersey, I also expect to be hassled. A large part of the population view the cross as a significant/important image, so to openly wear an inverted one is no different than me wearing a gigantic "I HATE N-WORDS" t-shirt. It's a statement that is going to offend people.

There is a huge difference between racially driven animosity and violence between real people and wearing the inverted symbol of a fictional character.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Reading the comments from some of the people on the Herald is shocking. Some of them read like we live in the Bible belt. Damn, we have some stupid, short-sighted people here.

I would say reprimanded, though not necessarily fired (unless this isn't the first time). Your beliefs grant you no right to discriminate against others, especially when we're talking about a public service.
Yes, because that's a comparable scenario to walking into a hospital with an inverted cross. Absolutely the same thing.

Sorry, this doesn't fly. You're providing a public service, paid for by taxpayers.

I'm surprised none of the WRP supporters on this forum have stopped by to defend the right of the admissions clerk to deny service based on her 'conscience rights'.

Conscience Rights were a controversial part of the WRP platform as they wanted to allow health care professionals the 'right' to deny service for religious reasons.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

There is a huge difference between racially driven animosity and violence between real people and wearing the inverted symbol of a fictional character.

I'm not in the least bit religious - but to say this is to completely invalidate a HUGE number of people's beliefs.

This kid, whether it's fully thought out or not, is making a strong religious (and offensive) statement to a large number of people around the world. It's totally within his rights to do so, but to think or to believe that people shouldn't react to it is wrong and unrealistic. I agree the clerk is in the wrong in this instance, but for the kid to act like a victim and make hooplah out of it and act innocent in it all, is wrong in my opinion.

I personally do not believe there is a huge difference between racially driven animosity and violence between real people and wearing the inverted symbol of one of the largest belief structures ever known to man.

[ken0042]

Once again- we only have one side of the story. The conversation could have gone something like this:

Admitting Clerk- (looks at Goth Guy's cross)
Goth Guy- What are you looking at.
AC- that cross, sorry it bothers me a bit.
GG- Want me to take it off?
AC- That would be great if you wouldn't mind.
GG- Too fataing bad! Go fata yourself and your stupid Christian beliefs!
AC- This isn't going to end well, let me get somebody else to help you.
(AC goes to get somebody else to process the paperwork.)

Of course with all the public attention, the AC has likely been told to keep quiet for the sake of damage control. To me this does seem a little overblown.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'm not in the least bit religious - but to say this is to completely invalidate a HUGE number of people's beliefs.

This kid, whether it's fully thought out or not, is making a strong religious (and offensive) statement to a large number of people around the world. It's totally within his rights to do so, but to think or to believe that people shouldn't react to it is wrong and unrealistic. I agree the clerk is in the wrong in this instance, but for the kid to act like a victim and make hooplah out of it and act innocent in it all, is wrong in my opinion.

I personally do not believe there is a huge difference between racially driven animosity and violence between real people and wearing the inverted symbol of one of the largest belief structures ever known to man.

When they are acting in the capacity of an employee of a medical facility operated by the government it is completely wrong for that person to react to it, or any other statement, regardless of how personally offended that individual may be. There's no room for personal values in that situation whatsoever.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'm not in the least bit religious - but to say this is to completely invalidate a HUGE number of people's beliefs.

I don't care.

This kid, whether it's fully thought out or not, is making a strong religious (and offensive) statement to a large number of people around the world. It's totally within his rights to do so, but to think or to believe that people shouldn't react to it is wrong and unrealistic. I agree the clerk is in the wrong in this instance, but for the kid to act like a victim and make hooplah out of it and act innocent in it all, is wrong in my opinion.

I made the important part bold. Also, while I may not agree with the choice to wear an upside down cross while dressing as a vampire, I do appreciate a good challenge to the status quo.

I personally do not believe there is a huge difference between racially driven animosity and violence between real people and wearing the inverted symbol of one of the largest belief structures ever known to man.

You don't see the difference between people killing each other over ignorance and fear, and someone getting their panties in a bunch because someone's jewelery insulted a character from their favorite book?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm surprised none of the WRP supporters on this forum have stopped by to defend the right of the admissions clerk to deny service based on her 'conscience rights'.

Conscience Rights were a controversial part of the WRP platform as they wanted to allow health care professionals the 'right' to deny service for religious reasons.

I recall that, but First Lady was also quick to point out it was not a part of the party platform but the views of a single member of the WRP. It definitely bothered me when the the 'Conscience rights' story broke because - up to that point - I liked what I was hearing from the WRP.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'm not in the least bit religious - but to say this is to completely invalidate a HUGE number of people's beliefs.

This kid, whether it's fully thought out or not, is making a strong religious (and offensive) statement to a large number of people around the world. It's totally within his rights to do so, but to think or to believe that people shouldn't react to it is wrong and unrealistic. I agree the clerk is in the wrong in this instance, but for the kid to act like a victim and make hooplah out of it and act innocent in it all, is wrong in my opinion.

I personally do not believe there is a huge difference between racially driven animosity and violence between real people and wearing the inverted symbol of one of the largest belief structures ever known to man.

Your (not you specifically) personal beliefs do not matter and having said beliefs gives no one the right not to be offended when someone else's view questions or trivializes them. That is why they are personal beliefs. That your beliefs are brought into question or even invalidated are of no consequence to anyone else but you, and asking everyone else to accommodate your fairy tales while asking someone else to suspend theirs in the process is bull.

Originally Posted by ken0042

Once again- we only have one side of the story. The conversation could have gone something like this:

Admitting Clerk- (looks at Goth Guy's cross)
Goth Guy- What are you looking at.
AC- that cross, sorry it bothers me a bit.
GG- Want me to take it off?
AC- That would be great if you wouldn't mind.
GG- Too fataing bad! Go fata yourself and your stupid Christian beliefs!
AC- This isn't going to end well, let me get somebody else to help you.
(AC goes to get somebody else to process the paperwork.)

Of course with all the public attention, the AC has likely been told to keep quiet for the sake of damage control. To me this does seem a little overblown.

That the admitting clerk even needs to make an issue out of it is ridiculous.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by valo403

When they are acting in the capacity of an employee of a medical facility operated by the government it is completely wrong for that person to react to it, or any other statement, regardless of how personally offended that individual may be. There's no room for personal values in that situation whatsoever.

Well, perhaps we ought to replace admittance clerks with robots - because that's the only way you're going to get someone/thing to act exactly that way.