This story is a little bit older but it directly relates to our conversations this week in class on the religious freedom laws. Last year a doctor in the Novi area denied seeing a newborn baby because her parents were gay and that was against the doctors religion. This story immediately came to mind during the discussion because my father was this doctors real estate agent after she received numerous death threats at her home. These parents went to the doctor for the sake of their baby and to refuse service really upset them. When people are given the right to discriminate against people in benefit of themselves there are typically adverse effects on the other party. These parents were referred to another doctor so the child did end up receiving care but the damage had already been done because of how the doctor made them feel. Is it ethical for religious freedom laws to be in place while they benefit some but are simultaneously making others feel bad or ashamed when trying to get a service. These patients are paying for the service and expertise of the doctor, not to be judged about who they are as person. As we discussed moral relativeness being that something is too immoral for the physician to do herself but not immoral to prevent someone else from doing it. This idea goes to show that it takes out the professionalism in the situation, that the doctor isn’t just there to do her job but rather bring outside unrelated factors into the situation and consequently hurting the feelings of others and potentially putting themselves in danger.