So you can not allow her motivation as being loving since he reasons for transferring care was that "I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients. I felt that was not fair to the two of you or to Bay. I felt that you deserved that type of relationship and I knew you could could get that with Dr. Karam."
But I just can't grasp the concept of "I love you so much I refuse to have anything to do with you or your kid" that you seem to see in this whole affair.
She never refused to give any needed care, but deferred a "wellness" check and any further visits to another doctor at no delay or inconvenience to them. 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.
In addition, i think i recall that the doctor engaged in a kind of holistic care, and a pediatrician's care can continue up to 18 years of age. Meanwhile, the lesbian parents will (ab)normally raise that innocent child to be a homosexual, or inclined to be so. 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?
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.
But in reality he should be able to refuse any such service.
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.