Enough wrote:And yet more background on the hospital case
here.
Good to see more information, but reading it gave me a very different conclusion than what the author came to.
Brother and husband both arrive at the patient's side. Brother insists the husband will stay out of the picture. Husband starts shouting
in the middle of a hospital, and the hospital asks him to leave
for shouting. He refuses to leave, so the hospital calls in the authorities to enforce it.
At this point, I don't see anything that would have been done differently if it were a straight couple.
If I went in to see my wife at the hospital, and my father-in-law was there telling me to keep out of it, and I started shouting, the hospital would ask me to leave, too. If I refused, they'd call the police.
Once he starts creating a loud disturbance, it isn't ignoring his rights to tell him to get out, it is standard practice. Go start shouting in a hospital. See what happens. I didn't read a single thing in that report that made me think that the hospital had specifically denied him rights because he was gay.
The author of that piece was seriously biased, by the way. He'd decided who was in the right before even writing the piece. The whole section on 'The Violent Arrest' was ignorant. Yes, they took him down, but not until he resisted, holding on to a railing after they'd ordered him to leave. Yes, they assumed he had pathogens and wore gloves. Any cop with a brain will do that on any subject who is bleeding, gay, straight or Catholic nun. It is a basic procedure, as is not putting contaminated handcuffs back into service.