Homosexual Rights trump religious freedom

[avatar4321]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=218780


The same California Supreme Court that created a "right" to homosexual "marriage" earlier this year has now ruled that the state may force healthcare professionals to provide services that support an immoral and physically dangerous lifestyle.

California's highest court was unanimous in its decision on Monday that Christian doctors may not refuse to perform artificial insemination for homosexual patients. (See "California court says no religious exemption for doctors") Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), reacts to the ruling.

"This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to live and practice their faith," he states bluntly. "Forcing doctors to have to choose between being a doctor and being a Christian in the State of California is an outrageous violation of the fundamental rights of every American to be able to practice their faith and not to have to leave their occupation because of it."

In the case in question, the Christian doctors refused to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian patient, but did refer her to another doctor who would perform the elective treatment. Dacus says that proves this suit was not about guaranteeing "healthcare" for homosexuals, but instead about punishing Christians for obeying God's Word.

"This is not about denying people services," the attorney argues. "This is, instead, about the 'thought police' attempting to censor Christian beliefs and Christian perspectives that don't agree with homosexuality. We're talking...about individuals being able to force doctors or other professionals to violate their faith in order to keep their job." And that, he adds, is a clear violation of the rights of individuals to be able to practice their expertise and, at the same time, not to have to deny their faith.


This infuriates me. How dare the Courts tell any person they have to preform elective procedures that violate their religious viewpoints. When is this bullcrap political correctness going to stop?

[darin]

i'd be sad, but understand if we saw an exodus of christian doctors from CA.

[Abbey Marie]

We Christians are so accepting of these types of things. It will really come to a head when a Muslim doctor, counselor, etc., refuses to treat.

[Missileman]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=218780



This infuriates me. How dare the Courts tell any person they have to preform elective procedures that violate their religious viewpoints. When is this bullcrap political correctness going to stop?

Surely you don't have any objection to a Christian doctor refusing treatment to members of other religions then.

[Kathianne]

Surely you don't have any objection to a Christian doctor refusing treatment to members of other religions then.

Hello? Doctors refusing to treat being OK?

[Missileman]

Hello? Doctors refusing to treat being OK?

The argument being put forth in the OP is that Christian doctors should be able to refuse treatment of patients for religious reasons...those would certainly include patients who worship a non-Christian god. And NO, I don't think it's okay.

[avatar4321]

Surely you don't have any objection to a Christian doctor refusing treatment to members of other religions then.

We aren't talking denying treatment. We are talking about refusing to do elective procedures for a specific moral reason.

And assuming it wasn't an emergency, I'd have no problem if someone objected treating someone for religious reasons or differences. It's their right to live life as they choose. If you don't want to do work for someone, you shouldn't have to

[Missileman]

We aren't talking denying treatment. We are talking about refusing to do elective procedures for a specific moral reason.

And assuming it wasn't an emergency, I'd have no problem if someone objected treating someone for religious reasons or differences. It's their right to live life as they choose. If you don't want to do work for someone, you shouldn't have to

Then these doctors should avoid getting licensed in states that prohibit this particular type of discrimination.

[Kathianne]

The argument being put forth in the OP is that Christian doctors should be able to refuse treatment of patients for religious reasons...those would certainly include patients who worship a non-Christian god. And NO, I don't think it's okay.
Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion. No. A doctor being forced to deal with the aftermath, regarding health of the mother? Yes.

There are plenty of doctors willing to perform under Roe v Wade, until it's repealed, no one should interfere with. On the other hand, forcing doctors to do what seems a violation of their oath, no.

[avatar4321]

Then these doctors should avoid getting licensed in states that prohibit this particular type of discrimination.

The law is unjust. People should be free to do business with whom they choose.

[Missileman]

Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion. No. A doctor being forced to deal with the aftermath, regarding health of the mother? Yes.

There are plenty of doctors willing to perform under Roe v Wade, until it's repealed, no one should interfere with. On the other hand, forcing doctors to do what seems a violation of their oath, no.

We're not talking about forcing a doctor to perform abortions. We're talking about whether a doctor has the right to refuse service within his/her chosen specialty to a patient based on the doctor's moral beliefs.

[Missileman]

The law is unjust. People should be free to do business with whom they choose.

The doctor is "free to do business" in another state.

[gabosaurus]

Anyone got a reference to this issue from a source other than a right-wing blog?

[emmett]

You know oddly enough it would seem obvious to anyone that a Christian does not believe in abortion. Being that a Christian also would choose not to start life in this wierd and distorted manner seems relevant given that there is no father for this child. A judge, placing himself above God in this instance has ruled a Christian MUST perform this service. Hmmm!!!

Okay, now that I have the details straight...................Whoa!!!! Unt-uh! This isn't happening. What is really taking place here is that we have entered a space of no return, a strange place where what you think is real is not real. We are traveling to another dimension, a dimension of time and space. We have entered........................................... ..The Twilight Zone!

That is the sole stupidest decision I have ever seen in my life. So now we can force a Christian doctor to go against his personal relationship with God and start life in a homosexual person (female only I trust). There are several reasons why this is wrong. Notwithstanding that a homosexual is a somewhat dimented person from the onset, which would cause a doctor to question their ability to parent a child, it is wrong to bring a child into the world who is not naturally conceived also. Many doctors don't believe in artificial insemination at all. There will be no father, the child is being offered no "choice" of life style being that the "mommies" will almost certainly teach this child that men are horrible creatures and serve one purpose and then there is the last point. It's wrong!!!!
Almost makes you think it dosen't pay to be a doctor. Oh silly me, it pays good! They'll get over it.

On a serious note, can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion? mWhat a horrible feeling that would be to be forced to perform an abortion. I mean hell, what a horrible thing it is anyway but since we can't stop it can't we at least provide guidelines that don't restict a persons religion from directly being compromised by making them do it. I would think a doctor who was a Christian would place these events on fairly equal planes.

How can anyone force a Doctor to perform this procedure anyway? Would a homosexual woman really want a doctor who does not believe it is right to perform it.

Couldn't the doctor just raise the fee out of sight for this procedure so it would not be affordable? Will then the state of California "regulate" the prices os this procedure. This law just sucks all the way around.

[diuretic]

It reminds of the folks who jump up and down and insist that a Sikh who wants to be a cop has to wear a cap or a helmet like everyone else or he (only men wear a turban) can find another line of work.

If a doctor won't practise medicine in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath and various statues that govern their profession and medical practice standards then they can do something else, like be a veterinary surgeon.

[midcan5]

The law is unjust. People should be free to do business with whom they choose.

WOW - think about that for a second!

"...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Seems to me if you don't want to perform the functions that a doctor performs become a minister/priest/rabbi - keep your personal values out of an area that doesn't make you judge and jury over the life of another, you are a doctor not God.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[bullypulpit]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=218780



This infuriates me. How dare the Courts tell any person they have to preform elective procedures that violate their religious viewpoints. When is this bullcrap political correctness going to stop?

It's about equal protection under the law. You know...the Fourteenth Amendment, Para 1 of the US Constitution. And it is the Constitution which is the law of the land, not the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran or any other religious tract.

[Immanuel]

WOW - think about that for a second!

"...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Seems to me if you don't want to perform the functions that a doctor performs become a minister/priest/rabbi - keep your personal values out of an area that doesn't make you judge and jury over the life of another, you are a doctor not God.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.



It's about equal protection under the law. You know...the Fourteenth Amendment, Para 1 of the US Constitution. And it is the Constitution which is the law of the land, not the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran or any other religious tract.

I believe you are both wrong... 100% wrong in fact.

As a Christian accountant, I would not be forced to perform tax services for a bordello in Nevada or a porn shop if I felt the business was immoral. I could simply refuse to take them as a client.

These procedures are elective and a doctor should not be required to perform them if he thinks they are immoral or even if he thinks the "couple" are not the kind of people he wants to do business with. If they were White Supremists and told him they were going to raise their child to be the next Adolf Hitler, he should have the right to refuse to serve them, just as he should have the right to refuse services to lesbians because he thinks it is immoral.

He is not refusing them life saving care. That would be a completely different story. He is simply refusing to take them as patients to perform a procedure that is not needed for their well being.

This is no different than forcing him to perform abortions against his beliefs. In fact, that is probably the goal of the courts. First this issue next forcing doctors to perform abortions against their beliefs. Once they get this wrapped up the precedence will be established and doctors will no longer be safe to use moral or religious beliefs as a reason for not performing abortions.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

It reminds of the folks who jump up and down and insist that a Sikh who wants to be a cop has to wear a cap or a helmet like everyone else or he (only men wear a turban) can find another line of work.

If a doctor won't practise medicine in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath and various statues that govern their profession and medical practice standards then they can do something else, like be a veterinary surgeon.

So, what happens when a Muslim vet refuses to treat somone's pet pig?

[Missileman]

This is no different than forcing him to perform abortions against his beliefs. In fact, that is probably the goal of the courts. First this issue next forcing doctors to perform abortions against their beliefs. Once they get this wrapped up the precedence will be established and doctors will no longer be safe to use moral or religious beliefs as a reason for not performing abortions.

Immie

Oh Yeah! I can see the signs now! Joe Bob's Opthamology and Abortion Clinic. :poke:

[Yurt]

So, what happens when a Muslim vet refuses to treat somone's pet pig?

the aclu will send a platoon of lawyers to defend the muslim and crucify the christians who love the pig

[Yurt]

WOW - think about that for a second!

"...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Seems to me if you don't want to perform the functions that a doctor performs become a minister/priest/rabbi - keep your personal values out of an area that doesn't make you judge and jury over the life of another, you are a doctor not God.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

why don't YOU think about it for a moment....YOU are denying someone their pursuit of happiness...if they want to be a doctor and that makes them happy, you are denying them their RIGHT to personal values. you are denying them their right to pursue happiness as a doctor.

your thinking is against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering

[DragonStryk72]

The issue here seems to be getting confused with the idea that it's a life-saving, necessary thing. It's not, and while I disagree with the doctors who won't do it on religious grounds (I'm sorry, artificial insemination wasn't mention in any of the text during my 6 years of catholic school), this is not a necessary procedure, and in that, violates in no way the Hyppocratic Oath.

As well, this doctor declined, but he as well pointed out where they could get it done at, so I see no issue here. This could have been handled much more effective with a boycott of the office, since most medical offices have a small group of patients, and are therefore easily swayed by a shift in those patients.

[diuretic]

So, what happens when a Muslim vet refuses to treat somone's pet pig?

:laugh2:

What a great question. I have no idea, what do you think should happen Abbey?

[bullypulpit]

I believe you are both wrong... 100% wrong in fact.

As a Christian accountant, I would not be forced to perform tax services for a bordello in Nevada or a porn shop if I felt the business was immoral. I could simply refuse to take them as a client.

These procedures are elective and a doctor should not be required to perform them if he thinks they are immoral or even if he thinks the "couple" are not the kind of people he wants to do business with. If they were White Supremists and told him they were going to raise their child to be the next Adolf Hitler, he should have the right to refuse to serve them, just as he should have the right to refuse services to lesbians because he thinks it is immoral.

He is not refusing them life saving care. That would be a completely different story. He is simply refusing to take them as patients to perform a procedure that is not needed for their well being.

This is no different than forcing him to perform abortions against his beliefs. In fact, that is probably the goal of the courts. First this issue next forcing doctors to perform abortions against their beliefs. Once they get this wrapped up the precedence will be established and doctors will no longer be safe to use moral or religious beliefs as a reason for not performing abortions.

Immie

While I'm not demeaning your profession, accountancy is not in the same league as health care, either in terms of responsibility or training. Part of a physician's/nurse's training deals with the care of all who come to them. If one is not willing to do so, health care should not be a career choice.

If a physician does not want to provide abortion services, it is incumbent upon him/her to refer the patient to a physician who will perform said medical procedure. And physicians DO have the right to refuse care to patients, particularly with regard to elective procedures. Even in the case of non-elective procedures or care, physicians can give the patient 30 days notice to find another provider and then terminate their relationship with the patient after that time period. But we're not talking about abortions now, are we.

And, of course, the services provided by IVF clinics aren't an issue, as long as they are provided only to straight couples. All those 'snowflake babies' being tossed out as medical waste.

[darin]

Bully, would you force Pastors to perform marriage ceremonies over Homosexual couples, if the marriage violated principles of the Pastor's faith?

[Immanuel]

While I'm not demeaning your profession, accountancy is not in the same league as health care, either in terms of responsibility or training. Part of a physician's/nurse's training deals with the care of all who come to them. If one is not willing to do so, health care should not be a career choice.

If a physician does not want to provide abortion services, it is incumbent upon him/her to refer the patient to a physician who will perform said medical procedure. And physicians DO have the right to refuse care to patients, particularly with regard to elective procedures. Even in the case of non-elective procedures or care, physicians can give the patient 30 days notice to find another provider and then terminate their relationship with the patient after that time period. But we're not talking about abortions now, are we.

And, of course, the services provided by IVF clinics aren't an issue, as long as they are provided only to straight couples. All those 'snowflake babies' being tossed out as medical waste.

The point is BP, as you have pointed out, that the physician has a right to refuse service to patients. He has done so here. IVF is an elective surgery and the physician has every right to decide who he wants as patients. We are not talking about turning away a dieing patient here. We're talking about turning someone away who can choose to see another physician without any health concerns.

I do not believe any physician is REQUIRED to refer a patient to abortion clinics, at least not yet, thank God!

Also, I agree with DragonStryk. I don't agree with the physician's stance. I am Christian but I don't think this physician is handling the case correctly. I do support his right to choose with whom he will do business on any grounds he so chooses up until the time that he puts a patient's health at risk.

Immie

[bullypulpit]

Bully, would you force Pastors to perform marriage ceremonies over Homosexual couples, if the marriage violated principles of the Pastor's faith?

Again, it's not the same thing. It's not even apples and oranges. But how can physicians provide IVF services to traditional couples, yet deny those same services to otherwise qualified and suitable lesbian couples? If a physician has 'moral' issues about providing those services, he/she must provide a referral to a physician or clinic which will. The only exception would be where such services are not immediately available from another practice.

This, of course begs the question of just why and how it would be 'immoral' and 'unhealthy' for a lesbian couple to have a child.

[bullypulpit]

The point is BP, as you have pointed out, that the physician has a right to refuse service to patients. He has done so here. IVF is an elective surgery and the physician has every right to decide who he wants as patients. We are not talking about turning away a dieing patient here. We're talking about turning someone away who can choose to see another physician without any health concerns.

I do not believe any physician is REQUIRED to refer a patient to abortion clinics, at least not yet, thank God!

Also, I agree with DragonStryk. I don't agree with the physician's stance. I am Christian but I don't think this physician is handling the case correctly. I do support his right to choose with whom he will do business on any grounds he so chooses up until the time that he puts a patient's health at risk.

Immie

Are IVF services elective for traditional couples who cannot conceive absent such intervention?

And, of course there is the issue of there not being another provider of these services. Is it fair to ask lesbian couples to undertake the unnecessary and possibly restrictive expense of traveling to another city to receive the same services that would be provided to a traditional couple without complaint or issue? In a word, no.

[Immanuel]

Again, it's not the same thing. It's not even apples and oranges. But how can physicians provide IVF services to traditional couples, yet deny those same services to otherwise qualified and suitable lesbian couples? If a physician has 'moral' issues about providing those services, he/she must provide a referral to a physician or clinic which will. The only exception would be where such services are not immediately available from another practice.

This, of course begs the question of just why and how it would be 'immoral' and 'unhealthy' for a lesbian couple to have a child.

Can you tell me where you are coming up with this idea?

Immie

[Immanuel]

Are IVF services elective for traditional couples who cannot conceive absent such intervention?

And, of course there is the issue of there not being another provider of these services. Is it fair to ask lesbian couples to undertake the unnecessary and possibly restrictive expense of traveling to another city to receive the same services that would be provided to a traditional couple without complaint or issue? In a word, no.

Yes, they are.

In fact, I do not believe that Health Insurance companies even cover the procedure, although, I am not 100% certain of that.

Immie

[Hobbit]

Again, it's not the same thing. It's not even apples and oranges. But how can physicians provide IVF services to traditional couples, yet deny those same services to otherwise qualified and suitable lesbian couples? If a physician has 'moral' issues about providing those services, he/she must provide a referral to a physician or clinic which will. The only exception would be where such services are not immediately available from another practice.

This, of course begs the question of just why and how it would be 'immoral' and 'unhealthy' for a lesbian couple to have a child.

I could answer how it would be immoral or unhealthy for a lesbian couple to raise a child, but that's far outside the point. The point is that this doctor, a private individual protected by the U.S. Constitution, cannot, by law, be compelled to do business with those he does not wish to do business with. He doesn't have to prove his case to you or anybody else. He just has to say, "Sorry, I don't want to do business with you." What you are advocating is forcing somebody, at the point of a gun, to perform a service which he thinks is morally wrong, all in the name of fairness. This isn't about saving a life. It isn't even about treating a medical condition. It's that a couple of lesbians see a child as a nice, in vogue item and they want to pay to have one. It's not like there's nowhere else they can go.

[midcan5]

I don't understand how one can provide some service and then based on religion deny service to people or pigs? Why would you not serve a porn shop or a brothel, they are legal entities? Our country was founded on the idea that people are treated equally and are allowed their individuality. I look at this as a breakdown of the separation between church and state and another divisive issue that can be played in all sorts of stupid ways. In the end if one serves their religion ahead of their responsibility as a citizen they are forsaking for themselves the same rights as a citizen.

[Abbey Marie]

:laugh2:

What a great question. I have no idea, what do you think should happen Abbey?

What should happen: The vet refers the customer to another local vet who happily treats pigs. The customer understands that the Muslim vet has religious and cultural objections, and goes on his merry way to the other vet. Everyone is cool, and third parties keep their noses out of it. Piggy gets better and resumes his truffle-sniffing career.
Caveat: If the pig needs emergency treatment, the vet should give it life-saving treatment, then transfer it to another vet.

What would happen in our PC/victim-obsessed society: The ACLU funds a lawsuit for the Muslim vet against the customer for emotional distress, putting him out of business. Also, they try to get the police to prosecute the customer for a hate crime.

Repercussions:
Piggy, and other neigborhood animals, die for lack of a solvent vet to treat them.
No truffles for the forseeable future.
Local gov't spends millions on "awareness" of the Muslim culture, so no one will offend their fragile egos. Now bankrupt and without funds for crucial community services like a fire dep't or ambulances, community houses burn and people die without medical treatment.

:cheers2:

[Immanuel]

I don't understand how one can provide some service and then based on religion deny service to people or pigs? Why would you not serve a porn shop or a brothel, they are legal entities? Our country was founded on the idea that people are treated equally and are allowed their individuality. I look at this as a breakdown of the separation between church and state and another divisive issue that can be played in all sorts of stupid ways. In the end if one serves their religion ahead of their responsibility as a citizen they are forsaking for themselves the same rights as a citizen.

So, I take it you believe in forcing people to perform services against their will. In other words, you support the continuation of slavery.

Why would I not perform services for a brothel or a porn shop even though they are legal entities? Perhaps because I believe that the services they perform are detrimental to the health of society? Perhaps because I do not want my services to aid something that is immoral. Just because something is legal does not make it right.


Our country was founded on the idea that people are treated equally and are allowed their individuality

This has got to be the most hypocritical thing I have ever read coming off your fingertips if not the most hypocritical thing I have ever read on one of these boards!

My friend, you are willing to grant individuality to the lesbians in this case. You are willing to grant individuality to the hypothetical brothel madam or porn shop owner, but you refuse individuality to the religious accountant or the very real doctor who doesn't want to perform services that he feels are morally wrong. That is hypocritical in my books.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

...
My friend, you are willing to grant individuality to the lesbians in this case. You are willing to grant individuality to the hypothetical brothel madam or porn shop owner, but you refuse individuality to the religious accountant or the very real doctor who doesn't want to perform services that he feels are morally wrong. That is hypocritical in my books.

Immie

Dang, that was good, Immie. :thumb:

[retiredman]

It reminds of the folks who jump up and down and insist that a Sikh who wants to be a cop has to wear a cap or a helmet like everyone else or he (only men wear a turban) can find another line of work.

If a doctor won't practise medicine in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath and various statues that govern their profession and medical practice standards then they can do something else, like be a veterinary surgeon.

well said!

[emmett]

Each and every time government at State or Federal level is burdened with deciding what we can or cannot do in our business markerplace a travesty of sorts takes place. Nonwithstanding this particular issue, what about our choice? The doctor does not want to service this customer. It should stop there. Next will the doctor be required to provide this service at a particular price? Use a certain method "approved" by government? What next?

The accountant does not believe in porn, prostitution and immoral activity, which this sort of thing certainly is. Why is this subject seemingly so hard to understand?

The doctor is not refusing to "treat the sick". The doctor has not turned away a person of medical need. The doctor gave a referral to this ah..........prospective mother/father ?????? duo, ??????????????.

Socialism is only but around the corner folks. As we discuss these issues we represent different sides and make our arguments, all the while not realizing that the shadow os Socialism creeps closer to our door every day.

Government regulates or controls what we can eat at fast food resturants now, who we can service, rather we spank our children, how fast we can drive, how we live, eat , breathe and sleep. They can also oversee the bulldozing of grandma's house so a condominium complex can be built in place of her beautiful historic residence where you climbed trees in the yard as a child.

These types of decisions are going to continue to be made until the people put governments ability to do so in check!

[midcan5]

So, I take it you believe in forcing people to perform services against their will. In other words, you support the continuation of slavery.

Why would I not perform services for a brothel or a porn shop even though they are legal entities? Perhaps because I believe that the services they perform are detrimental to the health of society? Perhaps because I do not want my services to aid something that is immoral. Just because something is legal does not make it right.

No offense but that is one distorted reply. Slavery was not a service, and the people in the South fought hard to maintain slavery, which is the ownership of a person. Slavery was changed by our constitution, not even religion did that, as religion was used to justify it. Slavery is a crime against a person.

If all services were based on a person's judgment about the rightness of some behavior model, that would make for a pretty weird judgment scale. You use religion but I could choose some other criterion. A lawyer would never be able to defend a person, as neutrality and an assumption of innocence is required. Again this is a civil issue and it is guided by our laws. I refuse nothing to the doctor who refuses to do his job because he is judging another based on religion. I just think he should not enter a field in which his moral perspective causes him to discriminate against people just as you would do.

I am willing to grant individuality to everyone but your individuality does not give you the right to judge. It does give you the right to be treated as all other citizens of America are treated.

[midcan5]

The accountant does not believe in porn, prostitution and immoral activity, which this sort of thing certainly is. Why is this subject seemingly so hard to understand?

OT Why are porn or prostitution immoral activities - except that government and some religions say they are. Every boy on this site engaged in one and many in both. Girls are someone different must be the way we are made.

[Kathianne]

OT Why are porn or prostitution immoral activities - except that government and some religions say they are. Every boy on this site engaged in one and many in both. Girls are someone different must be the way we are made.

I think the assumption that all did one or the other is a fallacy. They are immoral because they undermine the union between one male and one female. That we've made it easier for females to do what males have doesn't improve the situation.

[Immanuel]

If all services were based on a person's judgment about the rightness of some behavior model, that would make for a pretty weird judgment scale. You use religion but I could choose some other criterion.

You are right you CAN choose some other criterion and you should be thankful that you live in a nation that allows you to make such a choice.




A lawyer would never be able to defend a person, as neutrality and an assumption of innocence is required. Again this is a civil issue and it is guided by our laws.

A lawyer can choose to defend or not to defend a person. A lawyer is not compelled to take a client. A serial killer could not walk into F. Lee Bailey's office and demand that F. Lee represent him. He can ask for F. Lee's help. He cannot demand it.

There are attorneys who's job it is to defend criminals when the criminal cannot attain their own lawyers. These attorneys are called public defenders. It is their JOB to defend the indefensible, but even then if there is a problem they can request another attorney be assigned to the case.



I refuse nothing to the doctor who refuses to do his job because he is judging another based on religion. I just think he should not enter a field in which his moral perspective causes him to discriminate against people just as you would do.

That may be your belief but you are not the judge here.

Many, many professions have certain issues that someone who is doing their job would object to. I am certain the medical profession is no different and, once again, we are not talking about a medical condition here. The lesbians in question will not suffer any physical ailment if this doctor does not treat them and under no circumstances should he be compelled to do so if it is against his moral judgment.



I am willing to grant individuality to everyone but your individuality does not give you the right to judge. It does give you the right to be treated as all other citizens of America are treated.

It seems to me that you are the one who is judging here. You judge the doctor.

You are not willing to grant him his own individuality. You seek to compel him to perform services he is uncomfortable with.

Immie

[Immanuel]

OT Why are porn or prostitution immoral activities - except that government and some religions say they are. Every boy on this site engaged in one and many in both. Girls are someone different must be the way we are made.


I think the assumption that all did one or the other is a fallacy. They are immoral because they undermine the union between one male and one female. That we've made it easier for females to do what males have doesn't improve the situation.

To add to Kathianne's remark, I learned a long time ago that the excuse, "everyone does it", doesn't cut it. If I use drugs (and I don't) and I get busted that excuse won't get me out of jail free just because "everyone does it".

Immie

[midcan5]

You are not willing to grant him his own individuality. You seek to compel him to perform services he is uncomfortable with.

Back on OT. Where we differ here, for me, is the doctor who discriminates against a person because of their own religion is in the wrong. No one has the right to discriminate against another based on their religion, it should not enter into the public contract. And coincidentally I turned on cspan a bit ago and Sam Harris was telling all we should have slaves as the bible tells us so. You obviously feel the doctor has the right to treat people based on their beliefs. We're not going to change. Bringing 'faith' into the public sphere will never be justified in my opinion. I don't want a world ruled by religion.

OT And any man on this site who has never viewed pornography at some point in their life, would be about as unlike boys as I can imagine. But my question is deeper than that, why are they immoral if no one is hurt and they give pleasure to some, even the bible condones these things.

[Immanuel]

Back on OT. Where we differ here, for me, is the doctor who discriminates against a person because of their own religion is in the wrong. No one has the right to discriminate against another based on their religion, it should not enter into the public contract. And coincidentally I turned on cspan a bit ago and Sam Harris was telling all we should have slaves as the bible tells us so. You obviously feel the doctor has the right to treat people based on their beliefs. We're not going to change. Bringing 'faith' into the public sphere will never be justified in my opinion. I don't want a world ruled by religion.

OT And any man on this site who has never viewed pornography at some point in their life, would be about as unlike boys as I can imagine. But my question is deeper than that, why are they immoral if no one is hurt and they give pleasure to some, even the bible condones these things.

Well, you are wrong again.

He is not refusing service to them because of their beliefs. For all we know, the two lesbians may very well be Christians themselves albeit sinful Christians... as if I am not. The doctor is refusing them his services because he feels that what they want to do is immoral. It has nothing to do with their beliefs. Nothing at all. It is his moral code that says what these woman want is wrong.

No where does it say that he is refusing them service because they are Muslim, Jewish or of any other religious beliefs. If that were the reason than he would be a bigot and discriminatory. This is nothing more than a moral issue for him.

Would you force him to perform abortions? Never mind... I think I know the answer to that.

Prostitution is immoral because of how woman are treated. They are treated more like cattle than human beings. You may want to claim that no one is hurt by prostitution, but I must say, I would have to disagree with you there.

Porn? Well, I imagine there are a significant number of women who are treated as cattle by the porn industry as well. I'll not say that I have never viewed pornography or even that I have not enjoyed it as well. That doesn't make it right. People enjoy drugs too. That doesn't make it right.

I'm sure there are others who can come up with other reasons why porn and prostitution are immoral such as the spreading of STD's, but this is only an example.

You seem to think that simply because something is legal that makes it right. I'd have to disagree with you there. Also, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is wrong. It is illegal to jaywalk. My jaywalking is not hurting anyone at all, why should it be illegal? Casual use of drugs doesn't hurt anyone else, right? But even casual usage is illegal. Gambling is legal in many states, yet many people are severely hurt by gambling addictions Not only the addict, but his/her family can be hurt or even die due to a person's addiction to gambling. But, still gambling is legal.

Your argument doesn't hold water, my friend.

You don't want a world ruled by religion? Funny, that doesn't even apply here. No one is ruling anything based on religion or anything else in this case. Yet, people of your point of view are actually attempting to force others who see things differently than you do to give up their beliefs and follow your point of view. Wait a minute! Who's trying to rule whom here?

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Back on OT. Where we differ here, for me, is the doctor who discriminates against a person because of their own religion is in the wrong. No one has the right to discriminate against another based on their religion, it should not enter into the public contract. And coincidentally I turned on cspan a bit ago and Sam Harris was telling all we should have slaves as the bible tells us so. You obviously feel the doctor has the right to treat people based on their beliefs. We're not going to change. Bringing 'faith' into the public sphere will never be justified in my opinion. I don't want a world ruled by religion.

OT And any man on this site who has never viewed pornography at some point in their life, would be about as unlike boys as I can imagine. But my question is deeper than that, why are they immoral if no one is hurt and they give pleasure to some, even the bible condones these things.


Show me where Jesus condoned prostitution. Here's a hint: if he forgave someone for it, that means He considered it sin in the first place.

Your assumption that no one is hurt is naive.

[5stringJeff]

WOW - think about that for a second!

"...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Seems to me if you don't want to perform the functions that a doctor performs become a minister/priest/rabbi - keep your personal values out of an area that doesn't make you judge and jury over the life of another, you are a doctor not God.

It is amazing that you are so blind to what you write. The issue at stake is the doctor's liberty to do business with whom he pleases.

[5stringJeff]

I don't understand how one can provide some service and then based on religion deny service to people or pigs? Why would you not serve a porn shop or a brothel, they are legal entities? Our country was founded on the idea that people are treated equally and are allowed their individuality. I look at this as a breakdown of the separation between church and state and another divisive issue that can be played in all sorts of stupid ways. In the end if one serves their religion ahead of their responsibility as a citizen they are forsaking for themselves the same rights as a citizen.

Again, you are way off base. Ever see a sign in a business that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" Any business can refuse to do business with any customer, for any reason. That's freedom of association. Forcing businesses to do business with people they don't want to, as you suggest, is injecting the state into business relationships, and is a hallmark of socialism.

The 14th Amendment says that people are to be treated equally under the law. It does not say that, in private relationships, people must be non-discriminatory.

[midcan5]

Well, you are wrong again.

He is not refusing service to them because of their beliefs.

Not their beliefs his beliefs. His education/support/hospital etc etc are all part of the public sphere, in that sphere those women have the same rights as other women. He is discriminating against them based on his religious beliefs. I think that is wrong and so did the court.



Show me where Jesus condoned prostitution. Here's a hint: if he forgave someone for it, that means He considered it sin in the first place.

Your assumption that no one is hurt is naive.

Don't think i said Jesus, and just for argument suppose it is mutually agreed that the experience is good for all.


It is amazing that you are so blind to what you write. The issue at stake is the doctor's liberty to do business with whom he pleases.

What about the person's rights, do they not count. see above i have answered this often

[actsnoblemartin]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=218780



This infuriates me. How dare the Courts tell any person they have to preform elective procedures that violate their religious viewpoints. When is this bullcrap political correctness going to stop?

:clap:

[actsnoblemartin]

i dont understand, not every doctor is christian, why cant they just find a doctor that is willing to do the procedure or should all doctors be forced to do any procedure they dont wanna do no matter what


Not their beliefs his beliefs. His education/support/hospital etc etc are all part of the public sphere, in that sphere those women have the same rights as other women. He is discriminating against them based on his religious beliefs. I think that is wrong and so did the court.




Don't think i said Jesus, and just for argument suppose it is mutually agreed that the experience is good for all.



What about the person's rights, do they not count. see above i have answered this often

[retiredman]

i dont understand, not every doctor is christian, why cant they just find a doctor that is willing to do the procedure or should all doctors be forced to do any procedure they dont wanna do no matter what
if the doctor takes federal funds, he limits his options, don't you think?

[Immanuel]

Not their beliefs his beliefs. His education/support/hospital etc etc are all part of the public sphere, in that sphere those women have the same rights as other women. He is discriminating against them based on his religious beliefs. I think that is wrong and so did the court.



Wow... a liberal California court that doesn't follow the U.S. Constitution and in fact has been attempting to destroy it for years agrees with you. Is that supposed to impress me?

He's not discriminating against them. He is simply exercising his right to choose with whom he does business.

To be fair though, I will state that GWB is also doing his part in destroying the Constitution.

Immie

[Yurt]

you cannot equate wearing a standard uniform to practicing medicine diuretic. a doctor does not have to treat everyone by taking the oath. they can for instance choose solely to practice plastic surgery or to not take insurance. very different than wearing a uniform where you do not take individual patients as they come....

[diuretic]

Yurt, that may be the case extant - I suppose I'm thinking it shouldn't be. I think I'm looking at the obligation a physician has to a person in need as opposed to the ability of a physician to pick and choose and, yes, I'm taking a normative approach.

[My Winter Storm]

This infuriates me. How dare the Courts tell any person they have to preform elective procedures that violate their religious viewpoints. When is this bullcrap political correctness going to stop?

This makes me happy. Those doctors were being PAID to do a job. If you can't do your job, find something else. Don't bring your religion to work. Did they advertise their business as being 'Christian'? If so, they may have a case. Fact is, no one cares what their religion is, if you choose a job where your religion may get in the way, you might be better off looking for something else.

[My Winter Storm]

i dont understand, not every doctor is christian, why cant they just find a doctor that is willing to do the procedure or should all doctors be forced to do any procedure they dont wanna do no matter what

The point is Martin, is that these doctors would have known that lesbian women are allowed access to fertility treatment, and knowing that, they should have asked themselves what they would do if a lesbian asked them to help her. If their religion was going to interefere with their job, then they should not be in that job, should they?

That would be like having an abortion doctor who is pro life, refusing to perform abortions because his religious beliefs are against it.

There is no point being in a job when your religion may interefere.

[My Winter Storm]

If the business was owned and run by these doctors, then they have the right to refuse treatment to whoever they please - but they should be specific in letting people know that they will not treat certain people.

[midcan5]

i dont understand, not every doctor is christian, why cant they just find a doctor that is willing to do the procedure or should all doctors be forced to do any procedure they dont wanna do no matter what

"I don't understand why can't they go to a Black doctor..."
"I don't understand why can't they go to a Hispanic doctor..."
"I don't understand why can't they go to a Hebrew doctor..."
why can't they go to their own schools....
why can't they live in their neighborhoods....
why can't they go someplace else....

Sounds like a Seinfeld episode, you know dentalist.

[Missileman]

He's not discriminating against them. He is simply exercising his right to choose with whom he does business.

Immie

Sorry, but he is in fact, no doubt, absolutely engaging in discrimination.

[Immanuel]

If the business was owned and run by these doctors, then they have the right to refuse treatment to whoever they please - but they should be specific in letting people know that they will not treat certain people.


You know you bring up a good point. I have entered this discussion as I understand the case to be that this doctor is in his own practice which I believe gives him the right to decide for whom he provides services. If I am wrong on this and he is working within a practice in which he is not a partner, then that would change things.

It seems to me though that he is in his own practice which gives him the right to decide whom he wants to serve.

Under Midcan's point of view, if a person walked into his office having already stiffed the doctor out of thousands and thousands of dollars, the doctor would still be required to provide services because he cannot refuse service to anyone.

Immie

[Yurt]

Yurt, that may be the case extant - I suppose I'm thinking it shouldn't be. I think I'm looking at the obligation a physician has to a person in need as opposed to the ability of a physician to pick and choose and, yes, I'm taking a normative approach.

all nuances aside, of course i'm right :laugh2:

[midcan5]

Under Midcan's point of view, if a person walked into his office having already stiffed the doctor out of thousands and thousands of dollars, the doctor would still be required to provide services because he cannot refuse service to anyone.

I don't how to make this clearer: Two citizens of America, who live under the same constitutional law, go into a doctor's office and request a medical procedure, one is discriminated against because of the religion of the doctor. No other reason. It is discrimination based on religious beliefs same as much discrimination was in the past, and it was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[Yurt]

I don't how to make this clearer: Two citizens of America, who live under the same constitutional law, go into a doctor's office and request a medical procedure, one is discriminated against because of the religion of the doctor. No other reason. It is discrimination based on religious beliefs same as much discrimination was in the past, and it was wrong then and it is wrong now.

where in the constitution does it say i cannot discriminate against whom i perform medical services on?

you will not find it midcan, i suggest you bone up on con law. as your theory violates the 13th amendment. :poke:

[midcan5]

where in the constitution does it say i cannot discriminate against whom i perform medical services on?

you will not find it midcan, i suggest you bone up on con law. as your theory violates the 13th amendment.

That great liberal document, our constitution, doesn't specifically include lots of things but it does establish that all men, and that would include these women have certain rights. According to the court, you've lost that one, counsel.

[Immanuel]

I don't how to make this clearer: Two citizens of America, who live under the same constitutional law, go into a doctor's office and request a medical procedure, one is discriminated against because of the religion of the doctor. No other reason. It is discrimination based on religious beliefs same as much discrimination was in the past, and it was wrong then and it is wrong now.

And I don't know how to make this any clearer you are wrong. You believe in forcing people to provide services that they don't feel comfortable performing. You believe in enslaving people that you do not agree with.

Plain and simple truth.

I am not required to provide services to a bordello. Nor should I be. This doctor has the right to decide which patients he wants to serve and which ones he does not want to serve.

This happens to be an elective procedure!! What part of that don't you understand, master?

Immie

[Immanuel]

That great liberal document, our constitution, doesn't specifically include lots of things but it does establish that all men, and that would include these women have certain rights. According to the court, you've lost that one, counsel.

Of course they have rights. They have the right to ask a doctor to provide invitro fertilization. They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPEL said doctor to perform said services. If said doctor does not want to provide said services the women have the right to seek another doctor; however, they still do not have the right to compel said doctor to provide services to them.

It doesn't get any simpler than that man. You lost... period!

Immie

[retiredman]

I would think that since doctors are licensed by government boards, that government might be able to compel equal treatment... and I really think that if doctors take government funds to perform procedures that they open themselves up to further goivernment direction regarding this.

[AllieBaba]

I'm pretty sure the hippocratic oath says nothing about artificial insemination or any other procedure that isn't required to save life. It's about the sanctity of life and a doctor's ethical responsibility to honor it...not the creation of it, nor the termination of it.

Doctors are doctors because they have the training to make these decisions. We PAY them to make these decisions. We pay plastic surgeons to help us decide what, if anything, we should do to our nose, lips, breasts. Sometimes they tell us no...for no other reason than they don't "think"...for whatever reason....that such a procedure is right for the person requesting it.

It's the same with adoption. People are interviewed and at any time the whole process can come to a screeching halt because of the personal bias of someone in power in that circle.

Doctors are not our maids or our slaves. They are not "required" to do whatever the hell we tell them to do. For this sort of ELECTIVE procedure, they get to apply their own judgment and you can't force them to abide by the judgment of someone else.

There are other doctors who will have no problems doing this. I'm so sick of people who think the creation and destruction of babies should be a drive-through process, and every doctor in the world should be forced to do exactly what they're told to when it comes to managing population.

[Yurt]

I would think that since doctors are licensed by government boards, that government might be able to compel equal treatment... and I really think that if doctors take government funds to perform procedures that they open themselves up to further goivernment direction regarding this.

this deserves a response, tho the poster will not see it....

just because the government requires a 'license' to practice something, should not give the government the right to compel any certain behavior, other than upholding general standards, honesty, etc.. whether someone wants to 'treat' someone or not, should not be up to the government, unless such person practices in a business that is open to the 'public'. a person in private practice who does not have their door wide open has a right to pursue their liberty and happiness free from government interference. ---caveat, i say this under the current view of the law regarding interstate commerce, the dormant commerce clause etc...e.g., how the government can regulate a business that opens its doors to the public. whether i agree with that or not, does not affect the above view. should the laws regarding

as to government funds....i will ask this:

if a religious school takes government funds to help students fund their education, should the government control the curriculum in the religious department?

[Yurt]

That #1 great liberal document, our constitution, doesn't specifically include lots of things but it does establish that all men, and that would include these women have #2 certain rights. #3 According to the court, you've lost that one, counsel.

1. link, proof

2. and you of course failed to show or answer what i asked of you because you can't. you spouted stuff you cannot back up. shocker...

3. link to case, and jump cite to how i lost that one

[manu1959]

That great liberal document, our constitution, doesn't specifically include lots of things but it does establish that all men, and that would include these women have certain rights. According to the court, you've lost that one, counsel.

quote the part where it says who endowed them with those rights......

[bullypulpit]

I could answer how it would be immoral or unhealthy for a lesbian couple to raise a child, but that's far outside the point. The point is that this doctor, a private individual protected by the U.S. Constitution, cannot, by law, be compelled to do business with those he does not wish to do business with. He doesn't have to prove his case to you or anybody else. He just has to say, "Sorry, I don't want to do business with you." What you are advocating is forcing somebody, at the point of a gun, to perform a service which he thinks is morally wrong, all in the name of fairness. This isn't about saving a life. It isn't even about treating a medical condition. It's that a couple of lesbians see a child as a nice, in vogue item and they want to pay to have one. It's not like there's nowhere else they can go.

You're begging the question. Why is it immoral or unhealthy for a lesbian couple to raise a child? That question is, after all the root of the issue. The APA puts it simply...

<blockquote>Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation. - <a href=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html>Lesbian & Gay Parents & Their Children: Summary Of Research Findings</a></blockquote>

This review of published, peer reviewed research puts to rest the notion that lesbian, and gay, parents are somehow morally deficient or unhealthy with regards to the raising of their children. Except in the minds of those for whom religious doctrine trumps reality.

[Missileman]

this deserves a response, tho the poster will not see it....

just because the government requires a 'license' to practice something, should not give the government the right to compel any certain behavior, other than upholding general standards, honesty, etc.. whether someone wants to 'treat' someone or not, should not be up to the government, unless such person practices in a business that is open to the 'public'. a person in private practice who does not have their door wide open has a right to pursue their liberty and happiness free from government interference. ---caveat, i say this under the current view of the law regarding interstate commerce, the dormant commerce clause etc...e.g., how the government can regulate a business that opens its doors to the public. whether i agree with that or not, does not affect the above view. should the laws regarding

as to government funds....i will ask this:

if a religious school takes government funds to help students fund their education, should the government control the curriculum in the religious department?

The government doesn't compel behavior, it prohibits discrimination. Whether someone licensed by the state should be allowed to discriminate for religious reasons is the crux of the matter.

Frankly, it's not this doctor's job to try to determine who's gonna be a good mommy...it's none of his business. And unless he's got the world's first real crystal ball, he has no idea what the future holds for of any of his work.

[Yurt]

The government doesn't compel behavior, it prohibits discrimination. Whether someone licensed by the state should be allowed to discriminate for religious reasons is the crux of the matter.

Frankly, it's not this doctor's job to try to determine who's gonna be a good mommy...it's none of his business. And unless he's got the world's first real crystal ball, he has no idea what the future holds for of any of his work.

and it is not your job, nor the government's job to compel the doctor to perform involuntary servitude by treating a patient.

[Yurt]

quote the part where it says who endowed them with those rights......

:clap:

[Missileman]

and it is not your job, nor the government's job to compel the doctor to perform involuntary servitude by treating a patient.

Once again, the government isn't compelling anything, it's prohibiting discrimination. Noone's forcing that doctor to impregnate women...but the state has set forth the rules the doctor must follow if that's what he chooses to do.

[midcan5]

The creator is an interesting way of phrasing it but God is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The people who wrote it realized the problems religion can cause in politics.

I realize the right is hierarchical and does not respect diversity but societies are by nature complex. The decision was 7-0, I think that calls it by its real name discrimination.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Lesbian_Couple_Succeeded_in_Changing_the_Law_ 22567.html

"This isn't just a win for me personally and for other lesbian women," Benitez said. "It's a win for everyone because everyone could be the next target if doctors choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081902.html

"In a 7-0 decision yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that religious beliefs do not excuse doctors from the state's anti-discrimination law, which "imposes on business establishments certain anti-discrimination obligations."

"The 1st Amendment's right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the . . . anti-discrimination requirements, even if compliance poses an incidental conflict with the defendants' religious beliefs," wrote Justice Joyce L. Kennard in the 18-page decision."

[Yurt]

the CA court is not the supreme court and that court got it wrong. your link says it all midcan, you folks oppose freedom and spit on the constitution:


Defence spokesman says gay rights movement "will not stop until they have silenced or bankrupted every voice of conscience who disagrees with them."

performing an elective medical procedure has nothing to do with the oath of being a doctor or licensing by a state board. it is in fact compelling action against the 13th amendment. the gay rights groups are fascists who want to silence or bankrupt every voice who disagrees with them. you don't support the constitution or the american way of life, you destroy it and spit on the very foundation of this country.

[5stringJeff]

What about the person's rights, do they not count. see above i have answered this often

The person's right to what? Medical care? That doesn't exist in America.

[bullypulpit]

the CA court is not the supreme court and that court got it wrong. your link says it all midcan, you folks oppose freedom and spit on the constitution:

<quote>Defence spokesman says gay rights movement "will not stop until they have silenced or bankrupted every voice of conscience who disagrees with them."</quote>

performing an elective medical procedure has nothing to do with the oath of being a doctor or licensing by a state board. it is in fact compelling action against the 13th amendment. the gay rights groups are fascists who want to silence or bankrupt every voice who disagrees with them. you don't support the constitution or the american way of life, you destroy it and spit on the very foundation of this country.

You, Hobbit and others still let the question go begging...Why is it immoral and unhealthy for a lesbian, or gay, couple to raise a child? And that is, after, all the real issue. This despite the fact that repeated, peer reviewed studies show no harm to children as a result of being raised by same gender couples.

Your raising the specter of slavery or involuntary servitude is quite a reach, even for you. Or were simply hoping no one would actually read the text of the 13th Amendment. It would be slavery or involuntary servitude if the physician was not compensated in any way, shape or form for the services provided. As it turns out IVF services can cost $10,000 per cycle (month) or more, and that doesn't even include the costs of medication. The physicians and their practices are well compensated for their work. Thanks for playing "Grasping at Straws"! (Game show music swells in background...)

[bullypulpit]

bump

[AllieBaba]

You're begging the question. Why is it immoral or unhealthy for a lesbian couple to raise a child? That question is, after all the root of the issue. The APA puts it simply...

<blockquote>Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation. - <a href=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html>Lesbian & Gay Parents & Their Children: Summary Of Research Findings</a></blockquote>

This review of published, peer reviewed research puts to rest the notion that lesbian, and gay, parents are somehow morally deficient or unhealthy with regards to the raising of their children. Except in the minds of those for whom religious doctrine trumps reality.

Actually, that's debateable..but nonetheless.
The question, despite your desire to change it, isn't whether or not it's immoral for a gay couple to raise a child. The question is, does the doctor have the right to make a decision about whom to treat or not? A doctor's judgment is his own, you cannot mandate to him what he must and mustn't judge. They make decisions based upon their own teachings and beliefs. You take that away from them, and they're no longer doctors.

Also keep in mind..this isn't a mandatory life or death procedure. It's an elective procedure.

[Missileman]

Actually, that's debateable..but nonetheless.
The question, despite your desire to change it, isn't whether or not it's immoral for a gay couple to raise a child. The question is, does the doctor have the right to make a decision about whom to treat or not? A doctor's judgment is his own, you cannot mandate to him what he must and mustn't judge. They make decisions based upon their own teachings and beliefs. You take that away from them, and they're no longer doctors.

Also keep in mind..this isn't a mandatory life or death procedure. It's an elective procedure.

The question REALLY is: Should anyone be allowed to violate the law for religious reasons? And as much as I hate "slippery slope" arguments, if you allow someone to violate discrimination laws in the name of their religion today, it sets a precedent that could turn around and bite all of us.

[AllieBaba]

There's a law that forces doctors to provide elective services to anyone who asks for them, despite their best judgment?

Please provide a link.

[Missileman]

There's a law that forces doctors to provide elective services to anyone who asks for them, despite their best judgment?

Please provide a link.

No, there's a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[bullypulpit]

Actually, that's debateable..but nonetheless.
The question, despite your desire to change it, isn't whether or not it's immoral for a gay couple to raise a child. The question is, does the doctor have the right to make a decision about whom to treat or not? A doctor's judgment is his own, you cannot mandate to him what he must and mustn't judge. They make decisions based upon their own teachings and beliefs. You take that away from them, and they're no longer doctors.

Also keep in mind..this isn't a mandatory life or death procedure. It's an elective procedure.

So, if judgment can't be mandated, why the kerfuffle on the right over same gender marriages/civil unions? Aren't the RWN's attempting to mandate what society in general, and same gender couples in particular, decide with regards to this issue? In other words...mandating judgment? Like it or not, the issue of same gender couples having/raising children is the 800lb gorilla in the room no one opposing this ruling is willing to discuss. You can't have you cake and eat it too.

[Yurt]

You, Hobbit and others still let the question go begging...Why is it immoral and unhealthy for a lesbian, or gay, couple to raise a child? And that is, after, all the real issue. This despite the fact that repeated, peer reviewed studies show no harm to children as a result of being raised by same gender couples.

Your raising the specter of slavery or involuntary servitude is quite a reach, even for you. Or were simply hoping no one would actually read the text of the 13th Amendment. It would be slavery or involuntary servitude if the physician was not compensated in any way, shape or form for the services provided. As it turns out IVF services can cost $10,000 per cycle (month) or more, and that doesn't even include the costs of medication. The physicians and their practices are well compensated for their work. Thanks for playing "Grasping at Straws"! (Game show music swells in background...)


actually, you are entirely wrong. if you read employment law cases, you will find that contracts for employment cannot be enforced by forcing the employee to work as such a clause does in fact violate the 13th amendment. compensation has nothing to do with 'servitude'. it appears that you have not properly read the 13th amendment.

[bullypulpit]

actually, you are entirely wrong. if you read employment law cases, you will find that contracts for employment cannot be enforced by forcing the employee to work as such a clause does in fact violate the 13th amendment. compensation has nothing to do with 'servitude'. it appears that you have not properly read the 13th amendment.

A 'common sense' reading of the amendment would suggest otherwise. But then, I'm not a lawyer for whom shifting semantics and pretzel logic are but tools of the trade.

[Yurt]

A 'common sense' reading of the amendment would suggest otherwise. But then, I'm not a lawyer for whom shifting semantics and pretzel logic are but tools of the trade.

you don't need to be a lawyer to see that forcing someone to work/servitude against their will, regardless of whether you pay them, is forcing someone to work/servitude and that, common sense dictates, does violate the amendment. the fact you can't explain your position and instead insult lawyers shows plainly that your position is indefensible and you know it.

show me where in the amendment it says you can force someone against their will to work as long as you pay them.

[Yurt]

it appears that your snide remark about lawyers has come back to haunt you as even wiki disagrees with your faulty interpretation of the 13th A.


Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

[Yurt]

why would bully would come to this particular section of the forum and ignore the last post in this thread? it is rhetorical.

[avatar4321]

No, there's a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I am familiar with the laws, but now that I think about it, I am not sure that they withstand the muster of the 13th amendment, no matter how honorable their intended goal.

[Missileman]

I am familiar with the laws, but now that I think about it, I am not sure that they withstand the muster of the 13th amendment, no matter how honorable their intended goal.

Discrimination against homosexuals or discrimination for any reason?