Susan Estrich asks (http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/rights-in-conflict.html) "Does a doctor have a right to deny treatment to a patient because of her own religious views? Or does a patient have a right to be free from what she sees as wrongful discrimination that consists of denying to her medical treatment that is provided to others?"


Lupita Benitez, now 36 and, with her partner of 18 years, the mother of three children, brought the lawsuit against two Christian physicians in San Diego County who refused to inseminate her with donor sperm when she was trying to get pregnant in 1999. She claims that she was denied treatment afforded to other women because of the doctors' personal views about lesbians becoming mothers; attorneys for the doctors claim that it was the fact that Benitez wasn't married, not that she was a lesbian, that led the doctors to refuse treatment to her and that in any event, their religious views give them a right to deny treatment they don't approve of.

Estrich then offers an answer to her questions:


Here is my answer to the question of whether doctors who don't believe in abortion should be required to perform abortions: You shouldn't become a gynecologist if you don't want to provide gynecological services, any more than doctors who adhere to Christian Science and disapprove of transfusions should become hematologists, although reasonable people certainly can disagree on that point. But the idea that doctors should be able to discriminate among their patients as to who gets services and who doesn't — based not on medical conditions or necessity, but on the doctors' views, whether religious or otherwise — is an effort to cloak discrimination with a claim to constitutional protection that it does not deserve.

Seems to me that Estrich wants to reserve the right for people to decide what sexual relationships and sexual practices they want to engage in and are ethical, but doctors can't decide what treatments are ethical. Does she have a point or not? Should private physicians have the right to decide who they'll treat or what treatments they'll provide? Should a physician be required to provide abortions, or say, assisted suicide?

My own insignificant opinion is that no one should be forced to provide services that would violate his/her conscience. Let the seeker find someone who will provide the service willingly. I know that as a minister of the Gospel, I would absolutely refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex.

My own insignificant opinion is that no one should be forced to provide services that would violate his/her conscience. Let the seeker find someone who will provide the service willingly. I know that as a minister of the Gospel, I would absolutely refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex.

Hello minister. There is no such thing as marriage between people of the same sex. There is what is called a "same sex union." In many cases though companies are providing insurance to same sex couples even without a recognized ceremony of sorts. For my two cents worth, I think every American needs insurance, regardless.

I don't think your opinion is insignificant. This is one of those things that drives me nuts about the left. Seems they want the right to exercise their conscience and the right to force me to violate mine.

Hello minister. There is no such thing as marriage between people of the same sex. There is what is called a "same sex union." In many cases though companies are providing insurance to same sex couples even without a recognized ceremony of sorts. For my two cents worth, I think every American needs insurance, regardless.

Wow, we find an area of agreement again finally. But what about the questions?

Wow, we find an area of agreement again finally. But what about the questions?

Steve, I often don't find truth in the far left or extreme right. I'm OK with any doctor, based on principles, to make a decision not to perform service based on his or her religion. The ramifications though, if it's not a private clinic, is that they will be answering to their employer. Which in many cases will result in verbal discipline, physical suspensions, and eventually being let go. That's the nice way of saying you're fired. Then the doctor can apply for Workman's Compensation if it's not proven to be for insubordination. Nevada, is a right to work state. I could tell my employer that I'm taking off every shabbos and in return they can tell me to hit the door and not look back. Back in the day when I wore a beard, yarmulke, and was far more observant to my Faiths traditions, I did bust heads with many employer. Nobody should forfeit standing ground for their valued principles... just be willing to pay the price.

Is the doctor in private practice or employed in a clinic . If the doctor is in a private practice the doctor should have the ability to decide which services the doctor will perform. If not ,and the doctor works under the policy of the place of employment then the choice id to follow the policy or resign.

Steve, I often don't find truth in the far left or extreme right. I'm OK with any doctor, based on principles, to make a decision not to perform service based on his or her religion. The ramifications though, if it's not a private clinic, is that they will be answering to their employer. Which in many cases will result in verbal discipline, physical suspensions, and eventually being let go. That's the nice way of saying you're fired. Then the doctor can apply for Workman's Compensation if it's not proven to be for insubordination. Nevada, is a right to work state. I could tell my employer that I'm taking off every shabbos and in return they can tell me to hit the door and not look back. Back in the day when I wore a beard, yarmulke, and was far more observant to my Faiths traditions, I did bust heads with many employer. Nobody should forfeit standing ground for their valued principles...just be willing to pay the price.

Exactly. I don't believe Estrich designated whether or the doctors were in a private practice or not - just that they were Christians.

is the doctor in private practice or employed in a clinic . If the doctor is in a private practice the doctor should have the ability to decide which services the doctor will perform. If not ,and the doctor works under the policy of the place of employment then the choice id to follow the policy or resign.

Seems simple enough to me.

Susan Estrich asks (http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/rights-in-conflict.html) "Does a doctor have a right to deny treatment to a patient because of her own religious views? Or does a patient have a right to be free from what she sees as wrongful discrimination that consists of denying to her medical treatment that is provided to others?"



Estrich then offers an answer to her questions:



Seems to me that Estrich wants to reserve the right for people to decide what sexual relationships and sexual practices they want to engage in and are ethical, but doctors can't decide what treatments are ethical. Does she have a point or not? Should private physicians have the right to decide who they'll treat or what treatments they'll provide? Should a physician be required to provide abortions, or say, assisted suicide?



Do doctors have the same first Amendment right to freely express their religion?

Did the lesbian not know that they could always get a second opinion?

Required? Abortion and suicide "deliberately harm" life and are not exactly part of the hippocratic oath.

Do doctors tell lawyers how to practice law?

Actually no, doctors do not have this right, drug stores have already been sued over this issue, ( morning after abortion pills) and they lost and have to provide it, even though the store or druggests personal views are against it.

Citizens in America have a lot less "rights" because of the desires of special interest groups.

You are correct Fr. Chuck... my position that I stated was the way I thought it should be.

Hello:

I thought the druggists won...

If the state gives you a license, then the state can dictate what services you WILL do and what you will NOT do. I think it's fine for a druggist to abstain from immoral behavior if he so chooses in his OWN life. I do NOT think it's fine for him to impose his views upon his customers.

As a matter of fact, I'll bet the state issues licenses based upon how many drug stores are in a certain area. That could result in only ONE drug store in a little teeny town - and no other town for miles and miles...

Are you going to tell me, that this druggist has the right to make his customers go without a legal and prescribed drug?? I understand that YOU might think the druggist has that right, and he really does. But, the state has the right to take his license away for doing it, and giving it to someone who will serve the needs of his community instead of himself.

IF a business WASN'T required to be licensed, then of course, the business could sell anything they want to whomever they want.

IF these Christian doctors are licensed by the state, the state can require them to perform certain functions. And, it SHOULD.

Do any of you have licenses?? Can you violate the terms of YOUR license because you object to some of them?? I don't think you can. Can a bus driver refuse to ride with a black person because he's offended by them??

excon

I am not aware of a requirement for a license to operate a drug store. A pharmacist needs a professional license to dispense drugs . I have no doubt there is quid pro quo like having a pharmacy degree.
Here are NY State's requirements :
To be licensed as a pharmacist in New York State you must:

be of good moral character;
be at least 21 years of age;
meet education, examination, and experience requirements; and
be a United States citizen or alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (Alien Registration Card /USCIS I-551 Status - "Green Card").
NYS Pharmacy - License Requirements (http://www.op.nysed.gov/pharmlic.htm)beyond that they don't tell the pharmacist what he can sell or dispense.

Hello again, tom:

I suggest that a druggist is regulated a little more than that. For example, a druggist is required to be licensed by the DEA. They have a few requirements. Actually, they have a HUGE manual:

Pharmacist's Manual - Table of Contents (http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/manuals/pharm2/index.htm)

He's regulated by other agencies, too.

excon

Yup a huge manual all right . If you don't mind ,I won't go sifting through it now to try and find the section that compels the pharmacist to dispense medications he is morally opposed to .

Actually this was about doctors, not pharmacists. Still, I beg to differ, ex but I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. Bars are licensed by the state, restaurants are generally licensed by the local health department, attorneys are licensed by the state, heck, we're licensed by the state to service fire equipment. Are all of us required to offer service to everyone, or forced into practices that are against our conscience? No, absolutely not.

Bars choose to serve or not serve, restaurants choose the right to refuse service to anyone, attorneys decline to take cases and if we don't want to inspect someone's extinguishers or fire alarm we don't. Doctors and clinics can and do "fire" patients all the time. In fact, Texas law allows for an employee of a hospital or clinic - not just a private practice - to refuse to participate in abortions (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/OC/content/htm/oc.003.00.000103.00.htm#103.001.00), but apparently not in dispensing EC.


§ 103.001. many more have proposed legislation ("]RIGHT TO OBJECT[/URL]. A physician, nurse, staff member, or employee of a hospital or other health care facility who objects to directly or indirectly performing or participating in an abortion procedure may not be required to directly or indirectly perform or participate in the procedure.

Acts 1999, 76th Leg. ch. 388, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


§ 103.002. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. (a) A hospital or health care facility may not discriminate against a physician, nurse, staff member, or employee, or an applicant for one of those positions, who refuses to perform or participate in an abortion procedure.

At least 4 states have adopted "conscience clauses" for pharmacists and [URL="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/ConscienceClauses.htm). The usual caveat is that they are required to refer the patient elsewhere or have another pharmacist fill the prescription. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with forcing a pharmacist or physician to dispense drugs or provide treatments that violate their conscience - especially when it comes to those the objector believes will cause harm to another person.

Should a pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs for assisted suicide, capital punishment or Viagra for convicted sex offenders? Should a doctor should be forced to administer the lethal cocktail to a condemned prisoner?

a) Should a pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs for assisted suicide, b) capital punishment or c) Viagra for convicted sex offenders? d) Should a doctor should be forced to administer the lethal cocktail to a condemned prisoner?Hello Steve:

a) If assisted suicide is legal, yes. In Oregon?? Absolutely!
b) Where do you think they get the drugs to kill the condemned? I think they buy 'em at a drug store.
c) Yes, his customers criminal history aren't his business.
d) If he's working for the prison, yes.

Should McDonald's be able to refuse to serve you fat? Should your children's lunch be gone through because eating bad foods might be against the teachers conscience? Why isn't a teachers conscience important when you want her to teach ID, even if she objects on moral grounds? Should cigarettes be made illegal?

excon

If he's working for the prison, yes.

So you do offer an exception?

This is not so much an issue of morality as it is of equality. I find it so strange that people fail to see that. At a point in time, a business could refuse to provide service to someone because they were black. Not anymore. That would seem obsurd to most, correct? But we can discriminate against other people who are 'different' from the majority... namely, in this case, homosexuals. By making discrimination a 'moral' issue, and claiming that NOT discriminating would be against someone's 'religious beliefs', it's condoned. And saying that someone who is in the profession of providing a service has the RIGHT to refuse that service to someone because of their own unfounded biased beliefs about whether they can or cannot parent children (when all studies to date have shown no significant difference between gay parents and straight parents), that is blatant discrimination. No matter how you try to dress it up, that's what it is.

I'll be honest, I'm torn about this.

On the one hand, if it's a private doctor's office, and the objection is really based on being a single parent (not a protected class), I see how refusing service is possible. If, however, it's NOT a private clinic, then the doctor should provide the services/procedures as dictated by the company he/she works for.

But then, as usual, excon makes some good points too. :)

I don't think I want to weigh in just yet... think I'll sit back and read...

This is not so much an issue of morality as it is of equality. I find it so strange that people fail to see that. At a point in time, a business could refuse to provide service to someone because they were black. Not anymore. That would seem obsurd to most, correct? But we can discriminate against other people who are 'different' from the majority... namely, in this case, homosexuals. By making discrimination a 'moral' issue, and claiming that NOT discriminating would be against someone's 'religious beliefs', it's condoned. And saying that someone who is in the profession of providing a service has the RIGHT to refuse that service to someone because of their own unfounded biased beliefs about whether they can or cannot parent children (when all studies to date have shown no significant difference between gay parents and straight parents), that is blatant discrimination. No matter how you try to dress it up, that's what it is.

Everyone discriminates, period. And those who champion "equality" the most are often the most discriminating. What Estrich doesn't do is state whether these "Christian" doctors are in a private practice or not. If they are, they should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they want - or no reason at all. As I said before, doctors "fire" patients all the time - that is one's prerogative in a private business. If however they work for a taxpayer funded hospital or government agency then no, they don't have that right to discriminate. If my right to discriminate as an individual is removed then this society is worthless.

"they should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they want "

I guess this is where we disagree then. I strongly believe that minority groups should be treated with the same respect as any other group. And that those minority groups should be protected under the law against discriminatory actions.

Do you think a doctor has the right to refuse treatment to a seriously ill child because he or she is biracial? What if that doctor believes that biracial children are not deserving of medical treatment? That the world would be better off without them, and so refuses to provide life-saving treatment. Is he within his right to do this? What if it results in the death of the child? If the doctor personally believes he is morally right in his choice, should the parents of the child have nothing to say against him? No legal recourse? Doesn't it make sense for there to be some system of accountability to ensure that people are receiving fair treatment from those that they seek help from?

Granted, this example is more extreme than the one at hand... the couple could go elsewhere to receive the treatment they are seeking... but if we endorse discrimination on any grounds, we open ourselves up to allowing discrimination of all kinds. If we are all entitled to discriminate in any way we want to, no matter who we hurt or what kind of ignorance our discrimination is based upon... that would lead to complete chaos, wouldn't it?

Clearly, not a direction most would opt to go in.

if it's a private doctor's office, and the objection is really based on being a single parent (not a protected class), I see how refusing service is possible.

But that's impossible to be the case here- she has a partner of 18 years. And if "attorneys for the doctors claim that it was the fact that Benitez wasn't married", then maybe they should permit them to marry so that they can have equal rights with married couples after 18 years of commitment to each other? Are the doctors pro-gay marriage and advocating that we permit gay people to marry so that children are brought into homes with married couples? Or are they using that as an excuse to discriminate against what is, as you said, a protected class.

I think it's pretty clear, from what's been put up by the op anyway, that there's more to it in this instance than them not being married.

If we have reached the point in this country when we are not free to live according to our conciences, then we have lost a very important liberty. Before you chastise me, I am not talking about anyone believing his conscience is telling him to cause harm.

if it's a private doctor's office, and the objection is really based on being a single parent (not a protected class), I see how refusing service is possible.

But that's impossible to be the case here- she has a partner of 18 years. And if "attorneys for the doctors claim that it was the fact that Benitez wasn't married", then maybe they should permit them to marry so that they can have equal rights with married couples after 18 years of committment to eachother? Are the doctors pro-gay marriage and advocating that we permit gay people to marry so that children are brought into homes with married couples? Or are they using that as an excuse to discriminate against what is, as you said, a protected class.

I think it's pretty clear, from what's been put up by the op anyway, that there's more to it in this instance than them not being married.

Well now you're getting into a deeper issue - gay rights. While I think it's more likely the refusal to inseminate was based on sexual preferance, if, in court, the prosecution can't PROVE that, and the defense can "prove" it was based on marital status, well, marital status isn't a protected class. Case closed. If the doctors have inseminated even one un-married woman in the past, they'll blow their cover story and it will be obvious the refusal was based on sexual preference.


they should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they want - or no reason at all

Speech, it really surprises me you would say such a thing. You don't have the right to discriminate for "whatever reason", that's why we have protected classes. Can the doctors hang a sign on the door that says, "No Texans Allowed"? Yes - they are guilty of nothing. But can they hang a sign that says, "No gays allowed" or "No blacks allowed" or "No Jews allowed"? No, they can't.


If my right to discriminate as an individual is removed then this society is worthless.

You can personally discriminate against anyone you want in your personal life. You can refuse to speak to Hispanic people, even going to far as refusing to go through a grocery store check out lane because a Mexican is running it. You don't have to say "excuse me" if you step on a woman's foot. But if you own a business you can't refuse to hire Hispanics or women. And you certainly can't, as a business, refuse to serve them based on the fact that they are Hispanic or female.

What's the big deal here? Warm towels, a sterile gravy spoon and turkey baster and I can have her impregnated in 15 minutes.

What's the big deal here? Warm towels, a sterile gravy spoon and turkey baster and I can have her impregnated in 15 minutes.

You might laugh, but there was a couple on Oprah a few years ago and the wife was HIV positive. They couldn't afford artificial insemination, so... you guessed it... turkey baster time! And yes, it worked!

I'm not kidding. I grew up in San Diego and it was common knowledge that the turkey baster was the way to go for the Lesbos. Two gay guys would donate to keep it annonymos. Nothing new.

Tomder55 summed it up just about perfectly. Drs. Frequently decide to refuse to do certain procedures or treatments, because in their judgment the treatment is dangerous or ineffective, and they don't want to be involved with it.
I believe hospitals (and hospital sponsored clinics) where emergency treatment must be given present a different situation. A person brought in needing a blood transfusion to save his life shouldn't be left to die because the Dr. in charge doesn't believe in blood transfusions because of the Drs. Religious beliefs. I guess it is a distinction between private and public facilities, the private office has the opportunity to know what the patient needs when they call for an appointment. If the Dr. doesn't do the procedure they want they have the opportunity to find somebody who does. Many hospitals receive some taxpayer funds, they are designed for walk-ins and emergencies and they should be capable of providing the latest state-of-the-art medical care, unfettered by any provider's religious beliefs. Technical preferences (cast or no cast type decisions) are based on medical training and knowledge and are acceptable opinions, subject to review by the medical director. As said above in some earlier posts, if you don't agree, don't take the job; if you took the job and now disagree, resign.

But refusing to do a procedure because you object to the procedure (such as abortion) is different than refusing to treat a patient because of their religious beliefs/skin color/marital status/sexual orientation/nationality, etc. These doctors don't object to performing fertility services, they object to performing them on single mothers or, possibly, to lesbians. There's a big difference.

You know what... that is a very good point .One that will make me rethink my position. If the procedure is performed by that doctor routinely then the doctor has no basis for refusing to do it for all patients.

you know what.......that is a very good point .One that will make me rethink my position. If the procedure is performed by that doctor routinely then the doctor has no basis for refusing to do it for all patients.

Aw shucks... you're makin' me blush, tom! :o

Hello again:

I think you religious folks ought to keep your religion to yourselves. This is just another attempt to foist your religious views on the rest of us. If you perform a public service, then perform it for the public. If you don't want to work for the public, then DON'T.

If I, or any other atheist, started injecting OUR beliefs into OUR work, your church's would be plowed under. If I was you, I'd leave well enough alone. You don't know what Pandora's Box you are opening. I can promise you this: you won't like it.

excon

Hello again:

I think you religious folks ought to keep your religion to yourselves. This is just another attempt to foist your religious views on the rest of us. If you perform a public service, then perform it for the public. If you don't want to work for the public, then DON'T.

If I, or any other atheist, started injecting OUR beliefs into OUR work, your church's would be plowed under. If I was you, I'd leave well enough alone. You don't know what Pandora's Box you are opening. I can promise you this: you won't like it.

excon

Dude, you must be really high today.

Hello again:

I think you religious folks ought to keep your religion to yourselves. This is just another attempt to foist your religious views on the rest of us. If you perform a public service, then perform it for the public. If you don't want to work for the public, then DON'T.

If I, or any other atheist, started injecting OUR beliefs into OUR work, your church's would be plowed under. If I was you, I'd leave well enough alone. You don't know what Pandora's Box you are opening. I can promise you this: you won't like it.

excon

Great post Ex. It won't sink in though!

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”



- bonus points if you can name who said this :p

WOW... I get the bonus points but will not say who it is yet.Maybe one of the few things I agree with from the speaker.

Tom,


I was surprised to find this too. I think it is from 2006. Saw in the WSJ 6/10

I'm not surprised. I've found the guy is more fair minded and balanced than many of the other candidates from within his own party, as well as the opposition party.

"they should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they want "

I guess this is where we disagree then. I strongly believe that minority groups should be treated with the same respect as any other group. And that those minority groups should be protected under the law against discriminatory actions.

First, you omitted the crucial preface to that quote. Second, there has to be more to the story. Third, we aren't talking about 'medical necessity' in this case. Fourth, how far should we go in forcing people to violate their conscience?


... if we endorse discrimination on any grounds, we open ourselves up to allowing discrimination of all kinds. If we are all entitled to discriminate in any way we want to, no matter who we hurt or what kind of ignorance our discrimination is based upon... that would lead to complete chaos, wouldn't it?

OK, you can relax... I'm not endorsing discrimination in that sense. All I'm saying is we, as individuals all discriminate whether we'll admit it or not. We, as individuals have that right. And if we as individuals lose that right to discriminate, what rights do we as individuals have left?

If these "Christian" doctors (I keep highlighting this distinction Estrich makes in hopes that someone might see the irony here) are in a private practice they should have the right to do exactly as they did. Doctors discriminate daily, they fire patients, accept as many or as few as they want, reject those with Medicaid or Medicare, refuse to perform surgery on smokers, etc. They can't refuse to perform elective treatments that are in violation of their conscience?

I ask again, how far should we go in forcing people to violate their conscience?

If these "Christian" doctors (I keep highlighting this distinction Estrich makes in hopes that someone might see the irony here) are in a private practice they should have the right to do exactly as they did. Doctors discriminate daily, they fire patients, accept as many or as few as they want, reject those with Medicaid or Medicare, refuse to perform surgery on smokers, etc. They can't refuse to perform elective treatments that are in violation of their conscience?

So since (if, I should say, because we don't know) they are in a private practice they can refuse to treat black people? Women? Muslims? Come on...

Doctors refuse to treat patients all the time, but they can't refuse the treatment on the sole reason that the person is a member of a protected class. If I'm a doctor I can refuse to treat you because you are from Texas, but I can't refuse to treat you because you're a Christian. I can refuse to take you because I don't accept your carrier, but not because you're a man. "Medicaid" isn't a protected class. "Medicare" isn't a protected class. "Smoker" isn't a protected class. "Obese" isn't a protected class (yet, but that's another thread... ). "Gay" IS.

And as I said before, there's a difference when you object to the procedure and when you object to the patient.

Speech, it really surprises me you would say such a thing. You don't have the right to discriminate for "whatever reason", that's why we have protected classes. Can the doctors hang a sign on the door that says, "No Texans Allowed"? Yes - they are guilty of nothing. But can they hang a sign that says, "No gays allowed" or "No blacks allowed" or "No Jews allowed"? No, they can't.

They better not be discriminating against Texans. ;)


You can personally discriminate against anyone you want in your personal life. You can refuse to speak to Hispanic people, even going to far as refusing to go through a grocery store check out lane because a Mexican is running it. You don't have to say "excuse me" if you step on a woman's foot. But if you own a business you can't refuse to hire Hispanics or women. And you certainly can't, as a business, refuse to serve them based on the fact that they are Hispanic or female.

Actually, most federal employment laws apply only to businesses with 15 or more employees. If it's just me and Billy Bob we can hire whoever we want. Here's my question though, why is it that "Christians" keep getting targeted? It always seems to be an outrage when a Christian follows his conscience - and remember, this is an elective procedure, we aren't exactly clear on the nature of the practice or if they offered a referral - all I know is Susan is outraged at these "Christian" doctors. She thinks if someone is against inseminating a lesbian they shouldn't get in the business. She thinks if someone is against abortion they shouldn't get into obstetrics and gynecology.

Why is one discrimination and the other not? Should all doctors in all specialties be forced to perform all procedures on all people? Can we not find a way accommodate everyone here? I'd hate to turn away talented and capable physicians because they're against abortion or inseminating lesbians or singles - and I'm sure those seeking these kinds of procedures would rather do so from one who IS comfortable with it.

So since (if, I should say, because we don't know) they are in a private practice they can refuse to treat black people? Women? Muslims? Come on...

Jillian, surely you know I would never condone intentional discrimination of that sort, but that really isn't the issue. To me this "protected class" thing is a farce, there is little equality in "equal rights" as you just demonstrated.


And as I said before, there's a difference when you object to the procedure and when you object to the patient.

Jillian, I doubt these doctors were objecting to the patient, I'm sure they were objecting to the circumstances. I don't see why there isn't room for both doctors that will perform such services for lesbians and singles, and doctors who believe a child needs a mother and a father.

Actually, most federal employment laws apply only to businesses with 15 or more employees. If it's just me and Billy Bob we can hire whoever we want.

I know that's true with employment law, but these doctors didn't refuse to hire her, they refused to serve her. Protected classes extend beyond employment law.


Here's my question though, why is it that "Christians" keep getting targeted?

Because you guys are the ones doing the dumb crap that lands you in the news? KIDDING! KIDDING! KIDDING! :D

Seriously though, it's probably because you are the majority in this country. "Christians" are everywhere, they own lots of businesses. When an overwhelming majority of the country is part of something, when bad stuff happens, you can almost bet they will be a member of that group. I don't know that it's a specific "target" to Christians, but I can't speak for the people involved in this case...


It always seems to be an outrage when a Christian follows his conscience - and remember, this is an elective procedure, we aren't exactly clear on the nature of the practice or if they offered a referral - all I know is Susan is outraged at these "Christian" doctors. She thinks if someone is against inseminating a lesbian they shouldn't get in the business. She thinks if someone is against abortion they shouldn't get into obstetrics and gynecology.

No, we don't know enough of the details about the practice, but I'm not sure it really matters. If they refused to perform the service because she's gay, they discriminated against her, private practice or not. So I agree that if you are against inseminating a lesbian you shouldn't get in the business. The other statement, getting into OB/GYN if you are against abortion I don't think applies. In that case you are objecting the procedure not the patient. It would be different if an abortion doctor refused to perform abortions on Hispanic women only.


Why is one discrimination and the other not? Should all doctors in all specialties be forced to perform all procedures on all people? Can we not find a way accommodate everyone here? I'd hate to turn away talented and capable physicians because they're against abortion or inseminating lesbians or singles - and I'm sure those seeking these kinds of procedures would rather do so from one who IS comfortable with it.

One is discrimination because it's objecting to performing the procedure because of the patient. The doctors have no problem with the procedure, they have a problem with the patient. In th abortion instance, the objection is to the procedure regardless of the patient.

And sorry, but, "Can we not find a way to accommodate everyone here?"? What, like have doctors for gays and doctors for straights? Maybe segregate people in the doctor's office so one doctor in the practice will be sure not to touch the gay guy? Have a sign that says "Gays" and one that says "Straights"? What about the doctors who find it morally objectionable to touch black people? Do we need "Blacks only" and "Whites only" signs? Hmm... I don't think so.

I think you religious folks ought to keep your religion to yourselves.

LOL, this whole thing is about violating someone's faith and conscience, not forcing their religion on someone else.

Sorry, we were double posting!


Jillian, surely you know I would never condone intentional discrimination of that sort, but that really isn't the issue. To me this "protected class" thing is a farce, there is little equality in "equal rights" as you just demonstrated.

What makes you think this wasn't intentional discrimination? I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but it's certainly possible it was. Protected class, like it or not, is a necessity in our country. There are still people (possibly demonstrated by this case) in which people will deny someone equal treatment because of their lifestyle choices, their nationality, their race, their gender... you get it. And until all people will give all people equal rights, we have to protect those who are denied rights. That, or we ALL lose our rights. I mean, how is it equality if YOU get something because you are a Christian, but I don't get it because I'm not?


Jillian, I doubt these doctors were objecting to the patient, I'm sure they were objecting to the circumstances.

Well, there's no way to know for sure what they were objecting to. Like I said in my other post, if they've ever inseminated a single woman before, their cover is blown. If they had no way of knowing this woman was a lesbian (she came in alone, never mentioned it, etc), then the case against them is blown.


I don't see why there isn't room for both doctors that will perform such services for lesbians and singles, and doctors who believe a child needs a mother and a father.

Take the word "lesbians" out and you're on to something. Leave it in, and you're denying a protected class.

And sorry, but, "Can we not find a way to accommodate everyone here?"? What, like have doctors for gays and doctors for straights? Maybe segregate people in the doctor's office so one doctor in the practice will be sure not to touch the gay guy? Have a sign that says "Gays" and one that says "Straights"? What about the doctors who find it morally objectionable to touch black people? Do we need "Blacks only" and "Whites only" signs? Hmm... I don't think so.

No, no, no, but there is a happy medium. You've already granted that since "marital status isn't a protected class" they can discriminate, so you do allow for exceptions. The thing is, I'm sure every clinic screens their patients, and I'm sure most clinics discriminate - even if they don't give the real reason for doing so.

Marital status isn't a protected class because there isn't a history of discrimination regarding it. Same thing with being a parent. So to me, it's not "allowing for exceptions" because those aren't groups which experience discrimination. Married people don't have to fight for equal rights in court, parents aren't pulled over and harassed for having a "Baby on Board" sign on their car. Sure, you'll get someone who is a parent who says, "This shop owner treated me poorly because I had my kids with me! That's discrimination!" but really, it's not. Isolated, anecdotal situations don't equate to discrimination. The protected classes have a history of discrimination from the public and/or government; that's the major difference.

I'm sure a lot of clinics discriminate too, just as I'm sure a lot of employers do. If you REALLY don't want to hire someone, you can find a reason, it's not that hard. You just have to make sure you never say it's because they are black, or pregnant, or a woman, or gay, or Jewish. Or all of the above! :) So yes, clinics probably do discriminate during the screening process, but that doesn't make it right. And it seems this one might have gotten caught...

What makes you think this wasn't intentional discrimination? I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but it's certainly possible it was. Protected class, like it or not, is a necessity in our country. There are still people (possibly demonstrated by this case) in which people will deny someone equal treatment because of their lifestyle choices, their nationality, their race, their gender... you get it. And until all people will give all people equal rights, we have to protect those who are denied rights. That, or we ALL lose our rights. I mean, how is it equality if YOU get something because you are a Christian, but I don't get it because I'm not?

I'm not asking for preferential treatment, just the right to exercise my faith and my conscience on such matters without interference from others. Look, these doctors may have been doing this for 20 years or more, long before the idea of gays getting involved in this gained acceptance. Why should they have to change their ways or get out of the business?


Well, there's no way to know for sure what they were objecting to. Like I said in my other post, if they've ever inseminated a single woman before, their cover is blown. If they had no way of knowing this woman was a lesbian (she came in alone, never mentioned it, etc), then the case against them is blown.

The probability is it's the circumstances, not the patient. If they reject them because of marital status it's because they believe a child should have a mom and a dad, that doesn't change with sexual orientation. I doubt seriously that any reputable clinic or doctor doesn't thoroughly screen their patients in a way to leave them all sorts of outs.


Take the word "lesbians" out and you're on to something. Leave it in, and you're denying a protected class.

OK, OK, the word was chosen based on this case. So how about those of "other" sexual orientation? Everyone can be happy here if you ask me. Treat them all with respect and if you have an objection, you should be able to refer them to someone who doesn't.

I'm sure a lot of clinics discriminate too, just as I'm sure a lot of employers do. If you REALLY don't want to hire someone, you can find a reason, it's not that hard. You just have to make sure you never say it's because they are black, or pregnant, or a woman, or gay, or Jewish. Or all of the above! :) So yes, clinics probably do discriminate during the screening process, but that doesn't make it right. And it seems this one might have gotten caught...

Who's to say the got "caught" or were "stung." That's the possibility that annoys me, people intentionally seek out "bigoted" doctors, lawyers, teachers, politicians, etc. just to ruin their lives. A guy just can't be a Christian doing the best he or she can any more without being a target.

Hello again, Steve:

Wouldn't you be one of those people who would tell others that if they didn't like the noise, they shouldn't move close to an airport and then complain about it? Wouldn't you also be telling people who worked in smokey bars that they shouldn't complain about the smoke?

I think you would.

There are lots of jobs out there that DON'T serve the public - jobs that a religious person COULD do, while at the same time KEEPING to the tenants of his or her religion.

However, when you take a job that serves the public, like the server in the smokey bar, and like the people who moved close to airports, shouldn't they just do their jobs and/or stop complaining?
Isn't being a doctor who sees patients, or a pharmacist who sells drugs to the public the same as the server?

I think they are.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Wouldn't you be one of those people who would tell others that if they didn't like the noise, they shouldn't move close to an airport and then complain about it? Wouldn't you also be telling people who worked in smokey bars that they shouldn't complain about the smoke?

I think you would.

Yep. ;)


There are lots of jobs out there that DON'T serve the public - jobs that a religious person COULD do, while at the same time KEEPING to the tenants of his or her religion.

I don't see why this job should be out of reach for a Christian. Period. Like I said earlier, what if they had been doing this for 20 years or more before this type of arrangement gained acceptance? Should they be bumped out of a job or forced to violate their faith when the first gay couple comes along and wants their services? I don't think so, not if if it's THEIR practice.


However, when you take a job that serves the public, like the server in the smokey bar, and like the people who moved close to airports, shouldn't they just do their jobs and/or stop complaining?

Isn't being a doctor who sees patients, or a pharmacist who sells drugs to the public the same as the server?

I think they are.


If you agreed to the terms of employment or lease the yes sir, either stop whining or get out. On the other hand if it's MY business stop telling me how to run it, I thought you would be that kind of guy. I haven't been back to Burger King in a year and a half because a manager told me to get out of his store instead taking a minute to listen to a legit complaint. Should I have sued? No, it was his prerogative to kick me out and mine not to return.

Like I said, everyone can be happy here, or we can keep suing each other until there aren't any doctors willing to take the risk of treating a person, Burger Kings to make hamburgers, folks to make coffee makers, ovens, lighters, matches...

I haven't been back to Burger King in a year and a half because a manager told me to get out of his store instead taking a minute to listen to a legit complaint.

LOL! In the casino business, facing potential death could be as close as someone losing a years worth of hard earned savings over a three day weekend. But what's the most expensive item on the BK menu, four dollars and change? I'm just curious... how in the hell did you peeve off a Burger King manager?

I guess we see things differently. I don't think the doctors should have the right to discriminate against gay people by refusing to perform services for them. If that's why the doctors refused the treatment, it's discriminatory and it's illegal. You think requiring them to perform the procedure is discrimination against Christians. Is there a part of the bible which says you cannot do business with gays? A part which says a child is required to have a mother and a father, that two mothers is not allowed? I'm not sure, but I don't think there is. Let a court decide who the victim is. Given that gay people are constantly having to fight for equal treatment in this country, I think I know which side will win.


Who's to say the got "caught" or were "stung."

Read my post again, I said might have gotten caught. I'm not saying the lawsuit has any grounds, I'm saying it might and if it does they've been caught violating the law.

What gets me is you are making an argument that could have been used years ago as to why one should be able to refuse to serve black people. "I've been doing my business for 20 years this way, before this kind of arrangement became an issue... Why should I be bumped out of my job because a bunch of black people want my services?" If you're seeing a difference, please, explain it, because I really, honestly don't.

You keep pointing out that if it's their own practice they have the right to discriminate against whoever they want; but do you think all shop owners should have this right? Why should it be limited only to doctors? If a Muslim man opens a photo hut, can he hang a "No Women" sign on it because interacting with women is against his faith? No, he can't.

OK, ok, the word was chosen based on this case. So how about those of "other" sexual orientation? Everyone can be happy here if you ask me. Treat them all with respect and if you have an objection, you should be able to refer them to someone who doesn't.

Except that ALL sexual orientations are protected. If you deny based on ANY sexual orientation, you're discriminating.

What gets me is you are making an argument that could have been used years ago as to why one should be able to refuse to serve black people. "I've been doing my business for 20 years this way, before this kind of arrangement became an issue... Why should I be bumped out of my job because a bunch of black people want my services?" If you're seeing a difference, please, explain it, because I really, honestly don't.

Jillian, again, we aren't talking about a life and death situation here but an elective procedure, and you must recognize the moral issues on BOTH sides. Why shouldn't a physician be allowed to bring his faith into his practice? Requiring him to violate his faith is a discriminatory practice, period. Don't give me any of this "protected class" nonsense again either.

I do have more info on the case (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200805/CUL20080528a.html) though:


Attorney Robert Tyler, who is representing the two North Coast doctors, said Benitez' claim that the physicians had a duty to inseminate her would be more convincing if the disputed procedure were a lifesaving measure instead of an elective one.

Tyler said the doctors acted compassionately and ethically, referring Benitez to the fertility specialist who succeeded in helping her get pregnant and offering to pay the extra costs.

"Here, the doctors are being asked to create life. Why shouldn't they be allowed to let their faith be an important part of their decision-making as it relates to either choosing to perform a procedure or referring the person to another physician who is willing to perform the procedure?" he said.

Peter Ferrara, general counsel for the Virginia-based American Civil Rights Union, said regardless of what the doctor's reasons were for refusing to inseminate her, a ruling in Benitez' favor would set a dangerous precedent.

"If you have a genuine moral issue raised, as in this case, you have to recognize the rights of both parties," said Ferrara, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the doctors.


They apparently treated her with respect, referred, offered to pay the difference and her treatment was successful, so what's the problem?


You keep pointing out that if it's their own practice they have the right to discriminate against whoever they want; but do you think all shop owners should have this right? Why should it be limited only to doctors? If a Muslim man opens a photo hut, can he hang a "No Women" sign on it because interacting with women is against his faith? No, he can't.

Actually Jillian, what I've argued from the beginning is they have to right to their faith and conscience. I have not argued for the kind of discrimination you keep mentioning, but for a society in which we can all find a way to get along without suing the hell out of each other and forcing one's conscience on another.

Jillian, again, we aren't talking about a life and death situation here but an elective procedure, and you must recognize the moral issues on BOTH sides. Why shouldn't a physician be allowed to bring his faith into his practice? Requiring him to violate his faith is a discriminatory practice, period. Don't give me any of this "protected class" nonsense again either.

So when it's not life and death it's OK to discriminate? I DO recognize the moral issues on both sides, but you have yet to point me to the part of the bible that says, "Thou shalt not inseminate lesbians or single mothers". Please, what exactly is the violation of his faith? Is it a tenant of the Christian religion that one cannot be a single mother? If it is, I know a lot of people in trouble. Seriously, where and how is his faith being violated? It is his opinion one should not be a single parent which stems indirectly from his faith. It is not part of his faith.

"Protected class nonsense"? So it's nonsense that we as a society need to ensure all people receive equal rights regardless of their race, sexual orientation, gender, national origin... Really? Nonsense?


They apparently treated her with respect, referred, offered to pay the difference and her treatment was successful, so what's the problem?

I give them credit for their help, but no matter how nice you are about discriminating against someone, you're still discriminating. The law doesn't say you can discriminate as long as you are super polite about it.


Actually Jillian, what I've argued from the beginning is they have to right to their faith and conscience. I have not argued for the kind of discrimination you keep mentioning, but for a society in which we can all find a way to get along without suing the hell out of each other and forcing one's conscience on another.

It's not a giant leap to go from allowing doctors to refuse service to certain people because those people offend them to the discrimination I refer to. It's the same thing, it's all discrimination. If someone offends my conscience should I be able to refuse to serve them? Would you feel the same way about this case were the woman a single, straight black woman who was arguing they refused to treat her because she's black? And further, I never said the woman should have sued, or that she has a case.

Jillian, as hard as it is for some of you to see here I'm the one saying discrimination is discrimination. I'm not pre-qualifying it by saying it must be committed against a "protected class." That's political BS and nothing more, it's on par with the Univ. of Delaware's former indoctrination book that said all whites are racist and there can be no racism toward whites.

As you know I'm not very politically correct because I think it's a dangerous, stupid waste of time. I'll say it again, everyone can be happy here. This woman was more than accommodated, why should she have such a beef? If this actually had anything to do with her health then yes, she would be more than justified in her complaint. But what's happening here is one side is trying to allow everyone a seat at the table and make sure the needs of both sides are met, while the other is saying you can play our way or you can play our way. I'm fed up with being told I can play their way or I can play their way. If everyone is treated with respect and everyone's needs are met then isn't that a solution, or does it only become a solution when we are forced to submit to your values?

You're saying discrimination is discrimination but it's OK to discriminate as long as you are polite about it.

I'm still not convinced the doctors would have been discriminated against if they had been forced to perform the procedure. As I said, there is nothing (that I'm aware of) in the Christian religion which says, "Thou shalt not inseminate a single mother". There also isn't anything which says "Thou shalt not inseminate a lesbian". Performing this procedure doesn't violate their religion, it violates their opinions.

As far as your proposal regarding how as long as everyone is treated with respect it's all OK - please. What crap. You're telling me it's OK for someone to refuse to serve your daughter or wife because she's a woman as long as they are nice about it? It's OK for someone to refuse to serve you (a Christian) as long as they are nice about it? You're OK with cab drivers refusing to pick up black people as long as they are nice about it?

You're saying discrimination is discrimination but it's OK to discriminate as long as you are polite about it.

No I'm not, Jillian, that's your interpretation.


I'm still not convinced the doctors would have been discriminated against if they had been forced to perform the procedure. As I said, there is nothing (that I'm aware of) in the Christian religion which says, "Thou shalt not inseminate a single mother". There also isn't anything which says "Thou shalt not inseminate a lesbian". Performing this procedure doesn't violate their religion, it violates their opinions.

It makes no difference if it's explicitly in the bible, the Koran or Readers Digest, who are you to determine their conscience on these matters? Who are you to determine if it violates their faith? That is PRECISELY my previous point, it can only be discrimination and there can be no solution if the doctors don't see it your way. I'm sorry, but this country's constitution STILL provides for their religious rights.


As far as your proposal regarding how as long as everyone is treated with respect it's all OK - please. What crap. You're telling me it's OK for someone to refuse to serve your daughter or wife because she's a woman as long as they are nice about it? It's OK for someone to refuse to serve you (a Christian) as long as they are nice about it? You're OK with cab drivers refusing to pick up black people as long as they are nice about it?

Jillian, I've said no such thing. I am speaking of one narrow area where morality and rights have clashed. I'm willing to compromise for the BENEFIT of all, you seem only willing to have it your way.

No I'm not, Jillian, that's your interpretation.

It's my interpretation based on how you're saying it. Sorry, but "This woman was more than accommodated, why should she have such a beef?" and "They apparently treated her with respect, referred, offered to pay the difference and her treatment was successful, so what's the problem?" and "Treat them all with respect and if you have an objection, you should be able to refer them to someone who doesn't." reads to me, "Discriminate if you want, but be nice about it." Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that's the only way it's coming across.


It makes no difference if it's explicitly in the bible, the Koran or Readers Digest, who are you to determine their conscience on these matters? Who are you to determine if it violates their faith? That is PRECISELY my previous point, it can only be discrimination and there can be no solution if the doctors don't see it your way. I'm sorry, but this country's constitution STILL provides for their religious rights.

Yes, religious rights, not arbitrary religious opinion. So it does make a difference if it's in the bible. You are the one arguing it violates their faith. Show me where it violates their faith not their opinion. I'm not determining their conscience on these matters - I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint. And from a legal standpoint, you can't say, "I'm not treating lesbians". So, if it is found that they DID refuse to treat her because she's a lesbian, they've discriminated against her and violated the law.

You're confusing tennants of one's religion with associated parts of one's religion. It is an associated part of your religion to wear a crucifix around your neck. It is not part of your religion to do so. Your religion does not call for the wearing of crucifixes around your neck. You do not have a legal right to wear such a thing when jewelry is prohibited. It is an associated part of your religion that children should have two parents, it is not actually part of your religion. And, might I add, one that many Christians violate, so apparently disagree with.


Jillian, I've said no such thing. I am speaking of one narrow area where morality and rights have clashed. I'm willing to compromise for the BENEFIT of all, you seem only willing to have it your way.

Yes, morality. Individual morality. And what compromise are you offering? As long as someone will inseminate lesbian single moms there's no discrimination? I'm looking at this to the benefit for all as well - for everyone to be treated equally regardless of gender, sexual orientation, skin color, national origin... You start letting some businesses pick their clients based upon those factors and where does it stop?

And you never answered my question if you'd be siding with the doctors in the same way if this were a single, straight black woman.

you seem only willing to have it your way.

If "my way" is equality, then yes, I'm only willing to have it "my way".

... reads to me, "Discriminate if you want, but be nice about it." Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that's the only way it's coming across.

That's ridiculous, you are only seeing this from YOUR point of view. You're refusing to even envision the doctor's side of things.


Yes, religious rights, not arbitrary religious opinion.

I am not believing what I'm seeing, what part of who are you to determine their faith and values don't you understand?


So it does make a difference if it's in the bible. You are the one arguing it violates their faith. Show me where it violates their faith not their opinion.

The only thing I have to go by is the description of them as "Christian," and I'm sure you're more than aware of Christian objections to same sex relationships. There's a fresh example (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTZ2DNyfdpFnpyiKJ1Xq6Wj33emA) today. I'm sure you're more than aware of Christian belief toward procreation and the structure of the family. These things are OBVIOUS, it would be more pertinent for you to show me it's just "opinion."


I'm not determining their conscience on these matters - I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint.

Sorry Jillian but you are, the LEGAL standpoint of the doctors is religious liberty, plain and simple. Alliance Defense Fund attorney Robert Tyler put it this way:


“Other doctors are available who will perform the procedure; therefore, this lawsuit merely attempts to force our clients to act in a fashion contrary to their own sincerely held religious beliefs, and that’s unconstitutional...Religious liberty is our first liberty, and doctors should not be forced into involuntary servitude.”

That is what the California statute this case was based on does, forces people "to act in a fashion contrary to their own sincerely held religious beliefs."


And from a legal standpoint, you can't say, "I'm not treating lesbians". So, if it is found that they DID refuse to treat her because she's a lesbian, they've discriminated against her and violated the law.

From the brief (http://www.faith-freedom.com/files/cases/Answer_Brief_on_the_Merits_12_18_06.pdf)on behalf of the doctors:


Benitez claims IUI was not performed because she was a lesbian.

The physicians explain they did not perform IUI on Benitez because she is unmarried, and they do not perform IUI on any unmarried women. Undisputed deposition testimony from plaintiff and her partner, Joanne Clark, corroborate the physicians' explanation. They confirmed that Dr. Brody expressed at the very first meeting that she would not perform IUI - and has not performed - IUI upon an unmarried woman, regardless of the patient's sexual orientation. Dr. Brody explained this was for religious reasons.

It was on this factual dispute that the court of appeal relied in reversing the summary adjudication. Plaintiff conveniently glosses over this entirely.

It was NEVER about her sexual orientation, she knew from day one the doctors would not perform this procedure and why. The brief argues that not only does the first amendment protect the doctors' religious rights, but that the California constitution 'expressly "guarantees" free exercise of religion' with only the "expressly enumerated" exceptions of "licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State" to the "exclusion of all other" exceptions.


Even if the doctors' conduct were considered licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State, the guaranteed liberty of conscience permits only the least invasive infringement. The means to fulfill this constitutional guarantee if a physician has a religious objection to a procedure is to allow the "business establishment" - North Coast - to assign a different physician to plaintiff to perform the procedure or to allow physicians to refer patients to other physicians to perform the procedure. This protects the physician's religious freedom and the patient's desire for a particular procedure.

That's what I've said all along, so what's the problem?


You're confusing tennants of one's religion with associated parts of one's religion. It is an associated part of your religion to wear a crucifix around your neck. It is not part of your religion to do so. Your religion does not call for the wearing of crucifixes around your neck. You do not have a legal right to wear such a thing when jewelry is prohibited.

LOL, unbelievable. You're being more legalistic than the worst religious legalists I've ever known. Tenets (not 'tennants') or "associated parts?" What in all that's good and right does that have to do with "religious liberty?" What part of "religious liberty" do you not understand Jillian? "Liberty" is not determined by some calculated code of do's and dont's, it's MY beliefs without regard to your notion of what counts and what doesn't count.


It is an associated part of your religion that children should have two parents, it is not actually part of your religion. And, might I add, one that many Christians violate, so apparently disagree with.

Actually, it's in the beginning God created man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply, that homosexuality is an abomination and that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. It is all in the bible, Jillian, and it doesn't become null and void because "many Christians violate" or "disagree."


Yes, morality. Individual morality. And what compromise are you offering? As long as someone will inseminate lesbian single moms there's no discrimination?

Seems I've said it a dozen times, before posting the brief that says the same thing, accommodating both sides.


I'm looking at this to the benefit for all as well - for everyone to be treated equally regardless of gender, sexual orientation, skin color, national origin... You start letting some businesses pick their clients based upon those factors and where does it stop?

It was never about choosing the client (though EVERY business either does choose the clientèle or targets certain demographics) but protecting the rights of both sides. This was done and yet one side is screaming discrimination anyway. It's ridiculous.


And you never answered my question if you'd be siding with the doctors in the same way if this were a single, straight black woman.

Yes. Protecting our religious liberty is crucial. And I still see no reason why both sides can't be accommodated in these very narrow cases and us all get along, but you, along with Benitez, gay rights groups and who knows else only want it your way.

Have you missed the parts in my posts where I've said if it has to do with her marital status the woman doesn't have a case? Have you missed the parts in my posts where I've said I'm not sure this woman has a case whatsoever?

Apparently you have, so I give up.

Have you missed the parts in my posts where I've said if it has to do with her marital status the woman doesn't have a case? Have you missed the parts in my posts where I've said I'm not sure this woman has a case whatsoever?

Apparently you have, so I give up.

Did you miss where I acknowledged that way back on post #48 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/changing-subject-moment-223227-5.html#post1092906)? ;)

If it's an emergency situation with someone's life at stake, I think every doctor is obligated to put forth whatever effort is required to save that person. I don't think they are required to violate their own conscience in matters such as abortion or artificial insemination. I would expect them to offer other medical telephone numbers to the patients they cannot in good conscience provide for.

It seems a Pharmacist can refuse to provide a prescription they don't agree with. - so why not a doctor?