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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margog85

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margog85

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.