Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
... 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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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 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."
Quote:
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:
Quote:
“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."
Quote:
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 on behalf of the doctors:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
