[speechlesstx]

"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?

[jillianleab]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[jillianleab]

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...

[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[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.

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

[speechlesstx]

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...

[BABRAM]

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?

[jillianleab]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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 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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[jillianleab]

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?