« Will Shrillary Rise From the Grave Next Week? | Main | An Empty Punk Has His Clock Cleaned »

And, six months from now, the State could just as easily decide to force the same doctors to perform an abortion for the same lesbians.
That would never happen, you say? Well, ten years ago, nobody thought doctors would be forced to artificially inseminate lesbians, either...

In California, (and New York, and Colorado, and Connecticut, and...) homosexuality is worshipped and God is thrown under the bus. It’s obviously overtly plain for all to see. (Is that a quadruple redundancy?)

I see a mass exodus of doctors with faith from California. Of course that won’t bother your typical stercovorous copromaniacal California liberal. They salivate and cream their britches when they consider a godless society ruled by sexual gratification.

Would the same judges force a mussie doctor to do things against his religion(cult)?
Well judges?
I didn't think so......
D.T.

This isn't much different than the state forcing pharmacists to dispense abortificants, or churches to perform same-sex marriage.

The thing is, this isn't about access to services. A person could always go to a different pharmacy, a different church, or a different doctor. This is about secularists using the power of the state to force people to violate their moral principles.

This is a very chilling concept, and ironically, it's coming from the same crowd that's always whining that "you can't legislate morality."

At this point, its safe to say that the government has become destructive of those ends. The question is what to do about it...and when. Clearly its only going to get worse and voting and complaining etc. are not working.

Time to alter and abolish.

Is this as far as these doctors can go or can this case go to the federal level?

The docs could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Though from what i read of the decision, i don't think SCOTUS will reverse. The Cali courts told the doctors that if your going to render particular services, then you have to render them to all your patients, not just certain ones whose situation does not conflict with the doc's religious beliefs. The patient had been seeing these docs for several years and discussed it with them. The doc who was primarily treating her told her up front that she would not do this procedure because of her religious beliefs but stated that other doctors in her practice would.
They balked.

Was this a good decision. I don't know. On the one hand, if you start allowing professionals to suddenly stop rendering their services for whatever reason (religious, political, etc.) when does it stop. If it is ok to do it to lesbians, how about illegal immigrants, that's ok too, what about those without health insurance, or those with insufficient life insurance, is it ok to deny on basis of race, religion?

What kind of treatment is being rendered? If not lifesaving, should a different standard apply?

On the other hand, the doctor's and other professionals are allowed to have personal beliefs and be guided by them. The doctors should have declined to take her as a patient in the first place and they would have avoided all of this. And of course been sued for discrimination.

Doctors are allowed to refuse service based on specific insurance providers, or lack thereof, but they are not allowed to include their own beliefs regarding controversial "treatments?" And VK is right on target pointing out these same assholes whine about Christians trying to legislate morality and install a theocracy. Just let me know where we're all meeting to defend our constitutional rights. I'm armed to the teeth and I have plenty to share.

cowlove, I see that type of reference to a new civil war a lot amongst conservatives, and quite frankly its pretty sickening. The first American civil war split loyalty down family lines, as would a new one.

I have several liberals in my family, and the thought of someone killing them for their beliefs is even more horrifying than any liberal point of view they have ever shared. As liberals tend to think that "guns kill people" and that "war is not the answer" they would hardly be a force to be reckoned with -- it would almost be genocide.

Rather than pushing this silly notion of violence against anyone opposed we should be thinking of a way to fix the Conservative party; this one is horribly flawed.

"The first American civil war split loyalty down family lines, as would a new one."

xantl, We are aware of the touching FAIRYTALE of the two brothers who meet on the battlefield/hospital, or who mortaly wound each other, or one gets killed, ect. It has no basis in fact.

By the way, a "civil war" is where two or more political factions battle for control of a government. The United States has NEVER had such a war; what is known as "The American Civil War" was a war to prevent the fomation of the Confederate States Of America. The south had secceeded, declairing itself an independant country and had no designs on the United States except as a neighbor and HOPEFULLY, an ally. One country cannot wage a "civil war" against another any more than one can wage a "revolution" against another. ("The Rebelion" was the origonal Yankee term for the war, "The Civil War" was considered by the north to be a "compromise term")

I'll just go through this point-by-point for you xantl:

"cowlove, I see that type of reference to a new civil war a lot amongst conservatives, and quite frankly its pretty sickening. The first American civil war split loyalty down family lines, as would a new one."

~I have no desire for a civil war. I do, however, have a very strong desire to see the Constitution upheld. Quite frankly, it sickens me that the legal system is forced to comment on things like forcing Christian doctors to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, yet, as VK said earlier, the ilk on the left cry about Christians legislating morality at the drop of a hat. It seems the only morality they wish to legislate is the morality aligned with their own. How very hypocritical.

"I have several liberals in my family, and the thought of someone killing them for their beliefs is even more horrifying than any liberal point of view they have ever shared. As liberals tend to think that "guns kill people" and that "war is not the answer" they would hardly be a force to be reckoned with -- it would almost be genocide."

~I also have several liberals in my family. I'm sure everyone does, as they seem to crawl everywhere. How did you arrive at the thought that anyone would kill them for their beliefs? What is the "skill" that allows you to turn a situation in which Christian doctors are forced to turn their backs on their faith by the American legal system into a situation in which conservatives indiscriminately kill liberals merely for their beliefs? Is it a sickness that allows you to read my suggesting we defend our Constitution as "blurgle gurgle kill liberals rawr!"? I seriously want to know. You seem literate.

"Rather than pushing this silly notion of violence against anyone opposed we should be thinking of a way to fix the Conservative party; this one is horribly flawed."

~I've long put up with people opposed to my views. It's when those same people find a way to pervert our great country and its Constitution that I refuse to simply say, "hmmm...well...I disagree." The time for polite discourse is quickly coming to an end. You can only push a group of people so far.

KHarn :
If I was referring to your story, I would have used the terms "siblings" instead of "family lines" however I wasn't and to be honest I've never heard such a story.
Noun
civil war (plural civil wars)
A war fought between members of a single nation or similar political entity.
That is how it is defined in the dictionary, and in other countries so I don't think my terminology was flawed.

cowlove,
Firstly, no one is "forcing" anyone to do anything. The Doctor is free to stop practicing, or offering fertility treatments. There is no gun at anyones head here. I did however notice that she had no problem offering fertility treatment? I believe that was once widely condemned by the Church? Does she refuse to use an egg/sperm from someone other than the married couple? at what point does she consider a childless marriage to be Gods will? She has already picked, and chose what part of Religious tenants she will abide by.

You are focusing on the Christian / Lesbian part of the argument and yet ignoring the fact that the Government is interfering in private business. Unless this treatment was paid for with State/Federal funds (unlikely) then a business should have the right to refuse service on any basis they wish. Now the State/Federal Government has ratios of minorities you must employ, who you must offer service to, and what disabilities you must spend your money on to cater to.
I notice you ignored about reforming the Conservative party. Welcome to why they have ran John McCain as a presidential candidate. It is also why Arnold Schwarzenegger is allowed to masquerade as a Republican Governor by the party too.
The values that you consider to be under attack by Liberalism are supposed to be values of the Conservative party, however I think we can attest that is not the case. You do not need violence, or a gun for that, just what the Constitution gave you: A Vote.

So again, I have to break things down for you in simpler terms:

"Firstly, no one is "forcing" anyone to do anything. The Doctor is free to stop practicing, or offering fertility treatments. There is no gun at anyones head here."
~Ah yes, "reject your personal beliefs or find a new job." Sure, no forcing going on here. No rhetorical "gun" here. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I can confidently say you're an idiot.

"I did however notice that she had no problem offering fertility treatment? I believe that was once widely condemned by the Church? Does she refuse to use an egg/sperm from someone other than the married couple? at what point does she consider a childless marriage to be Gods will? She has already picked, and chose what part of Religious tenants she will abide by."
~I have no idea if she's Catholic or not. I have no idea what her personal beliefs are on any specific subject, other than that she believes homosexuality to be wrong, which is supported Biblically. Yes, it does seem she's made an educated, informed decision concerning how her beliefs align with her personal and professional lives. That's something she's entirely free to do as an American citizen. That's also why I'm so vehemently opposed to this removal of her right to Freedom of Religion, as clearly defined by the Bill of Rights. Nothing in her actions or decisions has infringed on the public good or safety, yet she is being denied a basic human right. Maybe you should move to China where you'd be in good company if you agree so whole-heartedly with the State in this case.

"You are focusing on the Christian / Lesbian part of the argument and yet ignoring the fact that the Government is interfering in private business. Unless this treatment was paid for with State/Federal funds (unlikely) then a business should have the right to refuse service on any basis they wish."
~I also have a problem with that, however it pales in comparison to the government's infringing on a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT CLEARLY OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

"Now the State/Federal Government has ratios of minorities you must employ, who you must offer service to, and what disabilities you must spend your money on to cater to.
I notice you ignored about reforming the Conservative party. Welcome to why they have ran John McCain as a presidential candidate. It is also why Arnold Schwarzenegger is allowed to masquerade as a Republican Governor by the party too."
~Ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble. Our political choices generally boil down the lesser of two evils. It's unfortunate, and it's frustrating. Every now and then a true leader comes along, and we're blessed. This is not one of those elections so we'll make do with what we have.

"The values that you consider to be under attack by Liberalism are supposed to be values of the Conservative party, however I think we can attest that is not the case. You do not need violence, or a gun for that, just what the Constitution gave you: A Vote."
~That's funny you mention that. The left learned long ago that if you can't get the majority to go along with you, then just take it to the legal system and make sure you get an activist judge to preside. Why on earth would the Supreme Court comment on something ignored entirely by the Consitution (e.g. abortion). Because there's no way America would vote to kill babies, period. Why would a state supreme court force a Christian to help a couple lesbians get pregnant? Because if that were on a ballot it would be defeated in a flash, even in California. The left decided that litigating (not even legislating anymore) their own perverted "morality" was the easiest and quickest way to get things done. Like I said before, you can only push a group of people so far.

So I assume cowlove you are in favor of a Somali Muslim taxi driver that refuses service to the blind due to their seeing-eye dog? or a Muslim that will not checkout your Alcohol, or Pork purchase at a supermarket?
If your career brings you into conflict with your personal beliefs, you should probably find a new career. The State is not forcing her to perform anything, they have made their belief known:
"although religious liberty was protected by the constitution, this was not an excuse for unlawful discrimination against others."

The wording is a little creepy however (was instead of is?)

"Nothing in her actions or decisions has infringed on the public good or safety"
She restricted treatment she would have given someone if it reconciled with her own personal view, this time because of religion, what about next time skin color?

"Why on earth would the Supreme Court comment on something ignored entirely by the Constitution"
Well obviously not everything was covered in the constitution - but if there is a present day law against or for something it should be able to be reviewed or challenged.
Personally I abhor how abortion is used for birth control. However I don't believe that a law should be made against it due to any one religious belief - it should just be found to be wrong, much like murder, theft or arson.
I agree that the court system encourages minority tyranny but it also checks 'majority rules'.
The same courts have also been used for good to enforce the constitution by enforcing rights to Indians and black people for example so they are obviously a double edged sword - rather than just a tool for ambitious liberals, and their lawyers.

You obviously have very little faith in a Government provided by the Constitution, or the protection methods outlined within it, so I am unsure of your points in regards to following it to the letter.

This is getting tedious so try to stay on point if you choose to respond from here on out. I'm in bold, then you in italic, then my response in standard text:

So I assume cowlove you are in favor of a Somali Muslim taxi driver that refuses service to the blind due to their seeing-eye dog? or a Muslim that will not checkout your Alcohol, or Pork purchase at a supermarket?
~Assume away, if it makes you feel better. Of course a Somali Muslim can make any of those choices, and then their respective employers should also feel free to fire them on the spot. I don't see why we would need the courts to weigh in on any of those issues, or the one we're discussing. The lesbian couple had every opportunity to seek another doctor, even one at the same practice. They instead decided to jump at the chance to shove validation for their lifestyle down everyone else's throats by taking it to court. Obviously that's where my outrage lies.

If your career brings you into conflict with your personal beliefs, you should probably find a new career. The State is not forcing her to perform anything, they have made their belief known:
"although religious liberty was protected by the constitution, this was not an excuse for unlawful discrimination against others."
~The State, via the court system, is compelling her to perform services contrary to her religious beliefs. Did you not understand that? Quoting the decision does not make your point any stronger, because that's exactly what we're discussing. Also, the courts do not have "beliefs." They interpret the law. In this case the court is essentially claiming that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but is instead a human characteristic. As for getting a new career, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately for this doctor I doubt that when she signed up to help childless couples achieve the gift of life she ever considered things would end up like this. I'd probably quit in disgust, but that's just my opinion.

The wording is a little creepy however (was instead of is?)
~They're referring to conditions at the time of the "incident."

Nothing in her actions or decisions has infringed on the public good or safety
She restricted treatment she would have given someone if it reconciled with her own personal view, this time because of religion, what about next time skin color?
~She denied artificial insemination based on another's lifestyle choices. If she were denying it based on human characteristics, for example skin color, of course that would infringing on the public good. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, regardless of whatever propaganda is spewed from the left. Comparing it to skin color is a false analogy and entirely pointless.

Why on earth would the Supreme Court comment on something ignored entirely by the Constitution?
Well obviously not everything was covered in the constitution - but if there is a present day law against or for something it should be able to be reviewed or challenged.
~This case involved applying discrimination laws to people based on their lifestyle choices. It also involves a private couple getting private treatment from a private doctor. So I ask again, why on earth would ANY court have a basis to comment on this situation?

Personally I abhor how abortion is used for birth control. However I don't believe that a law should be made against it due to any one religious belief - it should just be found to be wrong, much like murder, theft or arson.
~Interestingly, we have laws against all those other things that you deem to be wrong. If we as a nation cannot say, "killing unborn babies is wrong and should be unlawful," then we are morally bankrupt and have no standing to call ANYTHING wrong.

I agree that the court system encourages minority tyranny but it also checks 'majority rules'.
The same courts have also been used for good to enforce the constitution by enforcing rights to Indians and black people for example so they are obviously a double edged sword - rather than just a tool for ambitious liberals, and their lawyers.
~Being good and useful in one area does not excuse being wrong in another.

You obviously have very little faith in a Government provided by the Constitution, or the protection methods outlined within it, so I am unsure of your points in regards to following it to the letter.
~You obviously have limited comprehension. I have faith in a government that is ONLY provided by the Consitution, to the letter. This case is just one more example of a government that steps outside its boundaries and infringes on basic human rights.

I don't see why we would need the courts to weigh in on any of those issues, or the one we're discussing.
Discrimination laws. She violated them by refusing treatment based solely on a personal belief, while offering the same treatment to others. The same law would apply if I opened up a chain of restaurants with a "Whites only" sign in the window.
In retrospect California was probably the wrong State to deny treatment based on homosexuality.
So I ask again, why on earth would ANY court have a basis to comment on this situation?
See above; also since these consultations are not free, and the doctors were paid there are financial damages from their discrimination. Doctors are free to not offer particular services; they are also free to refuse treatment due to medical complications they are not allowed to discriminate.

If we as a nation cannot say, "killing unborn babies is wrong and should be unlawful," then we are morally bankrupt and have no standing to call ANYTHING wrong.
Agreed. No politician is willing to touch the issue, and Congress of both sides are looking to change anything in this regard.
~Being good and useful in one area does not excuse being wrong in another.
Well looking to recent events: granting Gitmo prisoners "rights" by the Supreme Court, and then the Heller opinion. Same justices, same court they will inevitably decisions people believe are incorrect.
I have faith in a government that is ONLY provided by the Consitution, to the letter.
Who will ensure that it is "to the letter" ? The same Justices that interpret constitutional matters now? Will Congress amend it as they see fit? The Constitution has not survived in stasis for two hundred years, it has been amended and interpreted it will continue to be.
Times are changing, just as segregation was removed from society; so I believe discrimination against homosexuals will be bought to an end. It already began with the strike down of sodomy laws. Even if as you believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, the law protects it and you can't discriminate against it either. As more of the Liberal indoctrinated States support gay marriage we'll see this issue challenged until the law treats them equally.

xantl, homosexuality is not equivalent to skin color. Homosexuality is a personal lifestyle. I'm so tired of the played out, well-what-about-a-white's-only-store analogy. There is no comparison.

Also, fertility treatments are not required medical therapies. There is no sense in comparing elective treatments to necessary medical procedures.

On a final note, you're absolutely right about the changing nature of the Constitution. And it's that point from which my outrage stems. A tiny fraction of the population is using the dynamic nature of the document to essentially validate their lifestyle choices. I'd prefer they get it on ballots, then perhaps have the laws reviewed by the courts when necessary, should the voting public vote with them. Of course, they'd lose, and that would also involve far too much common sense and respect for the actual Constitution itself.

Cowlove,
If homosexuality was a lifestyle choice it would still fall under discrimination laws - since by definition it would just mean you treat someone different due to prejudice.

While elective it does not change the fact their were actual damages in this case -- not just hurt feelings.

I'm not sure re, Ballot for Constitutional issues since it still allows a "majority rules" type situation (and you're not guaranteed to be the majority in the future!) California will be addressing some part of it themselves with Gay marriage on the ballot however if it passes you're going to see a whole bunch of Liberal states wide the wave.

We live in a free country. I think everyone here is so wrong (on so many levels). Let's break this down to a very simple statement...

I believe the doctor should be allowed to decide if he/she would like to inseminate the lesbian couple JUST AS the lesbian couple has the right to persue having a child. Why would the Dr want to do something they were not comfortable with and why would the couple want to seek any type of treatment from this doctor???

You can't play both sides of the card. Decide if you want free will or not.

The church and state are SEPARATE.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice. This is based on genetic research, not my rambling and opinions. Being a doctor is a lifetyle... it is a choice.

We live in a free country. I think everyone here is so wrong (on so many levels). Let's break this down to a very simple statement...

I believe the doctor should be allowed to decide if he/she would like to inseminate the lesbian couple JUST AS the lesbian couple has the right to persue having a child. Why would the Dr want to do something they were not comfortable with and why would the couple want to seek any type of treatment from this doctor???

You can't play both sides of the card. Decide if you want free will or not.

The church and state are SEPARATE.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice. This is based on genetic research, not my rambling and opinions. Being a doctor is a lifetyle... it is a choice.