Posted on 06/15/2006 10:39:24 AM PDT by DBeers
The state Supreme Court stepped into a clash between gay-rights advocates and religious conservatives Wednesday, agreeing to decide whether doctors at a Southern California infertility clinic were entitled to deny artificial insemination to a lesbian.
Five of the seven justices voted to grant a hearing to Guadalupe Benitez, who appealed a lower court's ruling allowing the doctors to assert their religious beliefs in defense of their actions.
The case should clear up "confusion in the public mind about whether religious beliefs excuse discrimination,'' said attorney Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents Benitez. "This is a significant problem for gay people.''
Attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the clinic and two physicians who refused to treat Benitez, said the case will decide the extent of a person's right "to exercise your faith as a Christian without being forced and compelled to do something that would violate your religious beliefs.''
The court is likely to hear the case next year, when it also may review California's ban on same-sex marriage. Last year, the state's high court ruled that members of same-sex couples were entitled to the same parental rights as spouses and that a private country club could not discriminate against lesbian domestic partners in its family discount policy.
The state Supreme Court's ruling in 2003 that a state law entitling female employees to birth-control coverage in their prescription plans was binding on a church-affiliated agency despite its religious objection could be crucial to Benitez's case.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Of course, she didn't have to tell the doctors she's a lesbian - that was her idea. This is, in short, a setup solely intended to force religious people to either traduce their moral principles or go out of business.
Ding Ding Ding!
Her case has absolutely no merit.
"whether religious beliefs excuse discrimination"
We are talking about someone's behavior...HELL YES you should be able to decide which people you want to engage in business with and without based on their behavior...and regardless of whether your issue is based on your religion, social or moral reasoning.
For example, if some guy walks into your shop wearing a bathing suit with no shirt or shoes, we should be able to say "nope!"
BEHAVIOR
That's exactly where this lawsuit is going. I have been halfway following this case in California. Benitez was already in the process of fertility treatments when the doctors found out she was a lesbian. They explained the policy, offered to refer her to another doctor or clinic and refund treatments rendered useless by the policy--all of which she refused. Her sole focus as the representative of the gay mafia is to force these doctors to treat lesbians or go out of business altogether. And they wonder why we are so suspicious of their attempts to get noses into the tent on so many social issues. Not the arrogance and selfishness of "if you won't treat me, you shouldn't treat anyone at all".
Passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment would essentially take off the table a large portion of pro homosexual bono business that Lamda Legal uses to both sell the delusional homosexual dream and raise operating capital with...
From what I read about this case, the doctor in question offered to refer her to someone who would do it.
I agree. Why should a health care worker increase their risk? And it's clear that persons who are gay are more likely to behave immorally, thereby making them more likely to be harbingers of disease.
OH, gee! That made me think of this: if one already knows one has trouble with stability, how is that a good case for having a child to raise?!
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"
Lets rearrange that a little:
State lesbian court to hear a "high" case.
Thats a little more accurate in terms of our judicial activist moon-bat judges.
LMAOROTF
Your post makes it sound like they refused her based on her sexuality (on purpose?). They did not. I have followed this case as well. They provided natural fertility treatments. However, when she wanted artificial insemination, they refused on their religious beliefs. She trotted out the homosexual card and took them to court.
Would it change your mind if she was black and that was the reason for denying services?
In CA the law is that private businesses, including doctors, cannot deny services to someone based upon their race, religion or sexual orientation. Sorry, but you can't reserve the right to refuse service - at least not in CA.
The courts must enforce the law as written. Don't like the law - kick out the bums or write an initiative to change it.
You are probably right. I haven't reviewed the lower cases for awhile. I just know they had already started some treatments for her so it wasn't a case of refusing to perform services for a lesbian just because she was a lesbian. It had to do with the specific treatment she wanted. Sorry if I misled.
Would she have to prove she was black to make such a claim and then further prove the doctor(s) knew it? I would think the burden would be upon here...
In CA the law is that private businesses, including doctors, cannot deny services to someone based upon their race, religion or sexual orientation. Sorry, but you can't reserve the right to refuse service - at least not in CA.
How can one discriminate upon a subjectively determined thing such as sexual orientation or religion UNLESS it is claimed up front by the supposed disoriented AND as well claimed as reason for refusal?
The courts must enforce the law as written. Don't like the law - kick out the bums or write an initiative to change it.
What if they challenge the fact that such a law can not be enforced and as such is absurd?
The state is effectively saying that the doctors cannot practice their religion because of state law. California law does not trump constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
Arnold’s Gay Rights Give-and-Take - Governor signs civil rights bill...
Coast Weekly ^ | Oct 06, 2005 | Jessica Lyons
Posted on 10/05/2005 9:18:18 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Late last week, while the media focused on his veto of the same-sex marriage proposal, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill intended to protect gay men and lesbians against discriminatory business practices.
Apparently, not too many people noticed.
Assembly Bill 1400, the Civil Rights Act of 2005, authored by Central Coast lawmaker John Laird, will expand anti-discrimination codes by including sexual orientation in the law. It builds upon the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. Laird’s bill forbids all businesses that provide services, goods or accommodations to the public—including shopping malls, hotels, bars and restaurants, schools and medical offices, among others—from discriminating based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.
Schwarzenegger signed this legislation into law on Sept. 29, the same day that he vetoed the same-sex marriage bill—an action that made state and national headlines.
(snip)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.