Court: Lesbians' desires trump doctors' religious rights

WorldNetDaily ^ | 8/18/2008 | WND

[Apollos21K]

A state Supreme Court today ruled that constitutional freedom of religion does not permit doctors to refuse services to homosexual clients, even when those services would violate doctors' moral and religious convictions.

In a unanimous decision, the California State Supreme Court ruled against two Christian doctors at a San Diego area fertility clinic who refused to provide a medical procedure for artificial insemination to a lesbian couple.

According to court documents, the doctors claimed their religious convictions prohibited them from using intrauterine insemination (IUI) on any unmarried woman, regardless of sexual orientation.

The court, however, agreed with the lesbian couple that Dr. Douglas Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody had refused the treatment because of the lesbian couple's homosexuality and ruled that in doing so, the doctors violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act...

[MEGoody]

I suspect the docs will try to take this to SCOTUS. I hope they do, and I hope they win.

But even if they don't, there's nothing to say the docs can't manage to fail to impregnate the 'wife' of the homo 'couple'.

[SumProVita]

They need to take this to a higher court.

(More reason to defeat Obama....due to probable court appointments)

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[pnh102]

Whatever happened to the doctrine of “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?”

[CPOSharky]

Whatever happened to the doctrine of “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?”

Now it's more like, “We reserve the right to refuse service to any straight white christian males.”

[PubliusMM]

Another crazy example of judicial activism run amok.

It’s one thing to require treatment in emergency cases, sufficient to stabilize the patient and relieve the immediate crisis. However, to REQUIRE that medical personnel provide service to patients seeking non-emergency treatment is simply wrong.

Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

[tbw2]

Will the next mandate will be to order doctors to perform gender change surgeries? They’re so expensive, you know, we need more doctors doing it ...

[NTHockey]

When are people in California going to wake up and realize that they have no future there - unless you are illegal, immoral or just plain fat.

[MrB]

Folks, look at everything through the lens of

“how does this affect the value of the traditional family”

Everything the left does has the intent of its destruction.

[freekitty]

I agree and we would be giving up our freedom to people with little or no brains.

[Prokopton]

This is one of the reasons the upcoming election is so important. If we get a confirmed and radical leftist supreme court, you can say goodbye to our civil liberties and lifestyle

Do you really think the Democrat controlled Senate, with their strong RINO backing, will allow anything else?

[SaintDismas]

I think you would have to worry more about doctors being ordered to perform abortions, and Catholic churches ordered to perform gay weddings, and all the other things that we take for granted that fall under “religious convictions”

[sweet_diane]

"Artificial insemination is not a matter of life and death. No one will die if the Dr.’s refuse to perform the operation. There are enough Doc’s out there who are more than willing to perform the procedure and collect the fee that the women should repsect the Doctors convictions and move along and find someone else."

I agree. Unfortunately, libs don't respect anything or anyone...they simply use for their own benefit.

Even my lib sister agreed that most demlibs can only be tolerant of those who believe as they.

[Southack]

So they went to court to get infetility treatment instead of simply switching hospitals?!

I wonder if the doctors, due to their known religious beliefs, were *targeted* by activists...

[RightWingTeen]

SICK ruling, court!! Typical California!!

[Antoninus]

A state Supreme Court today ruled that constitutional freedom of religion does not permit doctors to refuse services to homosexual clients, even when those services would violate doctors' moral and religious convictions.

Sorry, but yes it does. Freedom of religion trumps freedom of perversity every day of the week, regardless of what some two-bit dictator in a black robe says.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Homosexuality is a demonic spirit.

[airborne]

How long before California is desperately short on doctors?

[ProCivitas]

Any "laws" in California or elsewhere that violate our natural 'freedom of association' ( to not do business with those we'd prefer not to) are invalid and probably unconstitutional.

'Freedom of Association' should be a big campaign issue in most states. Ask candidates where they stand.

[airborne]

If Obama get a chance to appoint a USSC Justice or two, freedom of association may be an endangered idea.