That's the GF on the left. Just damn.
Posted on 08/19/2008 5:30:23 PM PDT by kellynla
California physicians may not refuse treatment to patients based on their sexual orientation even if it violates their religious beliefs, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
[[Benitez081908.jpg]]In a unanimous decision, the high court said two Vista physicians who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian from Oceanside because their religious convictions prohibited such procedures for unmarried persons could be sued for violating the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, reversing an appellate court that had ruled otherwise.
“Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no,” said the unanimous court.
Writing for the court, Justice Joyce Kennard said doctors may refuse to perform a particular procedure for all patients, but could not single out patients based on sexual orientation and refuse them treatment. Kennard mentioned a 2004 state Supreme Court ruling that forced Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees in its health coverage plans. In that case, the court ruled Catholic Charities was not covered by the law’s exemption for religious employers because it provides services and hires staff who are not Catholics.
The California Catholic Conference had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the physicians. The two doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of North Coast Women's Care Medical Group of Vista, were sued in San Diego Superior Court in 2001 by Guadalupe Benitez. Benitez claimed the physicians refused to artificially inseminate her after 11 months of fertility treatments when she told them she was a lesbian. Benitez argues that the doctors violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
That's the GF on the left. Just damn.
The left of second picture. Guadalupe is the non-obese one.
What a great point! Many Christians fail to consider that because multiple eggs need to be fertilized, artificial insemination is likely to result in the destruction or abandonment of the unborn child after conception. There is an inconsistency from a Christian perspective to taking a principled position on marriage but not on the unborn.
More here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2064555/posts
At the risk of sounding insensitive, some people are simply unable to have children and we MUST accept that this is as God intended it.
However, in the case of lesbians it is generally NOT an inability to have children, rather it is an UNWILLINGNESS to give up their sinful lifestyle.
Because it has ALWAYS been wrong!
I see it more akin to a Doctor who only performs abortions on black babies and won't perform them for Asians (or pick any combination of races/ethnicities you'd like).
Not surprising. As a licenced professional and/or buisiness you can’t discriminate against legal clientel. The Palestinian Barber can’t refuse service to a Jewish customer. A Muslim Cabbie can’t refuse a Drunk fair. And a Doctor/Hospital can’t refuse to provide accepted medical service because the patient is Pagan, Homosexual, etc.
What does race or ethnicity have to do with this case? If your practice relates to family planning/fertility and your personal beliefs (correct beliefs, I might add) are that God’s definition of a family includes a father and mother (male and female), then you should have the right to restrict your practice to said couples.
I have yet to find anywhere in the US Constitution a protections for sexual orientation. Much like so many other prohibitions and “rights”, this was engineered by congress and liberal courts.
Constitutional protection is extended in the case of race, religion (where it does not inhibit the person from performing reasonable expected function), gender (not gender confusion), and ethnicity.
One of the last (apparently) bastions of true Constitutional Conservatism relates to a person’s freedom from government’s heavy hand.
What is next? Doctors will be required to perform “gender re-assignment surgery”?
And I stick to my abortion illustration. If a doctor believes that abortion is wrong, then he should be allowed to refuse to perform them.
Total non-sequitir. No one is being forced to perform insemination against their will. They already perform it. The question is whom they will contract their services to. That simple.
You stated your beliefs, and you are welcome to them. I have my own. One of them is this: if you have some kind of religious reservations, you shouldn't be performing artificial insemination in the first place, and it won't matter who you aren't providing the service to.
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.