Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TheBattman
I see this somewhat akin to a Doctor being forced to perform abortions.

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).

27 posted on 08/20/2008 7:26:16 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Teachers open the door. It's up to you to enter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: Tanniker Smith

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.


29 posted on 08/20/2008 4:04:54 PM PDT by TheBattman (Vote your conscience, or don't complain about RINOs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson