August 18, 2008
-
Gays and Discrimination
The California Supreme Court ruled that doctors are not allowed to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to not treat gays and lesbians.
Two Christian fertility doctors refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian. A law was used that was originally designed to protect patrons based on their race from being discriminated against by “hotels, restaurants and other public services.” Here is the link: Link
Do you think gays and lesbians should be given all of the same protections against discrimination that those of the minority races are given?
Comments (248)
Yes.
Also I think we should be legally obligated to smack Christians in the face with a Bible when they do the over-quote scripture thing.
YES
Hardcover.
Maybe we could just write the scripture on a bat and deliver the correction that way.
Scripture Bat!
This could lead into Scripture Ball…
Aren’t they people???
Then, yes!
They’re…excuse me…we are treated like diseased peasants, which is pretty ridiculous.
I’m kind of 50/50 about it, I think…
I don’t think so.
After all, us fags are EVERYWHERE.
YES.
“Gay’s the new Black” Yes they should. They’re people too.
Every person is still a person, be they gay, straight, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, black, white, green, purple….No matter what, people are still people and should be treated as such.
@Drakonskyr - For having such smartass entries, you don’t know how to click an “edit” button?
Sure, last I checked, queers were people too.
no
but, isn’t being a fertility specalist sort of like trying to play God (you know, planting an egg in a womb, etc) so shouldn’t the christian doctors feel bad about that foremost?
They are doctors, and they should approach this issue from the view point of a doctor. And I don’t remember any religion prohibiting helping gay couples.
Yes.
what is “protection”
they just should not be discriminated. everyone is human, and made equal.
Yeah… if you don’t want to get everyone equal care than you shouldn’t be a doctor. It’s not a doctors job to chose who lives and dies or who gets a certain type of care or doesn’t. It’s their job to provide the best care possible.
they should be obligated to provide basic and necessary care to everyone, regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. but i don’t see why someone can’t refuse to artificially inseminate someone. it’s not like it’s necessary. this has nothing with my opinion or lack thereof on homosexuality, i just think doctors have the right refuse to perform unnecessary procedures on people. it’s not like they were dying and they refused to do some crucial procedure or anything.
Yes.
I’m pretty sure the world would be doing a lot better if there wasn’t any sort of discrimination based on minority, sex, sexual preference, etc. People need to open their eyes and see that people are people, no matter how different we are from each other.
1. They already have the same protection under the law.
2. What happen to freedom of expression of religion? Once again the California courts are infringing on the liberty.
3. If these doctors said no, why didn’t they seek out others that would have agreed?
@Steffs_Confessions - There’s humor in repetition.
It’s okay if you don’t get it, though.
All people should be protected from discrimination.
Ok you say doctors refusing medical treatment, but you are talking about artificially insemination. We are not talking about treating the sick.
Oh well who would expect a fair discussion on this subject. Lets just bring on the sophistry and demonize anyone defending the right of doctors to be involved in this.
Yes.
It did not threaten the lesbian’s health; there was no medical reason not to do so. They didn’t have to become doctors.
i love how everyone sees the word “discrimination” and starts getting on their soapbox and going on about equal rights.
the doctors refused to perform an artificial insemination! it’s not like they denied them basic care or like they were lying on the ground dying and they refused to treat them. it’s a whole different issue.
Yes. There is only so far that freedom of religion can go. If it infringes upon someone else’s rights, that’s where the action can stop.
Just because the doctor doesn’t think they deserve children, doesn’t mean they don’t.
However…. I don’t think what the doctor did was right, but she honestly could have gone somewhere else, it’s not like there aren’t any liberal/non-Christian specialists in California…. You don’t have to deal with anyone you don’t want to, and I certainly wouldn’t want to force him to deal with me (if I were a lesbian, and wishing to be artificially inseminated.)
No … and I’m a lesbian. Now … I wonder if anyone here can guess why.
Yes and no. They should be protected for being discriminated, but to an extent.
Those doctors had the right not to give them what they wanted. Last time I checked, the right to chose your religion is in the constitution and the right to chose your sexual orientation is not. If a doctor felt that giving homosexuals the ability to make a baby is a wrongful decision in their religion, then the law already backs them up. And I’m in no way saying that gays are not people, but they weren’t thought about when the Bill of Rights was being written.
I’m surprised that the Christian doctors don’t see something morally questionable about the procedure itself, nevermind who receives the treatment.
@Amarisa - Well, I think there’s a difference between the artificial insemination and the “designer babies” that have come up.
But perhaps you’re referring to merely conception outside of marriage?
YES!
@stories_for_girls - Heh, why you’re a lesbian, or why you’d say no?
I’d certainly say no in this case, if I were you… I wouldn’t want a botched procedure. I wouldn’t want him to feel forced to help me, but do a poor job because he didn’t think it was right. I’d want his full dedication.
Gah, I’m 50/50 on it. I was going to say yes, but after reading some comments I’m not sure. People are saying they certain people have choices, etc. and it makes sense.
yes, definetly
Yes
@Powerpal2015 - …Last time I checked, the right to chose your religion is in the constitution and the right to chose your sexual orientation is not.
Are you stupid? Just because a right is out explicitly outlined in the Bill of Rights does not mean that the right doesn’t exist. I really hope you’re not saying that systematic discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgenders is both acceptable and legal. Maybe you think that they should have their own drinking fountains.
@alynn89 - they should be obligated to provide basic and necessary care to everyone, regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. but i don’t see why someone can’t refuse to artificially inseminate someone.
A broad decision to work in areas of fertility asides from artifical insemination is very different from making the choice to systematically discriminate against a particular group.
The issue here isn’t the detriments of improper or negligent care, but the idea of a fair and equal society.
@alynn89 - i love how everyone sees the word “discrimination” and starts getting on their soapbox and going on about equal rights.
Because that’s what it is– a question of equal rights. There are more divinding lines than just race and creed.
the doctors refused to perform an artificial insemination! it’s not like they denied them basic care or like they were lying on the ground dying and they refused to treat them. it’s a whole different issue.
Sure, and the doctors, under your provided justification, would be just as right to provide artifical inseimatnion to anyone but blacks; or to anyone but slanty-eyed Asians.
yes. so many discussions about discrimination on xanga lately.
They are given those protections already. Everybody has the right to be free of discrimination because of who they are.
Who they choose to sleep with is another question- it’s an action, not a trait. No one (and this includes Christians) can expect to be free of discrimination based on what they do.
No. They not refusing to give care but to provide services that go against their religion. They should just have to refer the clients to a different doctor – problem solved.
California is fond of forgetting that straight people have rights too.
We seem to forget religious freedom. And if we say we have no right to use religion as an argument, then we sacrificed many peoples’ rights for the rights of one group. Basically it would be giving gays extra rights.
Not to mention that if someone is running any kind of business, shouldn’t they have the right to decide how it will be run, even if we may disagree with the practices?
Of course
@ELBOWpasta - Sure, there’s a big difference. And even a big difference between artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments. But, divorcing sexual intercourse from procreation deviates from nature, which–from a Christian standpoint–God created. I don’t have a fully formed opinion on artificial insemination for married couples (whereas I do on “designer” babies and in-vitro fertilization), but I can definitely see it as an “iffy” moral situation, simply because it circumvents the natural order of things.
@Powerpal2015 - Have you ever read the following line from the Declaration Of Independance? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice the part about “the pursuit of Happiness.” Have you ever talked with a homosexual before they’ve come out of the closet? For a homosexual to have to pretend that they are straight in front of their friends, family, and coworkers for fear of ridicule is NOT Happiness. It’s HELL! Once out of the closet comes a sense of relief and Happiness at a cost. Now the out of the closet homosexuals want to have a family (the pursuit of Happiness) and they are told by discriminatory doctors and/or adoption agencies that they can’t be artificially inseminated or adopt. Hence crushing their pursuit of Happiness.
Of course. Though some people may disagree with homosexuality, it’s no excuse for them to be discriminated. It would be the same as refusing to serve someone because of their race, appearance, personality etc.
On a religious note, Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin and shouldn’t be accepted into the community. For a Christian, that may be true, but God has never allowed discrimination upon anything. Christians have learned to live with sinners since the beginning of their religion. Needless to say, some Christians are sinners as well. So why discriminate only on homosexuality alone? God’s message was always to love your enemies, to love everyone regardless of what they may be. If a person’s a sinner, that is between them and God.
@JJ_Ames - You forget.. Only the politically correct matter. Until of course, they stop being politically correct on something.
@JJ_Ames - No. They not refusing to give care but to provide services that go against their religion. They should just have to refer the clients to a different doctor – problem solved.
Discrimination remains discrimination regardless of the reason. Just because the motivation for discriminatory action is religious in nature, it doesn’t suddenly become legal.
A fertility clinic turning away gays is no different than a restraunt or a hotel systematically turning away homosexuals (kindly) while refering them to more linent establishments. A fertility clinic turning away gys is no different than those same doctors turning away potential clients for the color of their skin or the qualities of their personal faiths.
@Viktorious1 - Because they want to quash religious freedom when it doesn’t agree with them.
It’s funny how if someone a kid at a school refuses to eat or do a certain activity for a religious reason (say a field trip on the sabbath) we’re all fine with it, but when someone actually turns someone away from a business they own for a religious reason, it’s a horrible atrocity.
Christians should have no part in gays having children, it’s immoral and while I don’t think it’s possible to stop homosexual couples from having them, it doesn’t mean it’s ok to help or take a blind eye to it.
I think those doctors are ideological martyrs and should be praised for doing the right thing. At least someone in this country still has the heart to stand up for what they believe in.
I think it’s disgusting that we even have to question whether gays should be treated the same way as everyone else. To think anything else is treating them as second-class citizens. Plus, refusing to treat a lesbian for fertility based on religion is a slippery slope to say, not treating a lesbian for cancer because she was living in sin and cancer was God’s punishment. Seriously. Why can’t we just all live together in EQUALITY and HAPPINESS despite our religious differences?
I thought religion wasn’t supposed to mix in with your work ethics? Wasn’t there a big deal about the ten commandments in a lobby or something a few months back being offending or what not? Obviously this question’s a yes.
Well since I believe that all businesses and the people running those businesses should be free to offer or deny service to anyone for any reason they might desire. People shouldn’t worry about those decisions either because if they are too restrictive then no one will be able to shop there and they will go out of business. Or any group could organize a boycott of the business and once they inflict damage on the bottom line that business is likely to change its policies.
I believe that the government does not have any right to tell private businesses how to run them in any way be it hiring, firing, or issuing services. I believe that the only way the government should have power to control such things is in their own operations and in refusing to do business with any group that does not meet a certain set of standards. I believe that is all the power that the government was granted in the Constitution and I believe that the government should abide by the constitution in everything that it does.
@Amarisa - Definitely, I was just hoping for some clarification.
@trunthepaige - Well, to be fair, the doctor is a doctor and he really doesn’t have any more right than anyone else to decide who gets what. He doesn’t have a say in it. He has to treat people whether he likes them or agrees with their opinions or what. He’s there to perform a service. I don’t understand why he can’t just treat the women like he’s supposed to.
I’m not flaming you or anything, you know I like you, but I’m just saying…
it wouldn’t be necessary if douche bags would just treat them like human beings >: (
Why should we start now?
Progression? What is this progression? There is no mention of progression in my Bible. Mental breakdown*
The Scripture Bat sounds like a pretty amazing idea though.
@mrcolorful - So what happens when a privately-funded hospital allows a patient to suffer because the doctor doesn’t want to treat the patient because he’s a homosexual and doesn’t agree with his lifestyle?
I’m just saying, medicine is another animal than say, entertainment or food businesses. Whether it’s fertility medicine or not.
@Allen_Oz - I think those doctors are ideological martyrs and should be praised for doing the right thing. At least someone in this country still has the heart to stand up for what they believe in.
What was it that the 9/11 hijackers say before they became matyrs themselves? Oh yeah: Praise Allah.
Yes, but hell, they should have just went to another doctor. Why have somone look at the goods if they are going to be judging you?!
Xo
It’s one thing if you refuse to artificially inseminate someone because you think it is wrong to “play god”, it is something else if you select the people who you artificially inseminate based on their sexual orientation. So yeah, I do think homosexual people deserve those rights because they are people too.
@huginn - Wow, talk about religiously ignorant. I don’t think those doctors blew anyone up. They have the right as a private business owner to deny service for ethical/religious reasons. This fell under that category. End of story.
@mrcolorful - Well since I believe that all businesses and the people running those businesses should be free to offer or deny service to anyone for any reason they might desire… any group could organize a boycott of the business and once they inflict damage on the bottom line that business is likely to change its policies.
The Civil Rights movement of the 60′s became a success only after the Warren Court sprung to action. Civil Disobedience is a means to the end of legislative action.
I believe that the government does not have any right to tell private businesses how to run them in any way be it hiring, firing, or issuing services.
Why not?
@Drakonskyr - Swing away bud, you couldn’t hit me if you tried
@Allen_Oz - Wow, talk about religiously ignorant. I don’t think those doctors blew anyone up.
I left my point ambigious, but my idea was this: With religious justification, any horribly fucked-up shit becomes suddenly kosher. See: Old Testament. See: Abortion clinic bombings.
They have the right as a private business owner to deny service for ethical/religious reasons.
Even if they feel a certain way about people’s skin tone or non-Judeo-Christian-ness? You are aware that not all faiths are as “inclusive” as main-stream Christainity?
There is a big difference between race and a persons lifestyle here Dan, you should know that
@captain_jaq - Lets just say you think selectively killing fully developed, just shy of being naturally born, baby girls in the third trimester because you only want boys, is a bad thing. Or maybe they find that gay gene and want gay babies dead. These things are legal right now, but any Christian doctor would refuse to do it. So do you want to effectively ban Christians and anyone else with any real moral standards from being doctors?
And don’t worry i like you as well, and that is not going to change over things like this
@UnworthyofHisgrace - Religion falls under “lifestyle.”
I believe that if there is a public service being offered, and the law prohibits discrimination based on such abstract ideas as religious belief, then there is no more ground for discrimination against gays than there is for discrimination against Redskin fans or Hannah Montana fans. Whether it is a lifestyle choice (which i personally believe, and don’t care to argue about) or a pre-existing condition, it is not at all a viable ground for discrimination.
However, in the case of private practice, I believe that every privately owned company reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, regardless of cause. So while there is no grounds for public discrimination, I think that these two fertility doctors, if they are private practice fertility doctors, have the right to refuse service and the profit that would result.
So, should gays be given protections against public discrimination? Yes. But if we feign to consider ourselves a free market economy, can we force customers upon an unwilling vendor? Does a private practice doctor not sell his or her services at his or her own leisure? I believe these are the questions that need to be asked.
As far as theologically, the death of Jesus Christ prohibits Christians from being agents of wrath. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus, and we are to forgive as we were forgiven. Just because we are uncomfortable around “gays” doesn’t mean we have an excuse to love them any less than we have been called to self-sacrificially love others.
Everybody should be given the same basic rights to medical care, independent of their ethnic background or sexual orientation. That is the bottom line…
@bigpirate64 - Definitionally, what’s your dividng line between what you would consider a “private” service and a “public” service?
@huginn - Orientation isn’t the same as race. Yes, you can justify a lot with religion but really there are lot of fertility doctors out there and it doesn’t sound like they were being jerks about it.
Even if they feel a certain way about
people’s skin tone or non-Judeo-Christian-ness? You are aware that not
all faiths are as “inclusive” as main-stream Christainity?
I don’t see where skin tone was mentioned in the article. And we’re not talking about the inclusiveness of Christianity, we’re talking about two people who asked these doctors for a service that went against their religious, moral code of conduct (a sin.) I wouldn’t willingly ask someone in another religion to do something that was a sin to them, I’d think that to be a very cruel thing to do to them.Muslim doctors would’ve done the same thing, or Jewish doctors.
@huginn - Care to elaborate on that sir?
yes
@huginn - Public service is a service that is supplied by the government. If a private service is not provided to a group for any reason, in a free market system, they can usually go elsewhere and tell their friends how horrible the first non-service was and hurt their business potentially.
Where I live there’s a huge shortage of dentists. Should I a sue a dentist because he denise me service because he already has too many patients? Not the same scenario I know, but if a private company can’t deny service, sometimes it hurts them more than it helps.
@trunthepaige - No, I don’t want Christians to not become doctors…that wouldn’t be right. I want them to stop using their religion as an excuse to not treat patients. Besides, no Christian– at least not one who is pro-life– is going to become an abortionist.
I just believe they are there to perform a service and nothing else. And while I would have absolutely no respect for the woman who chose to abort her gay fetus because she didn’t want a gay child, I would still expect the abortionist to do it. It’s grisly work either way.
But when I go to the doctor I don’t expect to hear, “Nope, you’re a big fat lesbian so I’m not treating you”. I expect professionalism, something you can’t have if you allow personal beliefs to interfere with the work you signed on to do.
Okay, I’m glad =]
@Allen_Oz - I don’t see where skin tone was mentioned in the article. And we’re not talking about the inclusiveness of Christianity.
No. I rebutted, particularily your standard of: “They have the right as a private business owner to deny service for ethical/religious reasons.”
My implicit argument was that this is a bad standard, since by this idea alone, discrimination based on race and faith is kosher as long as the doctors had an “ethical” or “religious” reason for that discrimination. This is a hypothetical test to your idea.
@UnworthyofHisgrace - Sure.
Your implicit point, I gathered, was that a person’s sexual orienation does not deserve same sort of protection that a person’s race would because it would involve a certain amount of choice.
My brief response was meant to point out that “religion,” too, is merely a matter of choice. And just because “lifestlye” or “choice” is involved in sexual orientation that we should immediately rule it out as a category worthy of protection against discrimnatory policies and practices.
@captain_jaq - I’m sorry but fertility medicine is like entertainment and food service, it is entirely elective on the part of the customer. Emergency medicine is the only type of medicine in which your claim about it being different has any real validity in my opinion and I seriously doubt that the doctors and nurses in emergency rooms know or even care about the sexual orientation of their patients, you don’t get into that field of medicine unless you desire a fast paced and challenging work environment. Besides, do you really believe it likely in today’s society that service would be restricted in very many emergency rooms? Even if one or two doctors in the ER don’t want to treat a patient for one of those reasons they are not likely to have a job for very long and there is most likely another doctor to take their place.
@mrcolorful - Seperate but equal drinking fountains and bathrooms are fair and acceptable disciminatory facilities since their lack of use aren’t life threatening?
don’t lash at me. But no. Like yes but no. I don’t know. I don’t think they should have children. But like eating in a resturant and stuff no big deal. I got no hate towards them and I don’t treat them with hate. So I don’t think about it too much. So I’m undecided.
@huginn - It might not make the most practical business model, but to deny a doctor the right to have their own personal morals… well should they not have morals while being doctors?
Yes.
@Allen_Oz - It might not make the most practical business model, but to deny a doctor the right to have their own personal morals…
At the point that a buisness interfaces with the broader public, that buisness, by fiat, has accepted the operating standards of that society. In the United States, we have anti-discriminatory policies. Intellectually and historically, our country was founded on the precepts of a free and inclusive society of a free and inclusive society.
The doctor can practice however they wish, but if they violate American ideas of an inclusive society, they’d have to suffer the legal, professional, and/or buisness concenquences.
…..
Lesbians are not monsters, they are not animals. They are people in love just like everyone else. How would you feel if someone denied you your rights because they didn’t like red hair, or brown eyes, or tall people? When did we start taking away people’s right of procreation? I swear the older I get the less faith I have in mankind….
@Allen_Oz - We’re also a society founded on Judeo-Christian morals.
How? In what sense?
I’m pretty sure that there comes a place where inclusity and that clash and I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m going to sdie with moral values over inclusivity. Unless that’s immoral of course…
Until the late 1800′s, slavery of blacks did not clash with the devout Christianity of the American South. In colonial America and the drafting of the Constitution, the englighened morals of “Christian America” did not move to outlaw slavery.
@huginn - discriminating against someone’s religion is also discrimination. Sexual preference and skin color aren’t the same thing – one is based on choices and the other on genetics. The doctor didn’t do anything illegal or threatening and the client in question could have gone to another doctor.
@mrcolorful - Yes, I do believe it could happen. In a life and death situation, you won’t have time to go fetch another doctor. The patient is dead.
It is elective on the part of the patient. But not the doctor. He signed on to do his job and he should just do his damn job. Besides…what business does he have as a Christian being a fertility doctor when that’s kind of like playing God in itself?
I’m just saying he doesn’t get to pick and choose who he will treat. He is a doctor, he is being paid to perform a service, and he should do it. There’s no professionalism if he can’t get past a disagreement and treat his patient. Which really means he probably shouldn’t be practicing medicine anyway.
@insert_label_here_003 - Ever since we grew god complexes and decided what we could do to improve or degrade the lives of others.
@huginn - they didn’t move to outlaw slavery because they were attempting to form a nation – some of the states were opposed to slavery but compromised to get the country started. Did they do the right thing? I don’t believe so. But it was a compromise of their morals that lead to slavery continuing and now the CA gov is attempting to force “compromise” where it isn’t needed.
@JJ_Ames - Sexual preference and skin color aren’t the same thing – one is based on choices and the other on genetics.
One’s religious faith, too, is a measure of choice. Then by this differentiation, religious discrimination is kosher.
discriminating against someone’s religion is also discrimination.
Why do you think this is the case?
The doctor didn’t do anything illegal or threatening and the client in question could have gone to another doctor.
The same could be said of any “Whites only” supermarket.
@captain_jaq - any Christian doctor refuses treatment in a life or death situation deserves to be punished – that’s a violation of medical ethics and Christian principles. In the case of paternity, they’re probably not going to die because of being referred to another doctor.
@huginn - so one choice trumps another? That’s rich. Nations that discriminate based on religion are ruled by tyrants. “Whites only” supermarkets are discriminating on something that can’t be changed and isn’t chosen.
@JJ_Ames - You are absolutely right. They’re not going to die because they don’t get pregnant. But consider this. We know there are Christians–as well as any other religious group– with extremists. So lets say we get a fresh doctor, a professed Christian, who refuses to help a gay patient because, well, he thinks the affliction is a result of the gay person’s sinful lifestyle and rebellion. He thinks God gave him this affliction. I know it sounds farfetched but you really don’t have to comb very deeply to find someone with this mentality. And frankly, that scares the hell out of me.
@captain_jaq - And what scares the heck out of Christians is the idea that inclusiveness will supersede our own moral code for abstaining from sin. Like being forced by law to help a gay couple affirm their lifestyle through having children like these doctors refused.
@JJ_Ames - Nations that discriminate based on religion are ruled by tyrants.
Is this an argument from history?
Anyways. This is my take: Religious affiliation, like racial affliation, plays stronlgy into one’s self-identity. A person’s religious faith is fairly inflexible– changing religious belieifs isn’t as trivial and as easy as changing favorite colors. Because religious and ethnic affiliation figure so prominently into self-identity, they are easy basis for discrimination.
Sexual orientation meets these characteristics: The typical straight guy won’t turn gay just for the heck of it.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation, is as relevantly bad as discrimination based on race or religion.
“Whites only” supermarkets are discriminating on something that can’t be changed and isn’t chosen.
Okay. Then try a “Protestant only” supermarket. “Atheists and catholics strictly forbidden.”
@captain_jaq - what scares the hell out of me is “Christians” being lumped together with the .0001% of loons that claim that name. Any Christian doctor that’d let someone die is a monster that a) society and b) the Church will weed out – he’s got jail time if not an execution coming. Sweeping legislation like this scares me because excellent doctors will be forced out of work if they don’t betray their faith – and for a Christian who takes his/her faith seriously faith is worth more than living.
I read an article recently where a psychologist was sued because she referred a homosexual client to another therapist because the client was asking for relational therapy – something against the psychologist’s Christian beliefs. What she did wasn’t only professional but also ethical according the APA, a non-religious organization that sets and polices the field of psychology. The psychologist did what was ethical and she was fired from her job.
That’s discrimination and that’s what I hate seeing. That psychologist literally could not win – treating the patient would be a legal violation and not treating the patient got her fired despite following ethical procedures.
@huginn - Your arguments are terrible as usual. That argument is indeed from history – communist regimes along with fascism and theocracies are historically oppressive and consumptive of human life. The beauty of America is how much freedom it gives people to live the way they want. What that doctor did didn’t force her clients to change anything about themselves and CAN NOT be compared to forcing someone out of a supermarket or hotel based on race.
You’re not arguing for freedom and respect for all but freedom and respect only for those you agree with – the doctor didn’t make an ethical violation and was within his/her rights. The state of CA has a history of passing bills that discriminate against Christian principles and often supports bills that’d be shot down without thought in other parts of the country.
We should inseminate gay men.
yes…. gays and lesbians are minorities as well…
oh dear me.
i’ve been reading through some horrendous comments.
something that kind of irks me though, is all the people saying privately owned businesses having the right to refuse services to anyone.
seriously, you could pull some really fucked up shit with that standard because it’s so broad.
what ever happened to being decent fucking human beings?
@Allen_Oz - Then perhaps, if one is so opposed to breaking their moral code, one should consider career fields that will not require one to do so. Besides, isn’t impregnating women artificially kind of against what God says in the first place?
@JJ_Ames - christian principles like what?
homosexuality and abortion are touchy issues so i wouldn’t get into that, the outcome of those is obvious. what other christian-less bills are being passed?
@JJ_Ames - Your arguments are terrible as usual.
Sure. But would you please point out the flaws? You just stating this doesn’t make my arugments go away. If my arguments are indeed bad, it should be easy for you to rebut them.
What that doctor did didn’t force her clients to change anything about themselves and CAN NOT be compared to forcing someone out of a supermarket or hotel based on race.
I’m CALLING on you to JUSTIFY this point. How is discrimination on this non-essential medical service based of sexual orientation relevantly dissimilar from banning homosexuals from supermakets or hotels. You pounding caps doesn’t magically prove the matter.
You’re not arguing for freedom and respect for all but freedom and respect only for those you agree with…
I summarized the motivational ideas for my position in a different comment. I’ll copy/paste it here for you:
At the point that a buisness interfaces with the broader public, that buisness, by fiat, has accepted the operating standards of that society. In the United States, we have anti-discriminatory policies. Intellectually and historically, our country was founded on the precepts of a free and inclusive society of a free and inclusive society.
The doctor can practice however they wish, but if they violate American ideas of an inclusive society, they’d have to suffer the legal, professional, and/or buisness concenquences.
The state of CA has a history of passing bills that discriminate against Christian principles…
Bigotry against homosexual is not a universal Christian principle, I’m sure many of this board can personally attest to this point. Furthermore, you’d note that the intellectual foundations of this country and democracy are decidedly secular.
The United States of America isn’ta theocracy. Christainity isn’t the state-endorsed religion of the country. Motivations for legislation, then, extend independently of the confines of Biblical interpreation.
If ideas of racial equality steps on the toes of White supremecists, then I guess it’s too bad. If some conservative Christians are offended about the extention of civil rights to all, regardless of sexual orientation, then too bad. You see, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison paved the way for a wall, one that has served us well: The seperation between church and state.
@JJ_Ames - I don’t disagree with you and I certainly don’t believe all, or even most Christians are extremists like that. But you can’t ignore the fact that it COULD happen and that, if they were permitted to deny service based on religion by law, IT WOULD BE LEGAL. I just said this to Allen_Oz and I will say it to you– if Christian doctors are concerned about breaking moral codes by doing the work that their field of medicine requires, they should choose a different branch of medicine (say, podiatry…I don’t see how that violates any moral codes) or avoid medicine all together. But a Christian who feels inseminating only some of his patients can not fulfill his job duties with professionalism and thus should not be practicing fertility medicine. But they are most certainly not “great doctors” if they can’t muster up that bit of professionalism to complete a job they signed on for in the first place.
Look, I’m a vegetarian. I work in a kitchen. It’s against my moral code to promote the killing of animals for food. Yet I still cook the hamburgers I’m required to cook, as per my job duties, for my customers. Yeah, I don’t like it. Yeah, it kind of makes me feel bad. But I signed onto that job knowing I would have to deal with meat and knowing I might not always like it or approve of it. But I do know well enough that I am there to provide a service to my customers and NOT dictate how they should live their lives by referring them to a restaurant down the street. It doesn’t mean I don’t take my morals seriously. I would NEVER dream of biting into one of those burgers. But it isn’t harming me to perform the service I was hired to. And really, how much is it going to harm this doctor to inseminate the woman like the others he has?
Mental health is a totally separate field. That’s relational. She had to be referred to someone who would adequately help her and in that case, given that it is mental health, the Christian therapist obviously wasn’t it. I don’t believe she should have been fired for that. It sounds like another frivolous lawsuit in my opinion.
However, the doctor was well qualified to help her, did not have to undergo hours of discussion on homosexuality and probably the homosexual’s private life, and all the while tell the person he or she was a worthwhile individual with a good life. This fertility doctor had to essentially just squeeze the needle and be done with it.
Maybe, but their reasons for not performing the artificial insemination had to do with their spiritual beliefs. In some Muslim cultures, it  is perfectly normal that if a woman is raped, she should be punished for it, sometimes upto death. Similarly, most Christian beliefs have very limited views on homosexuality. I don’t support homosexuality, I’m indifferent, but I think its wrong for professionals to refuse services based on a person’s sexuality because of their spiritual beliefs. I mean, you could take it back to that whole idea of ” The Mark Of Cain” back in the early 1900′s which was a religious excuse to disciminate against Blacks.Â
The service in question may have been relatively minor, but the context is rather important here.Â
 @alynn89 -Â
Yes. It’s not right to deny someone something based on their sexuality. Especially if they were trying to have children… that’s just sad.
@captain_jaq - But if the procedure is so simple and ho-hum why can’t the client just go to a different doctor? We’ve got laws protecting Muslim taxi drivers but we can’t allow a doctor to refer a patient to another doctor?
Well of course.
@onlyFORaLILwhile - Why shouldn’t they be allowed to have children? What’s so wrong with that?
@JJ_Ames -Â
I don’t like you (rather your opinions, perhaps) much, but I will attempt to keep this concise and civil.
First, sexuality is not a “choice” as much as hetereosexuality is a choice. Did you choose to be attracted to women? I didn’t, but I am. Tests have been performed by psychologists (quite some time ago, in fact) in which participants were exposed to pheromones from the same sex as well as from the opposite sex. People who were homosexual were aroused by the pheromones fo the same sex, though they were not aroused by pheromones of the opposite sex. The converse is true for heterosexuals, which is hopefully obvious. In addition to that, homosexuals typically have slightly higher levels of testosterone/ estrogen, depending on what gender the homosexual happens to be.
Unless you have solved the mystery of altering the levels of chemicals in one’s body by sheer willpower, not to mention a person’s reactions TO those various chemicals, those don’t sound like choices.
Secondly, you are missing the point, and quite badly. “discrimination against Christians”? Please. First, Christians and Catholics vastly outnumber every other religion in this country, including Atheism. Besides that, you don’t get your own reeligion at all. Go read the bible. Christians arent intended to be in charge, and it isn’t supposed to be easy. We aren’t supposed to be surrounded by wholesomeness and good times. Things are suppsoed to be bad.Â
YOU are supposed to prove yourself by acting with compassion and love for others even when you don’t agree with them and even when they may be acting in a way which you find sinful. Christianity has NOTHING to do with the government, and NOTHING to do with homosexuality. It has to do with YOU and those people you find fellowship with. It certainly seems as if you are more concerned with what you hate in others than adhering to your own religious beliefs.
@JJ_Ames - And why can’t the doctor just perform it? They probably chose the doctor for a reason. I’m certain they didn’t pull the name out of the phonebook.
@huginn - you conjure up improbable scenarios to support your arguments – that’s the fundamental flaw in most of what you say.
Human sexuality doesn’t have to be acted upon and it’s fluid throughout the lifespan so basing rights on how gay or straight someone is is ridiculous.
If “American” ideals involve forcing doctors to do things they believe unethical this country is doomed. The client didn’t need that procedure and the doctor acted within his/her rights and it’s professionally ethical to state objections up front and refer them to another doctor.
Denying people food and shelter isn’t anything like referring someone to another doctor for a nonessential procedure.
What the doctor did wasn’t bigotry against homosexuals – you obviously don’t understand what the word means.
American has never been a theocracy and I never meant to imply it had been. Part of the founding principles behind America were based on avoiding theocracy because it’s destructive. I was mostly referring to Islamic theocracies.
What conservative Christians are “bigotted” against isn’t homosexuality but being discriminated against in what jobs they can choose based on their religion. Good doctors, psychologists, and teachers lose their jobs because of their faith, not because of a violation of their contracts or negligence of their jobs.
@captain_jaq - I’m unsure why the doctor didn’t perform that operation. I’m studying to be a psychologist so I know it’s a touchy subject for both professions. I wouldn’t have a problem working with a homosexual client but for psychologists who would it’s their ethical and legal duty to refer that client to another qualified professional. The purpose is give the client the best services possible and the hope is that by referring them to a doctor with no legal qualms they’d reserve better care and feel understood.
If this doctor acted out of spite for homosexuals I’d be upset too – that’d be a violation of ethics. But if all he/she did was express their religious beliefs and refer them to another doctor then I’m concerned that professionals will lose their jobs for believing in something unpopular.
I guess I’m just worried that we’ll overcompensate for real bigotry and end up biased again in the other direction
Being Bi myself I actually think this is a very complex issue, because it could be argued that it’s reverse discrimination not to respect the doctors beliefs. I believe that if a person wants to become a doctor with those beliefs in their head, than they need to be made known and there needs to be another person on site for these kinds of situations. If anesthesia was legal in places I would say the same thing. I’m sure there are incidences of other doctors who have religious beliefs and have referred their patients to somebody else for various procedures. (which in this case the doctor, i believe, did refer her to another clinic)
@destroyERIKreator - who one is attracted to is partly nature and partly nurture and it fluctuates over the lifespan. Please don’t try to use “psychology says this” as an argument – the studies are contradictory and politics has played a large part in psychology’s history on this topic.
We choose how we express our sexuality even if we can’t choose who we find attractive. Humans are capable of exerting their will.
You’d be surprised how much discrimination has be directed at Christians – but it isn’t newsworthy because nobody cares when the majority is discriminated against. Nevermind that the majority and the minority are both made up of individuals both capable of suffering from the stupidity of others.
Morality has something to do with government and Christianity is a moral code that governs the lives of its adherents. Barring homosexuality, is there really that much you find offensive about the basic tenants of Christianity?
Further, I don’t believe I’ve acted hatefully or disrespectfully toward homosexuals. I’ve argued in favor of respect matters of conscience and in acting professionally. If I were provided evidence that the doctor violated one of these I’d argue against him/her.
When did I say I hate homosexuals? I disagree with acting on homosexual impulses but I also disagree with acting on heterosexual impulses that fall outside of Biblical principles. But even though I disagree with those choices I have friends who are homosexuals and I hope they always feel respected and cared for by me because I truly do care for them.
@alynn89 - i agree
@StrongLetterI - most of the other discriminatory legislation in CA revolves around education – homeschooling and Christian private schools catch flak for not using exactly the same textbooks as the state run system and some colleges won’t accept Christian students on the basis of that differing education, not on the quality of the student.
Last time I checked, gays and lesbians are humans. In my book, that’s all the qualification you need to deserve protection against discrimination.
Yes.
Just as any other group that’s discriminated against because of something that’s beyond their control should be given those same rights and protections. If tomorrow people started discriminating against people with red hair, then those with red hair would deserve some degree of protection against that discrimination.
@JJ_Ames - you conjure up improbable scenarios to support your arguments – that’s the fundamental flaw in most of what you say.
They’re not practical “scnearios.” The hypothetical tests were for me to gauge your position (so I coudl address it particuarily, as opposed to guessing it) and in seperate occasions as a logical test of your position.
Human sexuality doesn’t have to be acted upon and it’s fluid throughout the lifespan so basing rights on how gay or straight someone is is ridiculous.
1.) This very argument of your’s defeats “religious rights.” Religion too must be acted upon (active thinking, active worship). Likewise, a person may change his or her religion over the span ofa lifetime.
If you claim exemption for “religious right,” then you ineivtably capture the “right of sexual discrimination.”
2.) You are wrong: Sexual orientation is relatively solid. Most straight men stay straight throughout their lives. And actual changes in sexual orientation happen in the long-haul
If “American” ideals involve forcing doctors to do things they believe unethical this country is doomed.
Not discriminating against gays, I believe, would actually go towards healing our fractured society.
The client didn’t need that procedure and the doctor acted within his/her rights and it’s professionally ethical to state objections up front and refer them to another doctor.
Denial of service is very different from listing objections. Denial of service based on a person’s ethnic makeup or religious self-identification is wrong on societal principles. This is even if the doctor may be a deep and sincere racist.
My position is that denail of service based on a person’s sexual orientation is, by the same logical links, wrong.
Denying people food and shelter isn’t anything like referring someone to another doctor for a nonessential procedure.
“Seperate but equal” drinking fountains leaves no one ill or dehydrated. The very act of discrimination is harmful.
What the doctor did wasn’t bigotry against homosexuals – you obviously don’t understand what the word means.
Wow. This is a persuasive argument. I’ll take your word for it!
@JJ_Ames - that’s kinda shitty. i know most home schooled kids are in religious families. i might think some of them are crazy, but i don’t think they weren’t educated properly.
i remember taking some really stupid standardized test in high school.
Simple. Find another doctor and don’t create yet another law.
Definitely.
Those doctors should change their views, for their sake.
For this, they’re probably going to lose a lot of patients due to their offensive actions.
There is a natural motherly instinct in most women, and denying them children is just wrong.
@Drakonskyr - I don’t want to call you brilliant ’cause that just feeds your ego, but damnit that was brilliant!
@captain_jaq - I’m more concerned for the implications for other professions where people used to have such an option. Take pastors and churches that are used for marriages for example. Were this court ruling to take it’s logical course of implications, you could sue a church if they refused to be used due to the marriage being “immoral” whether gay or straight (some churches will not allow people to “remarry” depending on the circumstances of the previous marriage). Or a Christian wedding photographer.
You’re right about the fertilization/Christian thing. I don’t know if a Christian doctor should be in such a profession, but again, it’s the implications for other private businesses/institutions I’m concerned about.
Yes.
Shouldn’t everyone be given the same protection against discrimination? Isn’t limiting that protection to certain groups discrimination? I mean, that is basically the definition of discrimination, right?
So shouldn’t it be for all humans, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other stupid thing we come up with to separate ourselves from one another?
If they can care for the kid properly, who cares if it’s a couple lesbians? I don’t.
Tricky.
The government shouldn’t be able to force doctors to administer a procedure against their beliefs anymore than they should be able to censor the KKK. That doesn’t mean that the KKK or these doctors are right for their prejudice, religious or otherwise. I’m sympathetic to the gay and lesbian community, but I favor individual liberties above all else. There’s a doctor somewhere who will help them.
@Drakonskyr -
can i play?
@Drakonskyr - Why should doctors have to perform procedures that go against their own moral positions? Where are their civil protections? I’m sure there are plenty of fertility specialists who would gladly perform the procedures and not compromise their own integrity in the process.
No “Christian” professional should have to do anything outside of their own moral code. I don’t know how you interpret a physicians refusal to do a fertility procedure as ‘over quoting the scripture thing’. Now if that same doctor refused to do CPR because the woman was a lesbian that is another ball of wax.
Do you know that some professional plastic surgeons refuse to do plastic surgery for some clients? What is the criteria? Personal value judgment that says the client doesn’t need it or that the client has unreal expectations or that the client is psychologically unstable. Should we bash this doctor with a bat and ball? Or does this individual physician reserve the right to make value judgments?
Food for thought.
Yes, if they are being discriminated against than I believe they deserve protection. They are people, too and deserve every opportunity the rest of the country has.
@Drakonskyr - haha! i totally agree with you!
Of course, it would be crazy not to allow them their rights.
Yes.
No.
I am a Christian and it disgusts me that there are Christians out there that act this way. Â Yes they deserve the same protection against discrimination. Â Yes they deserve the same rights as anyone else. Â They are people too! Â On top of that, our governments are secular institutions. Â It’s not the goverments place to dictate morality. Â Let them get married, give them all the same rights afforded everyone else… that’s freedom.
I personally don’t care at all who someone sleeps with, or what their sexual preference is. I also feel that forcing a doctor to go against their personal beliefs is wrong though. For example, some doctors are uncomfortable treating known members of various extreme groups, especially when they are the opposite side. I agree with the statement that from alynn89 that it’s not like they denied them them basic or life saving care. However, I do believe that the one doctor is more in the wrong then the other. I believe that it is the second one that referred them to a doctor that would do it? I find that an acceptable alternative. I don’t know how religious either doctor is, and it might very well have been pure and simple discrimination. However, there are two pieces of doctrine that covers this senerio. The first being that they are not married, and the second being that it’s wrong in the eyes of the church to have sex unless it is to procreate. SOOO, even having sex with a partner that is sterile, clipped or tied is technically wrong in the eys of the church. Not that I think that’s right, but I do believe it’s wrong to make snap decisions about either doctor since none of us know their true beliefs. Just a thought, and I am a firm believe of pro-gay legislastion such as marriage, because again, it doesn’t hurt me who you sleep with or who you love.
Not at the expense of trampling someone elses human rights.
Equal rights across the board for everyone. Utopia? Yes. But let’s at least try.
No. No one- not even doctors should be forced to go against conscience in matters not dealing with emergencies. It’s one thing to save the life of someone who’s lifestyle the doctor disagrees with- its an entirely other thing to encourage that lifestyle via medical help. Next thing you know- they’re going to try to use this law to force doctors to commit baby murder (another MAJOR reason I’m against the government taking over the healthcare system).
That couple could’ve very easily gone to another specialist. Did they? No. They’re obviously trying to set judicial precedents and get judges to legislate from the bench- hence the reason why we need to stop judicial activism.
Yes.
And I hope to fuck that those objector policies involving Plan B contraception have been abolished in more states.
I don’t care if you’re anti-abortion. If your job is to fill prescriptions, you damn well better give me my pills.
@huginn - Allen_oz did answer the question the way I would have, and as far as “bad standards,” the point of the free market is that the market itself will punish bad standards. The business will fail to attract both those it rejects and those who disagree with their standards enough to base a business/consumer decision on that disagreement.
Now, do we have that? To a certain extent. A radio station plays the style of music it plays, and if I don’t like easy listening and want them to change to christian heavy metal, I am out of luck. I just have to change the channel until I find the right one, or listen to CD’s.
The thing about this particular subject, being gays and fertility, is that we are only looking at it from one side. No one seems to think it unfair to ask someone to do something completely against the doctor’s faith, and yet it is an outrage to act contrary to, or unsupportive of, the lesbian’s lifestyle. What line do you find then? Do we tolerate every single opposing viewpoint, but reject a Christian’s faith and belief as a basis for privately determining a course of action? A Christian would tell you about their faith exactly what a lesbian would tell you about their lifestyle… that it isn’t just what they do, it is who they are.
@PreciousOnyx - I’m against old people having sex. If God doesn’t want to allow you to have an errection, then you should not get one. I’m not going to enourage an old-people-sex lifestyle….so I’m not going to fill prescriptions for Viagra. Because that will just encourage those old wrinkly men having gross, wrinkly sex.
You do see how this follows your line of thinking, right?
ABSOLUTELY, Yes. Jeez. It amazes me how seming religious people will go so far out of their way to try to treat other people badly just because they are different than them.
Yes.
@PreciousOnyx -
I take the opposite view. If there are things in a particular career path that go against your principles then you should choose a different career path. For instance, there are certain positions in business and advertising I would never take because there are things about those jobs I find a little unethical. Or, to exaggerate slightly, what if someone had a fantasy that they wanted to be a stripper or hooker, but wouldn’t actually take their clothes off or have sex because it was against their religion. Life is a matter of choices. I can’t take a job as a baker, or work in a doughnut shop because I think sugar is poisoning our bodies. It would be ridiculous of me to take a job and refuse to sell any but sugar free products.
Yes, I think they should. They are people too and are discriminated against just as much a some minority groups, more than others. It just seems like common sense to give them the same protections.
@huginn - No, on the contrary, I’m quite gifted. But I’m really only looking at the logic that is our fore fathers. They were part of a different time, but we let them set down our rules of today. And I’m not saying that systematic discrimination is acceptable and legal, but the right to chose your religion is. That is where the doctors have the legal advantage. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to prove what is and is not CONSTITUTIONAL (larger lettering is provided for easier comprehension).
And the water fountain comment is not relevant. Do you remember when America forced gays to work on fields for 400 years? No. Blacks were discrimated against because they were previously thought as inferior and not qualified to drink from the same place as whites. This idea was only reinforced because of the past, when they were just property. Have gays ever been property? Why do you think you deserve the same privileges as those whose ancestors worked and died to make this country great? Did you earn it like they did?
@LadyValkyrie37 - I have known someone who was in the closet who is out now. And if it was hell, it sure didn’t look like it. It maybe just one case and it could be an outlier of the whole, but it he was still there.
And I have read the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you should have looked into the time in which it was written. They may actually mean all MEN. Thinking that women were not qualified to do such things. But this is a new day, a better one. Where men and women now should share that right. But the Declaration of Independence means nothing in a court of law. It was our way of saying goodbye to England. Our rules for this country come from the Constitution. And it says freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. But not sexual orientation. That’s the fact. That’s where I’m coming from.
Now the right to give birth is what this story was about, not the right to adopt. At least what I read. I find it perfectly acceptable for gays to adopt and in fact encourage it. Some straight parents can be nightmares and I’d rather see a kid be happy with gays then miserable with straights.
@bigpirate64 - NIcely said. Love the last paragraph!
Yes, they should. If your religious beliefs get in the way of doing your job properly, maybe you should change professions.
No, the first amendment gives religious freedom to everyone, including doctors whose religion prohibits them from treating gays and lesbians.
This kind of discrimination is very small-minded in any case, but then don’t we have the right to be small-minded if we choose? These “protections” essentially FORCE people to enter into business transactions and other interactions against their will. To be forced to perform a service for someone against one’s will is almost the definition of slavery. How is that moral?
@bigpirate64 - Allen_oz did answer the question the way I would have, and as far as “bad standards,” the point of the free market is that the market itself will punish bad standards.
Not necessarily. A fewv ideas:
1.) There would be no backlash unless the practices of the buisness were particularily egregious and only if the practices were particularily visible.
2.) There would no backlash if the prevailing attitude in the community is passive acquiescence at the level of the community. Jim Crow laws stood for so long because for a long time, no one gave a shit or when they did, it was in acceptance of racial discrimination.
3.) There is no reason to look to market response as the first-level response to unfair and unjust buisness practices. There will always be a lag between practice and backlash (if any). The enforcement of laws are more practical and effective
Now, do we have that? To a certain extent. A radio station plays the style of music it plays, and if I don’t like easy listening and want them to change to christian heavy metal, I am out of luck. I just have to change the channel until I find the right one, or listen to CD’s.
It is trivial to characterize systematic discrimination as an issue of convinence. Sure, practically, I’m sure Blacks in the 1950′s may be annoyed in being limited to particular water fountains and restrooms; the scars of it, though, runs across deepers lines.
..What line do you find then? Do we tolerate every single opposing viewpoint, but reject a Christian’s faith and belief as a basis for privately determining a course of action?
In the conflict between faith and laws, laws trump. Polygamy doesn’t become legal just because it’s a part of someone’s deeply held beliefs. Corporations must have equal treatment of the sexes even if the owner may be a devout and sincere militant, fundamentalist Muslim.
This is the United States. We put a premium on a generally inclusive society.
@Powerpal2015 - But I’m really only looking at the logic that is our fore fathers. They were part of a different time, but we let them set down our rules of today.
Ninth Amednment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And I’m not saying that systematic discrimination is acceptable and legal, but the right to chose your religion is. That is where the doctors have the legal advantage. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to prove what is and is not CONSTITUTIONAL (larger lettering is provided for easier comprehension).
The practice of religious practices is kosher in-so-far that it does not break pre-existing laws. Polygamy doesn’t suddenly become legal for fundamentalist Mormons in the U.S. The circumcision of little girls does not become tolerable if it’s a part of someone’s religious beliefs.
And the water fountain comment is not relevant. Do you remember when America forced gays to work on fields for 400 years? No. Blacks were discrimated against because they were previously thought as inferior and not qualified to drink from the same place as whites.
This idea was only reinforced because of the past, when they were just property. Have gays ever been property?
This is a disgusting stance. You’re saying that the racial discrimination of blacks is only wrong in view of their historical injustices. By extention, you are saying that racial discrimination of, say, Korean-Americans or Indian-Americans are acceptable because they’ve had no systematic injustices in the United States.
Racial discrimination, in and of itself, is undesirable. Deiscrimination based on sex, religion, and orientation fall in the same category.
Why do you think you deserve the same privileges as those whose ancestors worked and died to make this country great? Did you earn it like they did?
No, those who came before us fought and earned it for us. I am entirely thankful for it.
Okay. I had something ridiculously long, drawn out, and tangential written up. I will save it.
Yes. We protect the rights of the couple.
This wouldn’t be nearly as hotly debated if, let’s say, the doctor asked to artificially inseminate Clay Aiken’s little lady (read that to mean cougar) had denied that couple because they were unwed. Most of us would be furious with that doctor. Who gave him the right to “weed out” who he would perceive to be unfit parents?
Just remember, especially ladies, if we want to give doctors the right to deny this particular treatment based on religious beliefs, we had better be prepared for them to deny other treatments: birth control. And, yes, the legislation is out there that would protect doctors who deny that, and if our darling administration has anything to do with it, it will pass.
@Krissy_Cole - …if we want to give doctors the right to deny this particular treatment based on religious beliefs, we had better be prepared for them to deny other treatments: birth control. And, yes, the legislation is out there that would protect doctors who deny that, and if our darling administration has anything to do with it, it will pass.
“Birth control: doesn’t relevantly capture the ideas and issues of discrimination. A general policy, regardless of a pateint identity, is very different from a discriminitive policy conditional on the patient’s race, creed, or sexual orientation.
@huginn - whatever you say.
@BebstersBlog2 - No, the first amendment gives religious freedom to everyone, including doctors whose religion prohibits them from treating gays and lesbians.
A fertility doctor is not practicing his religion during artifical insemination. A fertility doctor does not enter holy communion with his God and he is not intoning passages from religious scripture.
Religious beliefs are tolerated in-so-far that they do not clash with existing laws. Polgamy is illegal even as it is held in the religious faith of fundamentalist splinter groups of the Mormon church. The abuse of girls through child circumscition is horrible even as it may be a religious and cultural practice abroad.
@huginn - I’m not saying that they shouldn’t do it. In a fair and perfect equal society, yes they should do it. But, I think the doctors should have some freedom of choice here. I’m not crazy about the idea of the government forcing them to do something they don’t want to do due to their religious convictions or whatever.
@gokellyjo - Why should doctors have to perform procedures that go against their own moral positions? Where are their civil protections?
In the case highlighted in Dan’s opening post, this isn’t the issue. It isn’t that the ferlitilty doctors universially deny performing artificial inseminations to all on moraly and/or religious grounds. This is fair.
What is unfair is sysetmatic discrimination based on the broad self-identity of the patient whether it be race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation.
I’m sure there are plenty of fertility specialists who would gladly perform the procedures and not compromise their own integrity in the process.
The damage in discrimination isn’t the services denied, it is discrimination itself.
@Krissy_Cole - Thanks.
Everyone deserves equal rights.
I love how those doctors assumed that because the women were gay, they would somehow make bad parents.
I would say that it is unfair that the doctors treated them that way, and yes it is…but it was not a life or death thing, and the doctors are entitled to thier beliefs. I am sure were the lesbians lives in danger then the doctors would have helped them….even though i disagree with the doctors decision, and I believ it was wrong for them to do what they did…who am I to judge?
A few people have said the doctors weren’t refusing to treat the sick. I disagree. Infertility is a disease. It causes a HUGE amount of anxiety, distress, and creates huge medical bills as the patient afflicted with infertility does anything she or he can to try to achieve their dream of a family.
My husband is a doctor and we have discussed this before, as once while he was a resident, he witnessed a med student (who wanted to become an OB/GYN) leave the room and refuse to participate in a tubal ligation (“tying the tubes”). We came to the conclusion that if you have moral or religious qualms about any of the procedures that you might carry out in that particular specialty, maybe you should choose a different specialty, because patients will expect to be able to receive standard care for the specialty from you otherwise.
I don’t think it’s discrimination either. It was a decision made by the doctor to not perform a service, period. There are plenty of second and thrid opinions to be had. Not every doctor will necessarily perform any elective service/operation anyone wants. Why does it have to be based on the sexual orientation of the person? I know the reality is that there IS a great amount of discrimination that goes on, which I feel is wrong in every way, but I think in this case it’s similar to a doctor refusing to give someone Accutane treatment for their acne, for example. Certainly, not every doctor would agree to do this. When I was a teenager, I saw several doctors about this, and they did NOT want to give me this treatment. If I were a minority, could I claim that was the reason? And also, about religion, I think that religion should be separate from government in every way. But then again, every doctor has the free right to deny an elective procedure. Although I don’t believe in denying someone essential services based on their ability to pay, this is a different case.
@huginn - First off, don’t cite Wikipedia and try to prove something.
Second, denying people a non-life threatening procedure is not against the law. The clinics that give people artificial insemination can deny people from obtaining their services. Sure it may not be right, but it’s their business. They’re in it to make money, they’ll do whatever they can to do so!
Thirdly, that stance may in fact be disgusting, but it’s the truth. If you can’t handle it then don’t try to argue it. And I’m not “by extension” including Korean and Indian Americans. You are. You made the extension, I was just trying to make a point, which you didn’t find.
Discrimination is a terrible thing, and it certainly is illegal, but sexual orientation is not covered by such laws. Here The Civil Rights Act prevents companies from discriminating against sex, age, race, color, disability, religion, and national origin. No where in there is sexual orientation.
Fourthly, if you’re going to cite me, at least include the positive as well as the negative. If I’m going to put anything bad into this world, I’ll put twice as much good, so I hope you would do the same. And here’s my good: I have no problems with homosexuals. It’s the law that has the problems with them, I’m just pointing that out. I don’t mean to say things that are untrue and evil-minded, I’m just ignorant sometimes.
And finally, my last word on homosexuals. I’m not one. I don’t want to be one. If you try to make me one I will defend my position to death.
uhm…
Well, there certainly shouldn’t be any laws that bar gay and lesbians (or anyone for that matter) from public services such as health care.
But making laws that force people to do something against their beliefs isn’t right either, at least in this case because it’s an artificial insemination… which isn’t exactly the same thing as treating a life threatening sickness.
So, no. If the doctor in their area won’t do it, and they want it bad enough, find another doctor that will. There are plenty in my area that will =3.
@alynn89 - You can’t just choose not to do something based on a personal bias. That’s wrong >.>
They do it to other people all the time.
so it’s okay to force someone to do something that they feel is morally wrong? (it doesn’t matter if they are right or not. different people are allowed to have different convictions. isn’t that one reason why people came to america? religious freedom.) are you sure that we are still a “free” country?
Why don’t they just make it illegal to ask a patient what their sexual orientation is?
@Powerpal2015 -
First off, don’t cite Wikipedia and try to prove something.
The wikipedia article was the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution! Are you dense?
Second,
denying people a non-life threatening procedure is not against the
law.
It is when you discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation – it is protected under law that people cannot and will not be discriminated against based on certain criteria, which being a lesbian falls under.
The clinics that give people artificial insemination can deny
people from obtaining their services. Sure it may not be right, but
it’s their business. They’re in it to make money, they’ll do whatever
they can to do so!
No, that’s not quite right, we have laws for a reason, otherwise any person who wanted to could deny service to all black people, or all Christians, or all Chinese. We have laws in place to prevent this kind of discrimination
Thirdly, that stance may in fact be
disgusting, but it’s the truth. If you can’t handle it then don’t try
to argue it. And I’m not “by extension” including Korean and Indian
Americans. You are. You made the extension, I was just trying to make
a point, which you didn’t find.
What is your point? That being a lesbian is wrong? If that’s it, you can kindly go fuck yourself – or your bible.
Discrimination is a terrible thing, and it certainly is illegal, but sexual orientation is not covered by such laws. Here
The Civil Rights Act prevents companies from discriminating against
sex, age, race, color, disability, religion, and national origin. No
where in there is sexual orientation.
Actually… http://www.nctequality.org/Hate_Crimes.asp
You’re wrong.
I don’t mean to say things that are
untrue and evil-minded, I’m just ignorant sometimes.
You’ve certainly proven that!
And finally,
my last word on homosexuals. I’m not one. I don’t want to be one. If
you try to make me one I will defend my position to death.
Who was trying to make you gay?
@JJ_Ames -Â
I’ve heard that argument from many Christians, that one can choose their sexuality even if they do not choose who they are attracted to, and frankly, that is complete garbage. You would ask someone to go through the motions and lead an unfulfilling hetereosexual marriage because that person’s sexual attractions don’t match up with who you’d have them be attracted to? Looking at it from a Heterosexual viewpoint, I imagine that for a homosexual to try and “fake” his way through a heterosexual relationship would be similar to if I were to try and have a homosexual relationship. I’d feel dirty, and cheap and even if I somehow managed to become aroused I would never actually enjoy sex in that relationship. I imagine those feelings go both ways.Â
For Christian discrimination, I think you are blowing it out of proportion. Just because I disagree with you does not make me a heathen. I am a Christian, I go to church regularly and I am actively involved there. In reality, I have seen very very little of what you call Christian discrimination. Online, however, I see wuite a bit of it, Christians arent popular online. I think that’s typically because there is no grey area, there are Atheists, and there are zealots. Or rather, if you read message boards anywhere that’s what you’ll see, and sadly, more often than not, the one who can’t spell and types using only Caps Lock is the Christian.Â
Morality has very little to do with government. Laws are designed  more around a sacrifice of personal power so that one may be insured safety from others. We do not want to die, so we make that a law. we do not want our belongings to be stolen, so that is a law. When did allowing us to bear arms or have freedoms to speach and press have to do with morality? According to Locke it has a lot more to do with reason and civility than morality. Morality is doing what is “right”. reason is doing what’s “best” and the two aren’t always the same thing. For instance, if you are late for work and see an old woman trying to cross the street, morality suggests that helping her cross despite being late would be appropriate, and yet, if you lost your job for being late, reason would suggest otherwise.Â
Christianity and morality in general ought to have nothign to do with our laws. If you feel that your faith is threatened by abortion’s legality or gay marriage, then I suggest you examine your faith. Just because somethign is legal does not mean that one must do it or participate in it. Unprotected sex with multiple partners is legal, but I assume you wouldn’t do it. Would you make it illegal and make your refraining from it pointless? Removing any risk for people to fall outside of the boundaries of your religion does not help them. It does not help you, either.Â
Yes they should, they are just as human as the rest of us.
Gays should be provided the same basic rights as any other citizen however when it comes to an organization providing a service especially one that assists in building a non-traditional family it shouldn’t be encouraged or automatically allowed.
I’m sure someone is bound to have an argument against it but I will always believe that there is nothing better than a family with both a loving father and a loving mother.
@EarthsAzureLight - sure, i agree that it’s wrong, but i can’t agree with the government forcing them to perform an unnecessary procedure that they refuse to do according with their religious convictions. it’s a free country
@LadyValkyrie37 - that argument doesnt hold water. what about people who get their happiness from making other people misserable? you have a catch 22 there. who’s persuit of happiness do you infringe upon? let me put it another way. these doctors persuit of happiness requires them to keep a clean concience. whether you agree or not, or even like it or not, this is against their concience. the women i question want a baby. why does it have to be done by THESE PARTICULAR DOCTORS in order to make them happy? A.S. would be A.S. no matter what doctors did it. perhaps the reason you dont mind infringing on the doctors persuit of happiness(and lets face it, the two are not mutually exclusive the women could get what they wanted elsewhere) is because you openly hate christians. the fact is, they not only treated her, but instructed her on how to perform the insemenation herself AND referred her to another doctor.
“In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.”
lets look at the real objective of the lawsuit shall we?
“Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.” “
the christian doctors dont have a free speach right… hmmm… interesting. the rest is a moot point because as i already pointed out THEY DID TREAT THE COUPLE. this has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with creating a hostile environment toward christians.
@captain_jaq - you’re kidding right? seriously, i mean you have to be. because the article states they did treat the women, and only balked at one particular treatment. so that is a slippery slope towards not treating them for cancer?
@redx190 - if you buy that i have some oceanside property in missouri i’d like to sell you real cheap. no, we do not lay down our religious rights at the workplace doorstep. not the christians, hindus, bhudists, muslims or atheists.
@myself – does anyone pay attention to whats going on before they comment, or is it a vast conspiracy to get people to buy into rediculoum?
absolutely!
@alynn89 - Their professional obligation is placed higher than their religious preference. If they choose not to perform any artificial insemination because of this, its fine, but they can’t pick and choose based on bias of any kind.
Yep, I absolutely do!! (bisexual && proud)
As much as I hate discrimination and in particular racism, I would have to say no, simply because discrimination based on race and that based on sexual orientations are two different animals. They appear similar on the outside to some, but there’s a different history, a different basis.
Also, this isn’t treatment for an illness. This is an elective procedure that the doctor could refuse if he/she chooses. This couple could easily go to another doc for this.
@alynn89 - It may not appear necessary to you, but what about to those women? They have made the decision to have a child together, and artificial insemination shouldn’t be denied to them just because the doctors don’t agree with their lifestyle…or because other people view them having artificial insemination as “unnecessary.”
@ionekoa - Yes. I wasn’t referencing the article per se, just the legislation as some people seem to think it’s unnecessary. I was saying that a refusal of something like fertility treatment opens the door to refusing treatment for cancer.
@gokellyjo - Then PERHAPS those oh-so-Christian doctors should choose to do something else with their lives that won’t interfere with their precious moral code. Look, the doctors are creating babies outside of sex, which I think is kind of like, against the bible. But when it comes to lesbians, that’s an entirely different thing. Because he would be condoning sin you know?
Bullshit! I call bullshit!
Yes
@JJ_Ames - I’m not anti-Christian and I don’t think we should silence Christians. However, when you are there to provide a service, you don’t get to pick and choose. It’s your job. I don’t think that’s discriminitory, I think that’s your job and your career that you chose, and you should perform it as you would any other service. I just think maybe this guy should have chosen something else to do with his life if he knew he couldn’t fulfill his job because of his religion.
I’m just saying it makes no sense. The thought had to cross his mind at some point.
Again, I feel the psychologist did no wrong. But the fertility doctor doesn’t have to do anything more than inseminate her. A psychologist has to offer mental counseling and advice and if she feels she can not do so, she had every right to refer her to another psychologist. She was SUPPOSED to. It’s a service, but a service to one’s mental frame and I guess this would be where there is an exception. But I still stand by what I said, service needs to be performed, blah blah I’m sure I’d just be over-stating myself by now.
@Allen_Oz - In most legislation such as this one, Churches and religious institutions are excluded. As in, it’s written in there that Churches and religious institutions may govern themselves on the issue.
@catherine_constantlyblogging - in my opinion, as far as the law is concerned, necessary should equal a matter of life or death. when it comes to making legislation, i think it should be limited to basic and necessary care. i don’t disagree that the doctor should have did the procedure, but i don’t think the law should require him to. it infringes on his rights, i think.
@Drakonskyr - LMAO! I love you DMV.
@EarthsAzureLight - Ok, well I’m wrong, congratulations, you’ve single-handedly added to this world nothing but spite. Although I’d like to say some final points then I’m done with this argument. I don’t care if these are right or wrong since they are my opinion.
1. Even if it’s from the Constitution, Wikipedia isn’t always right. The least you could do is cite from the references given.
2. Although we have laws for reason, not everyone follows them, as this post clearly shows.
3. Do not tell me to go f@#$ myself or my bible. Not only do I find that a threat to myself but also my RIGHT to religion, which I never said. I could be Jewish for all you know.
4. What does that site prove? That transgender hate crimes can be reported and are tracked in most states?
5. Yes, yes I have. I’m not a lawyer or a judge, I don’t know all the laws.
6. No one, it is just my stance.
Finally, despite what you may think of me and how easily you are to judge, I forgive you because that’s my religion, love.
Yes they should. However I feel that a doctor should have the right to refuse to do something if they don’t agree with it, they could simply refer them to someone else. No one, no matter what their job, should be forced to act against their moral beliefs.
@BelinaRising - The 1st Amendment still overrides the arbitrary judgment of the court.Our religious liberties take precedence over the whims of our customers. By your line of reasoning Christians would have difficulty in any field we choose because someone would find ways to challenge our convictions when they sought our services. I’ll give you a real life example- (if you want proof- you can look up “Criminalization of Christianity” by Janet Folger who has recorded the systematic persecution of American Christians for practicing their 1st Amendment Rights)- a printing company came under fire from the courts for refusing to print material advertising gay activism because the company owner was a Christian and reserved the right to refuse business on religious grounds. We all have that right to refuse business- that’s crucial to being a free American! If we take it away from doctors we are denying them their fundemental rights and I will not support such nonsense. Remember- we as American customers also have the right to take our business elsewhere!!!
Yes, especially since they are, now, one of the most — if not THEE most — discriminated against population of people.
@huginn - would that put you into a socialist frame of mind, allowing for government to have more, and ultimately final say over business practices and decisions? you say law trumps faith, but the freedom of religion is in the bill of rights. isn’t forcing a doctor to do something against their beliefs ethically wrong?
we are not talking about the reductio ad absurdum, the following of an applicable logic beyond it’s intended application and to it’s ridiculous and unreasonable conclusion. this is not systematic discrimination we are talking about. there is no system of doctors with an unspoken agreement to not serve the health needs of homosexuals. i mean, did you read the story?
“Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who
refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech
right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law.”
That is the definition of discrimination. And it isn’t as if they were unwilling to help the lady involved.
“In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of
Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and
instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their
beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors
referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections,
and Benitez has since given birth to three children.”
They are doing everything they can to help this lady, short of the irrevocable trashing of their beliefs. To paint them in the same light as the KKK or other 1950′s white southern racists (or, for that matter, La Raza Unida or the Black Panthers) is utterly ridiculous and a retardation of the bill of rights.
To use the fresh wounds of racism to attempt to morally and emotionally weaken the rights of Christians to lovingly help others get what they need without compromising their own beliefs is irresponsible of you. You are obviously quite intelligent, but your intelligence and argumentative abilities are misguided and insulting.
Jim Crow laws would have kept Ms. Benitez out of the office entirely, or completely without treatment or help. What you are proposing is the imposition of the desires of one at the expense of the other.
I would have addressed free market ideas and the correlation between socialization of private business and the loss of individual rights, but it seems your stance is not completely concerned with those aspects of this debate. Or you simply enjoy the argument. Which is okay… I haven’t thought this critically about one of my beliefs in a while, so it was a quality exercise.
@Krissy_Cole - thank you.
@bigpirate64 - These people should not have taken the Hippocratic Oath if they are not willing to carry it through. Either do your job, or get out of the fucking industry. No excuses.
@saintvi - Agreed.
@Andrea_TheNerd - Exactly! And physicians should not take the Hippocratic Oath if they are not sincere in their Pagan faith. Note the first line of the oath:
“I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath…. “
Has it every occured to you that the signifiance of the oath could be in the symbolic and traditional?
@huginn - Just as an fyi, EarthsAzrueLight and I have continued with this and I’ve commented on his comment. It ends for me here.
YES
And isn’t the entire point of being a doctor to take care of the patient and their wishes. Example: A woman with a large bust and wants breast implants. The doctor may not think that she needs any help in that area, but he will still go with her wishes and do the surgery.
Doctors should push their feelings aside to do whatever is best for the patient. Gay or not, life-threatening or just a b00b job
@huginn - Has it ever occured to you that the oath doctors take today is not the one that you just quoted in error? Here it is in it’s entirety: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html
@Andrea_TheNerd - No, it has never occured to me.
@captain_jaq - I also added photographers. Which wouldn’t be considered a religious institution. And yes, we do have laws protecting churches so far. I’m saying the line of thinking these judges have will potentially erase that or make the only time we’re “religous” is in church when faith is something that must be practiced daily.
of course they should. being a gay qualify as a minority, wouldn’t it? gays are not the majority sexual orientation. they are discriminated against just as much as other minorities.
there is no reason why a doctor should be allowed to refuse an artificial insemination because of religious beliefs. if it is their job, they can’t refuse because it conflicts with their personal views.
would it be okay if a doctor refused to conduct surgery for a gay patient, because of religious views?
absolutely not.
I think doctors should have the right to say no.
It’s not a life or death situation and it’s only on a particular treatment. It’s not like they really need it.
The doctors should have no problem treating them for other things and they could also go to a different doctor for that one thing.
On the other hand, maybe christians shouldn’t be doctors in that field, anyways.
@captain_jaq - “Then PERHAPS those oh-so-Christian doctors
should choose to do something else with their lives that won’t
interfere with their precious moral code”. Why?
Should all physicians be required to perform abortions? Should all plastic surgeons be required to do breast augmentation? How about sex change surgeries? Certainly you see the flaw in this type of thinking.
If a doctor chooses to specialize in infertility but only chooses (based on a personal moral code) to do fertility procedures to married couples, then why should that physician not be allowed to stand by his/her personal convictions?
Tolerance is a two way street.
Why would a Christian who believes in God creating everything, actively participate in artificial insemination? That alone goes against their “beliefs” so that there says that they are a hypocrit.
Furthermore… why should they have any say? A single woman wants to get pregnant. That’s all they need to know. Their partner doesn’t provide sperm, no matter who they are, man or woman, and they need the help of someone else to have a child.
THAT IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW!
Yes absolutely. I would give more than 2 props if i could. lol
@captain_jaq - i would dissagree. one is an elective procedure, the other a life saving necessity. no one that i know of in the medical comunity is saying that life saving treatments should be withheld from anyone based on sexual orientation or religion.
on the other hand, i find it funny that when people say that gay marraige is a slippery slope to condoning pedophelia etc. the lobbyists get upset, but there actually ARE people like NAMBLA waiting in the wings to try to leverage that position.(im not saying that i think they COULD, but that they want to.)
in short, the medical treatment slippery slope is not a logical conclusion.
@gokellyjo - Okay, but not all physicians are abortionists so by that argument, you have made it moot. No pro-lifer is going to become an abortionist.
It just isn’t going to happen.
And he should do it because he’s a fertility doctor who’s performing a service. He does not get to decide who’s a fit parent or not based on the marital status.
@ionekoa - Of course it is. It only has to start with one thing. However, denying medical services overall opens the door to all sorts of medical slippery slopes.
And by the way, it’s a totally seperate argument. A marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is NOTHING like a relationship between a man and child, or three men and a woman, or, or, or. You see how it’s different. I think it’s ridiculous how NAMBLA thinks that gay marriage will eventually allow pedophilia. Two consenting adults is not men with children.
@Allen_Oz - The photographer is, again, providing a service (I thought you meant a photographer who works for the church) and should do so regardless of his feelings about it. He’s a photographer. He isn’t being harmed or made wrong by taking pictures of lesbians.
No
Legally a doctor is not required to perform any procedure save for those absolutely necessary for preservation of life.
The basis of this decision is null and void. A doctors “Better Judgment” has always been up to that specific doctor. That’s where second opinions and secondary care comes in to play.
They should have the same right.
@jjw247 - I see your reasoning, but this is more than serving a hamburger. Doctors should not be able to pick and choose who they will and will not treat.
And I don’t think it’s slavery, so long as the doctors are properly paid at a wage they are comfortable with.
But I do see your point, and it’s a good one.
The answer to your question is yes.
But I don’t think ANYONE has the right to FORCE a doctor to do ANY procedure, period.
If doctors want to be homophobic bastards, that’s their problem, and they shouldn’t get the business.
@lotta_valdez - You choose not to “treat” Twyla. Just saying.
@Angelstargazer - You can always rec or star the post.
@PXwanderer - Careful! Re-read the question! I think everyone actually means “yes” to the question – you just don’t want ANYONE to be able to receive protection from this sort of thing, right? Because that’s exactly the position I hold, too.
@Viktorious1 - Somehow, I think that if a doctor refused to give fertility treatments to blacks, citing that there are already too many black people in this country, the legal system would find a way to punish that doctor, no matter how unconstitutional it is. Have I mentioned that I hate the government?
@alynn89 - Be careful about what the question actually said. The real answer to the question is yes – they should get equal protection. But something like what services a private citizen chooses to offer? That shouldn’t be protected, because it’s not infringing on their rights. Make sense?
@Saphira07 - They also probably didn’t know, when they decided to BECOME doctors (probably at least 20 years ago) that they would ever have to perform this procedure for lesbian couples. That’s like saying that it’s okay to force lawyers to take a case against their will, even if they think it’s unethical to argue that way (perhaps arguing to give custody to an abusive parent or something), because they chose to become lawyers. It’s fallacious reasoning.
@saintvi - “All people should be protected from discrimination. “
…by the government.
@ELBOWpasta - How is refusing to provide a service infringing upon someone else’s rights? If I am a prostitute (hang with me here) and I refuse to serve women, have I harmed them? I’m a specialized worker, but I’m flat-out discriminating based on something they can’t even change. However, it’s my choice who I sleep with, just as it’s the doctor’s choice who he serves. Just because someone works in health care doesn’t make them any different than anyone else who exchanges services for payment.
@stories_for_girls - It depends – do you actually mean, “No, homosexuals shouldn’t get the same protections,” or, “No, none of these groups should get protection from the decisions of a private citizen?” The question was kind of off-topic and many people failed to catch this.
@huginn - A fair and equal society would be great, but governments trying to force that on private citizens is abominable and accomplishes nothing. How would you feel if new “diversity laws” required that at least 20% of the visitors to your home be black, 70% be white, etc.? It’s kind of the same deal.
@DJ__x - You’re right that it would be the same as refusing to serve someone based on race, but legally, shouldn’t a private citizen be permitted to do that?
@LadyValkyrie37 - The pursuit of happiness thing is one of the most misused phrases ever. Notice that every time those three things appear in the constitution itself, they went back to the ORIGINAL John Locke: Life, Liberty, & Property. And the lesbian right to their own happiness doesn’t give them the right to FORCE other people to do things for them so they’ll be happy.
@Allen_Oz - I think those doctors are horrible hypocrites and I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting one. But I agree that they should ALWAYS have the right to provide services to whomever they wish.
@captain_jaq - “Why can’t we just all live together in EQUALITY and HAPPINESS despite our religious differences?”
That would be amazing. But the GOVERNMENT can’t force that, which is what they’re trying to do here. You can’t point a gun at someone’s head and ask him to stop being prejudiced.
@Angelstargazer - Honestly, I hate these doctors and everything they stand for. I’m an atheistic agnostic, a straight ally, and I generally hate prejudice because I’ve so often been victim to it. But I still think that it’s wrong to FORCE someone to provide a service when they don’t want to do so. I’m all for equality, but if it’s private citizens trying to live out their private lives or businesses, I think it’s their choice who they do and don’t want to serve.
And, for the record, I would only visit such a doctor if I had absolutely no other option whatsoever and my health was really in danger. In any normal circumstance, I would choose a doctor who isn’t a homophobic extremist.
@Drakonskyr - Ha, I’m with you on smacking them in the face.
In any case, as a lesbian, I wouldn’t be offended that the doctor wouldn’t want to perform a procedure on me because I am a lesbian. In this case, artificial insemination was not a life threatning issue. It sucks that it happened but I wouldn’t want a doctor to perform a procedure on me if he or she didn’t want to. I would be worried they’d kill me, seeing as they already don’t like that I’m a lesbian.
I think gays and lesbian deserve equal protection under the law and deserve to be protected under the law from discrimination in all forms that other minorities face.
I could see if the doctor received federal or state funds, then he or she needs to open up their own practice where they can put up a sign what kind of people they want to treat. It would save me the time and trouble and why would I want to support a bigot anyway?
YES.
@captain_jaq - the main point being, they are waiting at the gates to grease the slope. to say that there is anyone out there waiting to argue “oooh a lesbian wasnt artificially insemenated, that means if they get sick let them die!!” is a rediculous statement. there is no such argument. not to mention the fact that there WAS NO DENIAL OF MEDICAL SERVICES. the entire thing is a LIE. they werent denied treatment in general(in fact the doctors DID treat them) the doctors merely refused to PARTICIPATE IN ONE PROCEDURE which they DID FACILITATE by NOT ONLY giving INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELF INSEMENATION but ALSO REFERRING ANOTHER PHYSICIAN that WOULD PERFORM THE PROCEDURE.
though i suppose until we can get on the same page of the facts of what actually happened there can be no productive debate on the subject. not only is it not a slippery slope, but the entire case is a malicious fabrication. this is easily assertained within 2 paragraphs of the article.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - no … to both. as an out lesbian, i encounter discrimination fairly often from people who say that ‘because of their beliefs’ they don’t feel ‘right’ about dealing with me. i could avoid most, if not all, of these instances by simply remaining ‘low profile’, as many of my gay and lesbian friends choose to do, but i don’t … because i would rather live as openly, and as honestly, as i can. this is a choice that i have made, and despite it’s difficulties, i am fine with it. if someone wishes to refuse a service to me, i would rather go somewhere else than compel them legally to have to deal with me … for reasons you probably already grasp. for much the same reasons, i believe that anyone who is uncomfortable with anyone, for any reason, should be allowed to ask them to go elsewhere. very seldom, is any service completely denied a certain minority in all instances. when this is the case … a law is indeed appropriate, but it is hardly, if ever, a desirable situation for either side. i know many of my own kind disagree with me on this, but i believe they do so out of sheer convenience, simply wishing that their lives could be as easy as the ones straight people enjoy. now … a question for you … in your opinion, what would be a proper reason for someone to refuse their services to another person?
Yes, I do.
Also, the Bible only says they can’t be gay. It doesn’t say it’s their responsibility to keep everyone else from being gay. God gave us all free will, do you really think you know better? If your belief system says having a gay marriage is wrong, then don’t get one. If you think children should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, then you make a point to do that in your own life. But you have no right to stop people from living their lives the way they choose, no matter what your religion says is right.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I totally get what you’re saying, and here, at least for me, there is no honest way I can justify what I’m saying except with what I feel.
This doctor shouldn’t be allowed to say no because he doesn’t approve of her lifestyle. He can be unhappy about it, but if she can’t help it, and he can’t help it, who can change it? Sure, he can refer her to someone else, and she, knowing that she’s going to get heat for her lifestyle, can thank him kindly and move on to the reference, but it’s none of his business what her lifestyle is. It’s his job to do his job, not try and rid the world of homosexuals by stopping the evil in its reproducing-tracks.
If I were a lesbian, I’d say no. I wouldn’t want to force myself upon someone who doesn’t want to do a good job for me. But as I am, I say that what the doctor did was not right-which is why I said yes- but will accept it, because I don’t want anyone else getting botched procedures performed either.
Yes, of course.
@ELBOWpasta - then, in a very real way, we actually agree. i don’t want anyone treating me … that has a problem with who i am … period. i’m pleased that you understood why i would not.
@stories_for_girls - ”in your opinion, what would be a proper reason for someone to refuse their services to another person?”
If you mean proper as in should be legal? Any reason whatsoever unless such action would violate the terms of a valid contract or directly infringe on someone’s right to life, liberty, or property. (Indirectly affecting their life, liberty, or property is not an infringement of rights.)
If you mean proper as in socially/ethically acceptable? I think one might be justified in refusing service if someone acts unprofessionally, denigrates you, holds a conflict of interest, has previously been late or completely absent on payment, or disrupts your other business in some fashion. Also, if you feel you could not handle yourself in a professional manner due to prior history, family or relationship ties, etc., then you should not feel ethically bound to exchange goods and services. I think that’s a pretty broad base, but I may have missed some circumstance.
@elvesdoitbetter - Actually, in impregnating a homosexual couple, giving that couple a child to care for, regardless if they already have a few, would be a sin and the Bible clearly says believers are to have nothing to do with works of unrighteousness.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - i used ‘proper’ ironically … as i believe any reason to be ‘proper’ enough. if someone doesn’t want to provide you with a service, why do they have to say why? no … needs no explaination.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I meant No: a doc should not be forced to take actions that contradict their conscience. There are other Doctors to go to….
I’ve been party to many international legal humanitarian campaigns. I have many minority friends of every: race, creed, religion, orientation, etc… The family unit is described as between man and a woman simply put. Even if one be a hermaphrodite you still need opposing sexes to bring up a child’s Pseuke in an environment enabling that child to grow truly in a healthy manor.
The children I’ve seen grow in same gendered relations always have gender issues of their own. As well as other issues. Comes back to “Nurture vs. Nature” No one no matter how much they wish to be right has the right answer to that one.
@Allen_Oz - Where in the Bible does it say it’s a sin for gays to have kids, though? Being gay is a sin? well, ok whatever. But it doesn’t say sinners can’t have children.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I know. I was just really frustrated so it was kind of the product of frustration.
@ionekoa - I guess I should start reading these articles. I googled and found something similar, but didn’t read the linked article. So much for trusting Dan to tell it how it is.
@elvesdoitbetter - By helping them have kids, they would have been affirming that lifestyle choice. Affirming sin, is a sin, and that’s my point.
@Allen_Oz - Well, denying them medical service doesn’t seem like the sort of thing Jesus would do, but I guess those bracelets went out of style.
I guess I just thought “Judge not, lest ye be judged” was the way things were supposed to go down these days. I mean, would it be ok for a doctor to refuse to help an unmarried couple have children? An interracial couple? Two people who were part of the mafia? Stoning people at the city gates seems just a bit too Old Testament. I think it’s best to let everyone live their life and let God sort it all out at the end of the day.
@stories_for_girls - Well, honestly, I think it’s unethical to refuse someone service on the grounds of, say, their racial background. So, in that sense, it would be improper, I think. Sorry for missing the point of your question. I tend to take everything a bit too seriously.
@PXwanderer - Hm, I like your answer, though I must disagree with the children having gender issues thing. I didn’t grow up with homosexual parents, but my parents were separated and neither was a great model of masculinity or femininity (or humanity, for that matter). However, I turned out fine, with a strong individual sense of gender, instead of being fit into this little box of what a woman is supposed to be (meek? compassionate? dependent? HA!) I also know a few people who have been raised by homosexuals, and actually all of them are much better suited to deal with gender/sexuality issues than many people I know who were raised in heterosexual two-parent families.
But regardless of the reasoning, dr’s should be able to do as they want -they’re individuals and shouldn’t be required to do anything.
@elvesdoitbetter - Actually your first point, unmarried couple, is one where I would encourage them to stop from having children.
Romans 6
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don’t
you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as
slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves
to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to
righteousness?
I don’t see where these doctors literally condemned these people individually. So the judge not part doesn’t really come to play in my opinion. Also, abstaining yourself from sin isn’t the same as judging someone.
No one should be refused basic medical care due to any kind of prejudice. However, doctors are people, and while the care of the patient comes first, they do have core beliefs that they feel very obligated to stick to. Like normal people! o/ If they really don’t feel ethically comfortable with doing something, whose right is it to make them do it?
@la_faerie_joyeuse - first of all, low blow, very, very low blow. Hurtful.
Second of all, I choose not to treat her because it is a risk to my personal safety.
Third of all, I am willing to work with her again, with a great deal of staff support.
Not necessarily. Believing that a child should have both a mother and father is a moral and sometimes religious issue that homosexuals are getting into. This is not the case with minorities.
YES.
Yes!
I’m trying to think about how Jesus turned people away because they were different, or wait, he accepted the least likely people, hmmmm.
I think acceptance and inclusion are the Christ like behaviors I would like to model.
Not all Christians hold their faith the same way these doctors do.
As a Christian, I see the need for equal protection and the need to include all.
@Drakonskyr - lmao
*christian doctors resign all over america*
@lotta_valdez - I’m sorry, I didn’t realize it would hurt you. My apologies.
I was just trying to show that when you really don’t want to do something, it would be really absurd for someone to point a gun at your head and demand for you to do it, regardless of the reason.
And some doctors actually do believe that by facilitating homosexuality, they’re putting their eternal souls in danger.
No, it’s their choice to be the way they are. It isn’t a choice to be the race you are.
@alynn89 - the doctors refused to perform a procedure that they’d performed many times before just because the woman was a lesbian. they denied them services that were given to everyone else because of their orientation. that is the definition of discrimination and unequal rights. people should be getting on their soapboxes, because this is completely unacceptable.
to answer the question, OF COURSE they should be allowed treatment. what does it matter who someone loves? homophobia is sickening.
Absolutely. It beginning to become necessary.