« The Real Question After Saddleback | Main | An 85-year-old woman shows us why owning guns is a GOOD thing. »

Forget your religious beliefs. We've got an agenda to push!

Or so the California Supreme Court seems to be saying with their latest ruling. A lesbian went to a fertility specialist to try to get pregnant. The two Christian doctors treated her with fertility drugs, and told her how to artificially inseminate herself at home. They told her that inseminating her themselves would violate their religious beliefs. So, they referred her to another doctor, who inseminated her, and she now has three children. Happy ending, right? Nope. According to the woman, this was discrimination (of course). And the Supreme Court agreed. Shocka.

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."

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.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

The law was originally designed to prevent hotels, restaurants and other public services from refusing to serve patrons because of their race. The Legislature has since expanded it to cover characteristics such as age and sexual orientation.

"It was an awful thing to go through," Benitez said. "It was very painful - the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family."

Benitez has given birth to three children through artificial insemination - Gabriel, 6, and twin daughters, Sophia and Shane, who turn 3 this weekend. She is raising them in Oceanside with her longtime partner, Joanne Clark.

Jennifer Pizer, Benitez's attorney, said that the ruling was "a victory for public health" and that she expected it to have nationwide influence.

"It was clear and emphatic that discrimination has no place in doctors' offices," Pizer said.

The ruling was unanimous and a succinct 18 pages, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing marriage between same-sex couples.


Jeez. The way these people are carrying on, you'd think that these doctors threw Benitez out screaming, "NO HOMOS ALLOWED!!!" rather than do everything they could to help her without going against their religious beliefs. And how funny is it that Muslims are allowed to get anything they want when it comes to their religious beliefs, but oh no, not the Christians. The lawyer representing the Christian doctors, though, hit the nail on the head with this one:
"The Supreme Court's desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about," said Tyler, who leads the nonprofit Advocates for Faith and Freedom in Murrieta, Calif.

So I guess the Supreme Court feels that free citizens should be forced to provide services to anyone, no matter what. At what point is someone allowed to turn someone away based on moral objections? If they're a crack dealer? A child molestor? A rapist? A murderer? These doctors did all they could to help this woman, and when they had gone as far as they felt they could go, they referred her to another doctor and the woman got the result she wanted: children. It should've been the end of the story. But no. The woman still sued, and why? Because her poor little feewings got hurt? This is not a legitimate case of discrimination. The Christian doctors didn't refuse all treatment, and they didn't even refuse to help her. They gave her fertility treatments and even instructed the woman on how to artificially inseminate herself at home. The treatment wasn't even something the doctors needed to do! She could have done it herself! So the doctors referred her elsewhere. But like I said, the way this woman is carrying on you'd think they branded her a dirty queer and told her she didn't deserve children, not do everything they could to help her achieve her goal.

And no one is required to go to a certain doctor. It isn't as if her life depended on these two doctors giving her the artificial insemination. She's free to go to any doctor she likes. If the Christian doctors had refused to treat her at all on the basis of her homosexuality, then I'd be all for a lawsuit. That is discrimination. But the doctors treated her. That's the big "but". So how is this even a case? I guess the California Supreme Court feels that this woman's hurt feelings over being -- GASP!! -- treated by Christian doctors and referred to another doctor and then getting what she wants takes precedence over religious freedom. Isn't this all kind of much ado about nothing?

I mean, come on. At what point do we say enough? If we stand for nothing, we'll fall for anything. And eventually, we need to take a stand.

Hat Tip: Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31052.

Comments (34)

Based on what I've read on ... (Below threshold)
Jayemay:

Based on what I've read on this I've really to lay the blame on this one at the feet of the California legislature more than putting it at the courts. It seems that the court only applied a law pretty clearly as written.

I could see a legitmate first amendment argument challenging the statue here, and if that's the case then the either these doctors can still take appeal to the US Supremes, or like minded physicians could sue the state in federal court that the statue (as interpreted by the State Supreme Court,) now constitutes a violation of their first amendment rights.

No Surprises here.... (Below threshold)
epador:

No Surprises here.

Wait for the appeal of the appeals court, which will likely sustain.

If the Christian ... (Below threshold)
If the Christian doctors had refused to treat her at all on the basis of her homosexuality, then I'd be all for a lawsuit.

I know it's a good thing to sue when ever possible and everything but,in the case of an elective/non life threatening procedure, does not the doctor have the right to refuse services? You know, "No skirt, no man: no turkey baster rental for you!"

Can one make his doctor move his manhood onto his forehead? Makes about as much sense to me, I mean, the woman wants to defile Gods' law. So, is it only okay to do that when the defiling being demanded is now a "regular part of our 'modern' culture"? Trust me, I live outside of San Francisco and, if they don't already have Honduran boys for nightly rental with the above procedure already implanted on them, they soon will. So what then?

I know, I know, just a couple more moves of the old bar and....AAAAAAHHHHHH, CHILD SEX SLAVES FOR EVERYONE Y'ALL!

Just ask the lefts' Rush, bernie ward(of the state), about that one, I'm sure he could tell you stories that would have you considering murder, but he won't. And niether will the press, because many of them are members of nambla too. Just like the aclu, check it out, they start with "harmless" things like the above story, and then you find out why they really want the kids. Sodom and Gamora is here folks, and we welcomed it right on in.

To the crazy left wing anti... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

To the crazy left wing anti-religion kooks. Keep making as*e* out of yourselves in public and filing lawsuits so the 'doctors' all have your names and then go in for a 'flu' shot. No one will ever know what you died of. Doctors may not be anti-homosexual but they are anti-lawsuit against doctors.

Gabe,you forget, EVERYTHING... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Gabe,you forget, EVERYTHING in Kaleefornia is about FEELINGS.

A "victory for public healt... (Below threshold)
Maurice:

A "victory for public health"? SINCE WHEN IS INSEMINATING SOMEONE A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE? Where was the discrimination?

I'm sickened by the whole thing.

There was no emergency condition, no life-death situation...and as you document, the docs went out of their way to refer her to someone else that would help her.

Just disgusting. This woman and that California Supreme Court are simply disgusting. I just want to scream after reading this. We've lost control.

This is really the nose und... (Below threshold)
DAve:

This is really the nose under the tent to force Christian doctors and pharmacists to do abortions and morning after pills.
Next comes forcing churches to hire homosexuals based on the same reasoning. And the Boy Scouts.

Watch.

Isn't this all kind of much ado about nothing?

NOPE> This is all part of a very deliberate and zealous agenda

What I find amusing is a st... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

What I find amusing is a state (in this case through the courts) imposing a sanction on an individual for behavior that it has not permitted at the state level itself.

California only very recently allowed a lesbian couple to marry. In 2001, when this occurred, it did not. So, the state itself allowed some differences in response to people based on sexual identity.

Earlier this year, a New Mexico "human rights" Commission fined a Christian photographer for refusing to photograph a committment ceremony despite the fact the state of New Mexico STILL would not permit that same couple to marry.

The states are imposing a greater burden on businesses than they themselves have to follow.

If you are a Muslim cashier... (Below threshold)
Opinionated Vogon:

If you are a Muslim cashier who has to handle pork products as part of your job its okay to object and refuse and you won't be fired but instead be coddled by your employer...

but if you are a Christian and ask for a similar right (a religious based objection to some aspect of your job) you are prosecuted and found guilty of discrimination?

Maurice, do not ever think ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Maurice, do not ever think the citizens of this country have lost control. Read the declaration of independence and then the first three amendments to the constitution. ww

To play devil's advocate he... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

To play devil's advocate here, Cassy, i am quite sure that you have hemmed and hawed about stories such as the Muslim cashiers that wouldn't touch pork, or the Muslim taxi drivers that wouldn't transport people with alcohol, and you came to the conclusion that these people should do their jobs and not get a pass. Why then do you not come to the same conclusion here? It is one thing to complain that the Muslims are getting a bigger break, that is a totally legit discussion, but you seam to not be applying the same standard to these doctors, if the muslim cashier and cab driver needs to do their job, so do the doctors. It would seem to me that the outcome of this case is exactly what you would have wanted out of a case against the muslim employees. Am I wrong?

Why would this woman choose... (Below threshold)
George:

Why would this woman choose to deny these children a father? It's been proven countless times that a child needs a mother and a father. Why would anyone deliberately choose to handicap their child?
A: Pure selfishness.

Related: wasn't there just ... (Below threshold)
James:

Related: wasn't there just a story a few weeks ago about a plastic surgeon who didn't do sex change surgeries getting sued for basically the same thing? It's never going to end...

for crap sake, she wasn't b... (Below threshold)
abc:

for crap sake, she wasn't bleeding out on their floor, she was in for an elective procedure. If she can't work the turkey baster herself, she can feel free to go get knocked up the usual way. Oh, but that would be against her anti-penis belief system! Tough - this is like crying that a doctor won't help you take a shit.

Homophobia is not ok, but i don't think these guys deserve a lawsuit after referring her to doctors who would carry out her wishes. I hope the docs win and get their court costs back.

re: D-Hoggs (#11)2... (Below threshold)

re: D-Hoggs (#11)

2 things: 1)I can see more clearly now how you libs will run "universal health care", as you seem to think there's no difference between a cab driver or cashier and a medical doctor.

2) A key word from your post is EMPLOYEE. If the doctors are ordered by their "employer" to do the procedure, they are obliged to or risk being fired.

Unfortunately, YOU want BIG BROTHER to be the doctors employer/granter of rights, while you want the muslim, who would slit his own daughters' throat if she wore tight pants, to place himself above people who don't live up to his standards !?!

You libs just take the cake. And you tax it, and regulate it, and restrict its right to be "Angel" cake, and want to kill its cupcakes. But when we the people cry foul, you just say, "Let 'em eat cow pies, HA,HA,HA!"

Jesus Mark, you must not co... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Jesus Mark, you must not come around here very often if you think I am a lib!! I am not sure if I could be any farther from being so. Me thinks you need to read my previous post again and maybe think about it a little before frothing at the mouth. The bottom line is that these doctors have a job to do, yet they are claiming religious preferences in order to not do that job. The muslim cab driver and cashier have a job to do, yet are claiming religious preferences to not do that job. Seems pretty clear cut to me. As I said before, if you want to discuss the fact that the muslims are getting a break while the Christian doctors are not, I absolutely agree with that and we can discuss that all day long, but it seems to me that Cassy has argued before that the muslims should'nt be able to claim religious preference in shirking their duties, while she is now arguing that the Christian doctors should be able to do that very thing. I am about as Conservative as it gets Mark, and I also try my hardest to be intellectually honest and not just take the side of anything anti-muslim/lib or pro-christian/conservative, which is what you seem to be doing. I see a disparity here in how Cassy is treating two very similar scenarios, take a deep breathe and try thinking about it.

What if a doctor was a Jeho... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

What if a doctor was a Jehovah's Witness, and he/she refused to give blood transfusions but was more than happy to provide the details of a bunch of other doctors who would? Wouldn't we just say, do your damn job or go find a different one, the proper execution of which doesn't cause you to "sin"?

Amazingly, I am going to ha... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Amazingly, I am going to have to agree with hyperbolist. Another question might be whether these doctors are in a private practice, in which case they might be able to practice within their religion, or whether they work for a hospital, in which case, they have a boss, and a board to answer to.

D-Hoggs,I can only... (Below threshold)

D-Hoggs,

I can only go by your line of thinking in this case and that is: "All situations are equal, therefor, all people MUST be equal. The relationship between a cashier and there employer and customer is EXACTLY analogous to that of the relationship between a doctor and the woman whose body he is about to become involved with, ostensibly, in the most intimate way possible."

That is the assumption you leave by not answering (you know, classic liberalism via obfuscation and screaming about all of your good credits as a conservative) the flipping point in the first place. I don't give a care about your history here, your thinking is as murky and muddle headed as a flaming Obama, who I have no doubt you are going to run into the arms of come November.

As a young athiest, I was a fan of Ayn Rand and, I desparetly yearn for her directness in this age of the non responsive response for in that age, you can serve as the poster boy. My proof? Even after this, you will refuse to answer directly to my point that the notion of comparing cashiers selling pork rhinds to gynecologists/OBGYNs is patently absurd.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. You can't, because there is no argument in support of such a proposition. Because one who would even make that "point" is obviously slaving away in markos moulitsas' basement or some other base camp propagating the big lie.

There is only a handful of people around here who address issues directly, and you are not one of them.

mark:A) I wouldn't... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

mark:

A) I wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years, in fact it makes me somewhat sick to even say his name.

B) The same goes for moulitsas

C) You are a fucking asshole who knows nothing about me or my convictions.

I am a bit perplexed on your blatant idiocy in understanding the simple nature of my comments. I can't for the life of me understand how my comments were anything less than directly addressed. Clearly you are more than just an asshole, you are an asshole with a severe reading comprehension problem.

"you will refuse to answer directly to my point that the notion of comparing cashiers selling pork rhinds to gynecologists/OBGYNs is patently absurd."

My answer to your "point"...we're not talking about skill sets or income here dipshit, we're talking about the fact that each has a job to do, a boss to answer to, and people that rely on their services.

I don't give a shit if you are a cab driver or a doctor, you both have a job to do, and a boss to answer to. I come from a family of doctors, I know. Unless these doctors were in a private practice, they are at the mercy of the board of directors, their bosses. Plain and simple, what do you not understand about this? Both are trying to claim a religious preference in shirking their duties, Cassie wants to afford the Christians that luxury, the Muslims, not so much. Still with me here? Can your feeble ass mind grasp that very simple concept?

For the record, I made a completely legitimate comment to add to the discussion, to which you come in screaming "liberal!" and acting like an all around douche-bag. Apparently you are the atheistic, liberal piece of shit you try to project onto others. In summary...fuck off.

D-Hoggs,Sorry for ... (Below threshold)

D-Hoggs,

Sorry for whatever part I had in the above tirade. I come here to engage. I thought you made silly points so, as one thinking person to another, I chose to engage. I've re-read my post and other than the poor spilleng and questionable gramar, I fail to see what would cause such vitriol from anyone besides an English teacher.

This is not to antagonize you but, is it possible that a nerve was struck? I ask because you still have not explained how it can be that an M.D. is analogous to a cashier. That, and why would someone want to force a person to do a procedure as invasive as in vitro fertilization? You libs always get me when it comes to forcing people to do things they don't want to do. Start your own "Gay Scouts" if you want or, find a "minister" who will marry you or, ban guns from your life or, go ahead and send extra money to the U.S.Treasury when you pay your taxes, just leave us regular Americans out of it.

We don't want to bother you, we just want to be left alone. I guess you would say, "blank off!" but it's not an anger thing with us. It's just a "live and let live, but please don't force me to live the way you want me to live because, as long as you don't infringe on me/others/innocents, you can live however you want to live, 'gay unions' and all".

For the record, I am a Christian and was referring to my (misspent) youth with the athiest comment but really, you must admit that directness is always the best way to have a debate/conversation, and I truly hope that you will refrain from cursing in the future. It really doesn't add anything to the discussion and only enforces the notion that you are indeed what you are, and that is a liberal. Just be a proud one with a level head like, David Boies, or Pat Caddell, or even "Uncle Bob" Bennett. Now those are honorable, less foulmouthed, liberals to aspire to joining the ranks of.

Good luck, and I hope to have another spirited tet a tet with you in the future. God bless,
Mark

What a smarmy little douche... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

What a smarmy little douche you are mark with your pathetic underhanded attempts at riling people up by calling them liberals. never mind that you and I most likely fall on the same side of every political issue, never mind the thousands of posts I've made here throughout the years, never mind the fact that I answered your questions flat out, yet you still can't understand, nor care to apparently.

I'll attempt this one more time, futile as it may be with your feeble mind.

"I ask because you still have not explained how it can be that an M.D. is analogous to a cashier."

They are analogous because they were both hired to do a specific job, and because both are bound by the same laws, period. We are not discussing pay grades or skill sets here, simply an employee/employer relationship. You don't go to your job at the ManHole and just refuse to do it do you mark? I think not.

You really seem to not understand that I am not trying to personally argue that this decision is correct, because I personally believe that doctors should be able to refuse any patient they want, provided they aren't in a medical emergency. What I AM getting at is Cassy's double standard of wanting muslims to be forced to do their jobs despite religious conviction while not applying the same to these Christian doctors. But I understand this double standard concept is over you head so we'll just move on mark.

"and why would someone want to force a person to do a procedure as invasive as in vitro fertilization? "

This is just one of the stupidest things I have read in a while. The doctors in question are fertility doctors for god's sake mark!! Do you think they went into that field not knowing that they were going to be performing said procedure?!?! Furthermore, the issue at hand has nothing to do with the procedure, it has to do with the sex of the recipient, thus further illustrating your denseness.

For the record, I am Christian as well, and a gun owner. Why do you feel the need to be an underhanded jerk instead of discussing a topic in an intellectually honest way mark? I am assuming it's because you have nothing worthwhile to add other then trying to label people who are not liberals as such, and from looking at your pathetic little blogs you have going, you certainly have nothing witty or worthwhile to add to any conversation.

Anyway, keep trying to peg your fellow conservatives as liberals, it just further exposes your severe lack of ability to engage in a reasonable discussion.

A little insight into the '... (Below threshold)
D-HOggs:

A little insight into the 'rational ' mind of mark! Two headlines from his 'blog':

"Death to Molesters - Death to the Left,their partners in crime"

"Why do they hate? I don't get ANYTHING about libs"

Of course he won't understand the hypocrisy in his own ridiculous thoughts.

I will pray for you D-Hoggs... (Below threshold)

I will pray for you D-Hoggs and again, I did not intend for you to become so unglued. In my youth, that would have amused me. Now however, I can't help but feel partially responsible and can only hope that you don't turn your irrational rage on those around you, for to call ones self a "Christian" and launch into orbit, at some guy posting on a blog, as you have, and to also know that you own fire arms, is a bit frightening. I really think you should seek help, wether professional or from your clergy, to try and grasp control of yourself. I am sure that you are a very sincere, conservative patriot who only wants the best for his country and countrymen.

Please try not to take anything I've said here as a "shot" at you. Just please, please consider what I've said above. I have been around situations like this and, my friend, you could be headed for some very hard times if you do not confront the deamons that torment you. I no longer care what your political persuasion is, you are a child of God and you are in trouble. I pray that you find the help you need.

I tell you all of this knowing that I am the #1 champion sinner myself. My motivation is selfish to the extent that I want to claim credit for having helped you. But none of that matters, just do as the Bible says and, "Be still and know I am the Lord..." Only He can save you. Only He can save me from all of my petty foolishness and antagonizing of poor torchered souls such as yourself.

Come to the Father my friend, and you will want no more.

Wow mark, you are in need o... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Wow mark, you are in need of some serious help. You're delusional man. Seriously, don't flatter yourself that you could ever make me come unglued! You're nothing more than a self aggrandizing jerk. I am just amazed at your idiocy and lack of reading comprehension. And you can cut it with the attempted passive aggression. Your bible quotes and god talk ring extremely hallow in the face of your actions. What was it that that God guy said that you pretend to believe in so much? Oh yeah, judge not lest ye be judged. You seem to have had no problem judging though, nor do you have a problem wishing death on people apparently. And you're afraid of my firearm! That's rich, I've never wished death on a group of people as you have. Very Christian of you mark.

By the way, congratulations on successfully skirting the issue at hand since you have no rational thoughts on it. Just quote a bunch of bible quotes that further expose you as the hypocrite you are. Move along.

Wait a minute, you quoted m... (Below threshold)

Wait a minute, you quoted me as saying, "Death to Molesters - Death to the Left,their partners in crime", and then you said, "I've never wished death on a group of people as you have. Very Christian of you mark."

Do you know the fate of a child who has been forced to have sex with a grown man? You think that being in the aclu like you, and advocating for the total freedom of these monsters is "Christian"!?! I am sorry, but I cannot pray for you any longer. You are at best sick, and at worst a very evil person. I will instead choose to pray for the poor children at risk under your "supervision". God hates child molesters sir! Do you have any idea what is waiting for you after this life? No sir, He will not be mocked! He meant it when he said, "That which you do to the least of me, you do to me.", for to enter into the kingdom of Heaven you must "become as a little child".

You are apparently beyond being jaded sir if you are now in the business of defending child molesters and yes, even those who seek to turn them loose on unsuspecting little children. If you have any shame at all, I suspect that you will not reply but rather you will reassess your status as a member of the human race. I will continue to hope, however, that you will refrain from twisting off into the kind of vile, sick and perverted tantrum that you exibited in post #20. Please sir, show us all that you can "evolve", to use a vernacular more to your liking, to something more than a garden variety ungulate, rutting about in its own filth!

And yet another example of ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

And yet another example of mark's extreme ignorance and hellacious lack of reading comprehension. What I posted was:

---------------------------------

A little insight into the 'rational ' mind of mark! Two headlines from his 'blog':

"Death to Molesters - Death to the Left,their partners in crime"

"Why do they hate? I don't get ANYTHING about libs"

Of course he won't understand the hypocrisy in his own ridiculous thoughts.

-----------------------------

Now, to the sane person, my point is very clear, it is highlighting his extreme hypocrisy in wishing "the Left" dead in the first headline, followed by not understanding why the Left hates in the second headline. Go figure that this is totally over mark's feeble little mind to understand. Not one point I was making had anything to do with child molestors, yet to the delusional mark I am somehow defending them! And now he is using God to justify his wishing people dead, talk about sick. Once again, very Christian of mark, I'm sure God enjoy's his fantasies of killing "the Left". I am also quite sure that God doesn't 'hate' anybody, any TRUE Christian knows that, regardless of whether they are rancid piece of shit child molestors, or the liberals mark wishes were all dead. Ahh the mind of an insane person.

They are analogous... (Below threshold)
They are analogous because they were both hired to do a specific job, and because both are bound by the same laws, period. We are not discussing pay grades or skill sets here, simply an employee/employer relationship. You don't go to your job at the ManHole and just refuse to do it do you mark? I think not. You really seem to not understand that I am not trying to personally argue that this decision is correct, because I personally believe that doctors should be able to refuse any patient they want, provided they aren't in a medical emergency. What I AM getting at is Cassy's double standard of wanting muslims to be forced to do their jobs despite religious conviction while not applying the same to these Christian doctors. But I understand this double standard concept is over you head so we'll just move on mark.

Here is how your analogy breaks down: Employee(s) #1, the doctors, were victims of a couple setting them up for a lawsuit, when all the doctors tried to do was halp. Employee(s) #2, the cashiers/cabbies, KNOWINGLY took jobs they "found offensive", therefor, setting up their E M P L O YE R S (there, is that slow enough for you?) for a bogus lawsuit. I'm sorry sir, but you simply are not very bright. What I just said is so plain to see, it may have caused my IQ to degrade for the explaining. Some things are self evident, TO CONSERVATIVES, thus, your proper nomenclature of, (not so proud) Liberal is correct. You base everything on emotion and, "I come from a family of doctors, I KNOW!!!!!!!!!" etc. These are not fact base approaches to making ones point which is, AGAIN, liberal thinking.

You are liberal, I hear you roar. You can not see the Constitution for the "civil rights". You are a boob, a twit, one lacking in the plus column. Half wits are your intellectual superiors. If presented with a problem requiring cold, hard logic, in the shadowy woods of your ever darkening mind you will forever wonder. Sir, give it up, a simple argument, as put forth by me, some guy twaddling on an anonamous blog site, has left you in emotional ruin, and exposed you to all who actually can read. Find something else to do like, oh, maybe bouncing a ball, or, perhaps you could extole the virtues of "change", and "hope" to random passers by on your journey through life, but please, please, don't come in here with anymore of that weak stuff. It's embarassing.

Oh yes, as far as

"and why would someone want to force a person to do a procedure as invasive as in vitro fertilization? "(your quote of me)

(and your reply...)

This is just one of the stupidest things I have read in a while. The doctors in question are fertility doctors for god's sake mark!! Do you think they went into that field not knowing that they were going to be performing said procedure?!?! Furthermore, the issue at hand has nothing to do with the procedure, it has to do with the sex of the recipient, thus further illustrating your denseness.

goes,
speaking of reading, if you had actually read about the subject at hand, you would know that it was THE NON MARRIED STATUS OF THE SUE HAPPY COUPLE THAT WAS AT ISSUE FOR THE GOOD DOCTORS. There, do you feel at home now that I can scream the funny words too? That's nice, good luck with your ball bouncing, buh bye.

(you may now commence calling me a bad Christian while inserting the F word in every other sentence. thanks for the laughs though,m)

Oh yeah, that's a really cl... (Below threshold)

Oh yeah, that's a really clever touch there, you know, giving youreslf a "+" vote every time while the idiot mark always gets his "-" comeuppance. Too funny! (and now, for benefit of D-Hoggs, the pictures and graphs portion of this here mini-post) What um, mark, I mean, that is, dur, what I'm just said was, uh, duh, NOBODYS' READING THIS CRAP ACCEPT FOR YOU AND ME! Now that does amuse. PHEW! That was close, for a minute there, I was starting to think I had wasted my time on something unimportant. Take care Chuckles.

Wow, what a load of tripe, ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Wow, what a load of tripe, if one can argue the cashiers took jobs they knew they would find offensive, the same goes for the doctors, who most definitely knew they might be faced with the prospect of inseminating a gay person...especially considering the issue has been being argued for years now, not that mark would understand that.

And thanks for proving, AGAIN, your severe deficiency in reading comprehension:

"if you had actually read about the subject at hand, you would know that it was THE NON MARRIED STATUS OF THE SUE HAPPY COUPLE THAT WAS AT ISSUE FOR THE GOOD DOCTORS."

Good lord mark, read the damn article linked above that is titled "Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays"!! And contains important info such as, "Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian" and the kicker, "She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION applies to doctors." Hah! Ridiculous, the married status had zero to do with it you frigging fool. My god what an idiot you are, hilarious! Keep on with your murder fantasies you holier than thou Christian Soldier. God is very proud of you. Reading is fundamental.

And thanks for finally ackn... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

And thanks for finally acknowledging yourself for the idiot you are. I believe the word you were looking for was "except", and it's "you and I" genius.

The prosecution rests with ... (Below threshold)

The prosecution rests with one amendment: the defendant did cease in the profanity laced portion of his nonsensical diatribes, so that count is hereby dropped. Other than that, we urgently urge Hiz Honour to except our proposal that the defendant be remanded back to the custody of, "The Happy Home for Lost Travelers". (I guess me and thee are done now, yes?) Hey! You managed to bury my brilliant proof of your looney, lefty thought processies! Ah, nevermind.

This is a pretty sticky iss... (Below threshold)

This is a pretty sticky issue, how many religious allowances are appropriate for our society to accept? Personally I feel that each person is responsible for finding a comfortable balance that will allow them to live within the strictures of their faith and the laws of society.

I think the OWNER of a business should be allowed to determine the level of service they are, or are not, willing to provide, but if they intend to discriminate for religious reasons, or decline certain services (like birth control, etc.), then they need to make it clear at the door.

However, if the OWNER of a business wants to offer his wares and services to any and all, the employees of that business are bound to follow the employers wishes or find a new job.

I don't mind if you want to run your business your way, that is your right, as long as I know about it BEFORE I walk in the door. You don't have the right to waste my time by not being very clear about the services you will or will not provide, and I don't need to feel judged because I ask for a service I have every right to expect you to provide.

Yuck, this thread hit the g... (Below threshold)
Lexington:

Yuck, this thread hit the gutter fast.

Unfortunately, I didn't hear anyone call bullshit on the women themselves. Lots of talk about how their feelings were hurt, and all that, but come on now, the doctor never denied their rights. In fact, he affirmed them when making the referral.

What these two awful awful women did was exploit the legal system to make a fast buck from an innocent victim. These predatory brutes behaved in a fashion so totally devoid of feeling or sense that one fears for the well-being of the children they're now raising.

Alternately, they are so opposed to the religions that don't accept them, they will personally attack the livelyhoods of any members of those religions, when they can do so without fear of repercussion, regardless of any kindness those people may have show them.

Again, these are truly awful, despicable, horrendous people. And the law has made a mockery of itself by pretending otherwise.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy