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
Email This
Posted by Cassy Fiano on August 19, 2008 7:02 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Activist Judges, Homosexual Agenda, News, Secular Humanism
Trackback URL:
Comments
6 Responses to “Forget your religious beliefs. We’ve got an agenda to push!”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Perhaps Christian doctors in CA should move their practices to a state where they’re allowed their religious freedom as stated in the Constitution.
What this woman really wanted was money.
Crack dealers, child molesters, rapists, and murderers break the law for being crack dealers, child molesters, rapists, and murderers.
Also, arguing that the doctors didn’t brand her “a dirty queer” and legitimizing a comparison between homosexual individuals to criminals is contradictory.
Regardless of personal moral convictions, a homosexual person does not break the law for being homosexual. Drawing false parallels based only on personal morals without considering the legal context and implications hurts our ability to have a substantive discussion and do not help your argument.
Linked to your post from Special rights trumps doctors religious rights
While it is true that homosexuality is not against the law, it IS against the law to force someone to go against their faith and the beliefs espoused in that faith as long as it does not go against the laws of the United States.
And last I checked, offending someone is not against the law. Show me where it is against the law and I’ll gladly take it back. Goodness knows, the courts don’t mind offending those that hold Judeo-Christian values.
Now, I realize this is about doctors refusing to serve an individual. But, this is a service that is not necessary for sustaining life, and they can find someone else to perform the service.
I see why this was necessary since the Christian doctors did everything to prevent this woman from being impregnated. What, they didn’t? They even referred her to someone else for the job? Well, then, I guess this woman was just being a greedy, pain in the butt. Expect her to sue McDonalds, Burger King or some other fast food place for making her fat.
By the way, if these doctors were Jewish or Muslim, I think there would’ve been a ’slightly’ different attitude from the court.
And last I checked, offending someone is not against the law.
Well, that’s debatable. Is it against the law to “hurt feelings”? No. But are there laws that punish offenders for offending citizens? Yes. Sexual harassment laws for one. Hate crime law. Also, decency laws. I draw no direct argument from any of the aforementioned examples, but there are precedents for laws preventing offense to private citizens.
Let’s not forget that the plaintiff in this case argued that she had to go outside of her employer’s health plan in order to receive successful medical treatment, forcing her to pay more for services than a heterosexual patient would have had to. I haven’t read the brief, but I would not be surprised to see this as one of the underlying reasons for the court’s decision.
The clinic probably should have considered what medical plans it would and would not have accepted, or at least offered some sort of disclaimer as to who it would provide services for and what those services would include. Otherwise, it should have expected clients of either sexual orientation and/or a discrimination lawsuit upon refusal to service homosexual customers/patients.