Doctors Cannot Withold Care Based on Religious Belief

[Perknose]

Text

California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

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

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling 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."

It's a good day for the republic, say I. :thumbsup:

Whether you're a Muslim taxi driver trying not to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs or a pharmacist trying to impose your narrow religious beliefs on your customers by refusing to fill out legal prescriptions for birth control pills or these yahoo doctors, you now know the rules:

You have to do your job for all of go do something else.

 

[DrPizza]

:thumbsup: Great to see at least one state has common sense.

 

[GenHoth]

For most health care professionals you'd be 100% correct. Artificial insemination?

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.

Here is the relevant quote. But hey, who am I to comment on california law. It isn't like I actually disagree with the sentiment.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
For most health care professionals you'd be 100% correct. Artificial insemination?

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.

Here is the relevant quote. But hey, who am I to comment on california law. It isn't like I actually disagree with the sentiment.

They run a fertility clinic. It's not like they had a problem with the procedure, just with her being gay.

You want fries with your big mac there i love you? Maybe try the next town over. God don't want you eating here.

Having a big mac sure isn't a constitutional right, but if you run a McD's you gotta serve everyone.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

If you're working for a hospital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
If you're working for a hostpital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

You don't have to accept that medical license from the government if you don't agree to those terms.

 

[Butterbean]

Another warped decision from a warped court in a warped location. Forcing docs to make turkey baster babies for the identity disorderd. This would never holg up in highger court thats half normal. In the meantime its another step closer to waking people up to the insanity thats afoot. Go creepy Cali court : )

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
If you're working for a hostpital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

You don't have to accept that medical license from the government if you don't agree to those terms.

Yeah, I was playing devils adviate. Also there is the hypocratic oath.

But for other things, the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Another warped decision from a warped court in a warped location. Forcing docs to make turkey baster babies for the identity disorderd. This would never holg up in highger court thats half normal. In the meantime its another step closer to waking people up to the insanity thats afoot. Go creepy Cali court : )

FART

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
If you're working for a hostpital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

You don't have to accept that medical license from the government if you don't agree to those terms.

Indeed. And it's worth considering that, while I'm straight, I absolutely would not want to be treated by a doctor who wouldn't treat a gay person. Not because of the decision, exactly, but because of the crappy mindset that contributes to a decision like that. Doctors are supposed to treat people who need help, if you want to be some kind of moral inquisitor, you picked the wrong profession.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
If you're working for a hostpital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

You don't have to accept that medical license from the government if you don't agree to those terms.

Yeah, I was playing devils adviate. Also there is the hypocratic oath.

But for other things, the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve.

As long as the government also gives special consideration to private business, they should absolutely be able to tell people who they have to serve. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: To clarify. The government provides special rules for businesses because encouraging private business is good for the country as a whole. It's totally hypocritical to take advantage of those rules while at the same time getting all uppity about your right to do whatever you want. If someone wants to be Dr. Bigot, then I think they should also be ok with operating without a license, insurance or as part of a legal business entity.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Another warped decision from a warped court in a warped location. Forcing docs to make turkey baster babies for the identity disorderd. This would never holg up in highger court thats half normal. In the meantime its another step closer to waking people up to the insanity thats afoot. Go creepy Cali court : )

Havn't you got an abortion clinic to blow up?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
If you're working for a hostpital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

You don't have to accept that medical license from the government if you don't agree to those terms.

Yeah, I was playing devils adviate. Also there is the hypocratic oath.

But for other things, the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve.

As long as the government also gives special consideration to private business, they should absolutely be able to tell people who they have to serve. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: To clarify. The government provides special rules for businesses because encouraging private business is good for the country as a whole. It's totally hypocritical to take advantage of those rules while at the same time getting all uppity about your right to do whatever you want. If someone wants to be Dr. Bigot, then I think they should also be ok with operating without a license, insurance or as part of a legal business entity.

The goverment gives special considerations to religious groups, they dont have to pay taxes, does that mean the goverment can tell them what they can and cannot do inside their churchs?

 

[jackschmittusa]

RocksteadyDotNet

"the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve."

So, would like to see bars with "no Indians allowed" signs?

Restaurants with " no dark-skinned people served"".

Welcome again to the 1850s.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RocksteadyDotNet

"the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve."

So, would like to see bars with "no Indians allowed" signs?

Restaurants with " no dark-skinned people served"".

Welcome again to the 1850s.

Of course I don't want to see that, bigotry belongs in the past.

I wasn't disagreeing with OP, I'm just trying to see all angles of this argument. All I ever see on this board are instransigent people, and I don't want to be like that.

But i'm a Libertarian (mild, left), so i'm just trying find the line in the sand where human rights and liberty intersect.

You can't get a little bit pregnant.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RocksteadyDotNet

"the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve."

So, would like to see bars with "no Indians allowed" signs?

Restaurants with " no dark-skinned people served"".

Welcome again to the 1850s.

In Western Australia, where I live, they recently passed a law saying you cant have single sex establishments that sell alcohol. There was a male only lawyers club that got sued buy a women, and she won.

Excuse me, but if I want to go to a private club and hang out with my buddies, and not be bothered by women, then its my GOD DAMN DEMOCRATIC RIGHT.

The goverment shouldn't be able to tell the proprietor of a private club that he must let women in.

I think the same think here applys. Kind of.

If i'm wrong then let me know.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
If you're working for a hostpital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

You don't have to accept that medical license from the government if you don't agree to those terms.

Yeah, I was playing devils adviate. Also there is the hypocratic oath.

But for other things, the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve.

As long as the government also gives special consideration to private business, they should absolutely be able to tell people who they have to serve. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: To clarify. The government provides special rules for businesses because encouraging private business is good for the country as a whole. It's totally hypocritical to take advantage of those rules while at the same time getting all uppity about your right to do whatever you want. If someone wants to be Dr. Bigot, then I think they should also be ok with operating without a license, insurance or as part of a legal business entity.

The goverment gives special considerations to religious groups, they dont have to pay taxes, does that mean the goverment can tell them what they can and cannot do inside their churchs?

Yes, they cannot become political or they lose their considerations.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
If you're working for a hostpital this is fine, but what if you're a private GP?

If you're working for yourself the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you have to treat.

Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

You don't have to accept that medical license from the government if you don't agree to those terms.

Yeah, I was playing devils adviate. Also there is the hypocratic oath.

But for other things, the goverment shouldn't be able to tell a private business who they have to serve.

As long as the government also gives special consideration to private business, they should absolutely be able to tell people who they have to serve. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: To clarify. The government provides special rules for businesses because encouraging private business is good for the country as a whole. It's totally hypocritical to take advantage of those rules while at the same time getting all uppity about your right to do whatever you want. If someone wants to be Dr. Bigot, then I think they should also be ok with operating without a license, insurance or as part of a legal business entity.

The goverment gives special considerations to religious groups, they dont have to pay taxes, does that mean the goverment can tell them what they can and cannot do inside their churchs?

Yes, they cannot become political or they lose their considerations.

Wat.

Churches have massive political power.

 

[jackschmittusa]

RocksteadyDotNet

I have always felt that a particular group of people should be able to create an exclusionary club, but it should be required to be owned equally by its members, and essentially not open to non-members. Perhaps you could convince your government that your personal liberties extend that far.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RocksteadyDotNet

I have always felt that a particular group of people should be able to create an exclusionary club, but it should be required to be owned equally by its members, and essentially not open to non-members. Perhaps you could convince your government that your personal liberties extend that far.

Mmm, interesting. I can see what you mean.

Here they say its fine to have exlusive clubs if you dont sell alchol. That how they "Women Only" gyms get away with it.

Stupid freakin PC liberal crap.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Text

California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

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

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling 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."

It's a good day for the republic, say I. :thumbsup:

Whether you're a Muslim taxi driver trying not to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs or a pharmacist trying to impose your narrow religious beliefs on your customers by refusing to fill out legal prescriptions for birth control pills or these yahoo doctors, you now know the rules:


You have to do your job for all of go do something else.

I think you are being overbroad in your interpretation. This is all about homosexual discrimination and scope of practice. A physician who performs abortions cannot say "you are a lesbian so I won't perform an abortion on you", but a doctor who objects to abortions cannot be forced to perform them. There needs to be a balance between conscience and practice in all things.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RocksteadyDotNet

I have always felt that a particular group of people should be able to create an exclusionary club, but it should be required to be owned equally by its members, and essentially not open to non-members. Perhaps you could convince your government that your personal liberties extend that far.

Mmm, interesting. I can see what you mean.

Here they say its fine to have exlusive clubs if you dont sell alchol. That how they "Women Only" gyms get away with it.

Stupid freakin PC liberal crap.

Or, if the "men's only" drinking club decided to raise it's membership fees and provide alcohol for free as part of membership, that would probably work too.

 

[lupi]

If going just by the title of the thread and a brief read of the OP I'd say duh, what result would you expect.

Reading the info posted about the case that brought the suit I'd also say duh they are performing elective medical procedures on their personal client list and can see or not see whomever they want.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Should a jewish docter be forced to treat a neo-nazi?

Assuming the patient meets all criteria such that he'd be suitable/acceptable for treatment by a Jewish doctor, the doctor must treat the nazi. Same for a black treating a member of the KKK (or vice versa).

 

[shira]

Look at this hypothetical situation:

A gay couple is traveling through the bible belt; a drunk driver hits them. One of the couple is critically injured. He's rushed to closest hospital where all of the staff have strong religious convictions against gays and refuse to treat. The patient bleeds to death.

Is this an acceptable scenario?

On a smaller scale, all refusals to treat or refusals to provide service (when based on discrimination because of membership in some religious/ethnic/racial/gender/sexual-preference/political/etc. group) amount to the same thing.