Goodbye Religious Freedom

[Care4all]

If they wish to have a license to practice medicine or to dispense prescription drugs, they need to respect the diversity of our nation and refrain from discrimination.

That would be the ENTIRE Public Square Anguille ....most everything is regulated or licensed in our Public and that WOULD MOST DEFINATELY violate the Constitution and our Bill of Rights....This is a private practitioner, an individual person and you would be vioting his religious right, given by the first amendment, if the government forced him to do something he was religiously against doing....shoot, people can even get out of going to War as a religious objection, and the government can not force them to go....it falls in to the same line...you can't force a gyno to perform abortions either...so why is this any different? As long as these Doctors are giving referals to another Doctor that would not object religiously, that would be fair to both, the young women and the the doctor....

Care

 

[Glori.B]

Huh?

if the medical procedure is otherwise available and not allowed to be prohibited by the government..why should the government be able to force it down the throat of an individual doctor who feels so strongly about not doing it...be it abortion or artificial insemination or whatever...?

 

[Glori.B]

That would be the ENTIRE Public Square Anguille ....most everything is regulated or licensed in our Public and that WOULD MOST DEFINATELY violate the Constitution and our Bill of Rights....This is a private practitioner, an individual person and you would be vioting his religious right, given by the first amendment, if the government forced him to do something he was religiously against doing....shoot, people can even get out of going to War as a religious objection, and the government can not force them to go....it falls in to the same line...you can't force a gyno to perform abortions either...so why is this any different? As long as these Doctors are giving referals to another Doctor that would not object religiously, that would be fair to both, the young women and the the doctor....

Care

i'd rep you again, if i could.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Whatever happened to the businesses right to refuse service to anyone? Guess that got shot to hell also.

 

[Article 15]

if the medical procedure is otherwise available and not allowed to be prohibited by the government..why should the government be able to force it down the throat of an individual doctor who feels so strongly about not doing it...be it abortion or artificial insemination or whatever...?

The problem is that the doctor has no problem performing the procedure ... for straight folks ... it's blatant discrimination ... like opening a whites only restaurant.

 

[Anguille]

That would be the ENTIRE Public Square Anguille ....most everything is regulated or licensed in our Public and that WOULD MOST DEFINATELY violate the Constitution and our Bill of Rights....This is a private practitioner, an individual person and you would be vioting his religious right, given by the first amendment, if the government forced him to do something he was religiously against doing....shoot, people can even get out of going to War as a religious objection, and the government can not force them to go....it falls in to the same line...you can't force a gyno to perform abortions either...so why is this any different? As long as these Doctors are giving referals to another Doctor that would not object religiously, that would be fair to both, the young women and the the doctor....

Care

If I needed an abortion and my gyn refused to perform one on me citing a religious objection to me having a medical procedure to which I have a legal right, you can bet I would sue that doctor's sorry ass off just like those lesbians sued theirs. A person who has a conscientious objection to killing other humans is not the same as someone who wishes to practice medicine in a manner which discriminates against patients for religious reasons or for any other illegal reasons.

 

[Glori.B]

If I needed an abortion and my gyn refused to perform one on me citing a religious objection to me having a medical procedure to which I have a legal right, you can bet I would sue that doctor's sorry ass off just like those lesbians sued theirs. A person who has a conscientious objection to killing other humans is not the same as someone who wishes to practice medicine in a manner which discriminates against patients for religious reasons or for any other illegal reasons.

you could try to sue them all you want...God bless..

but ask yourself what would be your loss to claim? if the procedure is not prohibited and is otherwise available there is no real loss, is there?

 

[Article 15]

you could try to sue them all you want...God bless..

but ask yourself what would be your loss to claim? if the procedure is not prohibited and is otherwise available there is no real loss, is there?

So if Wendy's refuses to sell cheeseburgers to homosexuals it's okay because Burger King wont turn them away?

 

[Glori.B]

So if Wendy's refuses to sell cheeseburgers to homosexuals it's okay because Burger King wont turn them away?

what does eating cheeseburgers have to do with religious freedom? unless you're jewish, maybe...umm...have you heard of a kosher deli?

 

[Article 15]

what does eating cheeseburgers have to do with religious freedom?

In this case ... everything ...

unless you're jewish, maybe...umm...have you heard of a kosher deli?

Clever but not clever enough.

The kosher deli restricts what it sells not to whom it sells to.

 

[Gunny]

Whatever happened to the businesses right to refuse service to anyone? Guess that got shot to hell also.

If you wish to have an elective procedure and can afford it, that is your right. If I perform elective procedures and I don't like you, it is my right to tell you no.

You then go find someone who IS willing to perform the procedure.

This placing the rights of the aberrant minority ahead of the majority is just bullshit. Want to get pregnant? Get laid. Works like a charm for my cat.

 

[Care4all]

i'd rep you again, if i could.

this is honestly kind of tricky, and i can see some of the concerns on the ''other side'' of this issue....

this doctor, if i have it right....i didn't read the initial article but popped in on the thread midstream so i ''gathered'' that this doc refused because he did not want to artificially inseminate this woman because she was in a lesbian relationship, there would be 2 mothers....but i think someone mentioned that he did perform this procedure for other women, in hetero relationships....

so, there is the potential of it truely being discrimination imo....thus the trickiness of it....

i can ALSO understand how this truely could be a religious objection of his....if he truely believed that he "had a calling" to become this fertility specialist Doctor, so to help loving hetero couples fulful their dream of a family unit, including a child...all fitting in with his Bible or Koran or whatever, teachings, then to be FORCED by the government or HAVE TO perform the procedure to artificially inseminate a woman who was not in this Biblically sound relationship, when that is objectional to him...I see the First Amendment, our FIRST Right in the Bill of Rights, being important and our first "right" for a reason and it being totally violated by our gvt if it forced this man to do something religiously objectionable.

But if this man refused to perform this procedure on a Black couple as was asked earlier, my answer to this is that this would NOT BE FOR RELIGIOUS reason, thus not covered under the first amendment....and would be discriminating.

Also, the fact that this procedure is not an emergency procedure but an elective procedure is also part of my decision making process in this because OF COURSE if it were some kind of "emergency, life threatening situation" all Doctors would be obligated to save ANYONES' life and religious reasons do not apply to any kind of life saving denials.

People tend to think this is a, taking one stance, type of topic but it is much more complicated than such and i could give reasons to support it going either way...but what always wins out with me, is the Constitution, and what it says about it.

Another part of that was mentioned by someone is that this doctor recommended another doctor for this procedure, who did not have any religious issues with it....that seemed fair enough, since it was not something that was urgently needed.

However, I'm not sure how i feel on the morning after pill, and the pharmacists...though I agree it could be objectional for religious reasons, if he then had another pharmacist there fill it for her, then fine....

If he has to send her someplace halfway around town to get it filled and she can't get to it that day or for another couple of days due to work or whatever, then this pharmacist could be harming her...I say this because it takes a couple of weeks in to 'pregnancy weeks', for the fertilized egg to make it to the conception stage...the stage where the egg is finally attached to the uterus....if, the morning after pill is not taken within the first 3 days after fertilization, then the chances of conception are higher, and this chemical may not work to prevent it from attaching to the uterus....it is much like the Birth control Pill and what it does, prevents eggs from attaching to the uterus...conception.

So, again, i can understand the religious objection of the pharmacist, to a degree, but i can also understand that it could be FOR Religious reasons of the woman to want to take this drug BEFORE the baby was conceived....when it reaches and attaches to the uterus....see, even naturally, i think i read over 1/3 of all fertilized eggs never make it to the attachment to the uterus stage, conception.

And if this woman had truely been through a Rape, or incest rape, she should not have to go through this kind of anguish, embarassment, etc either...

SEE...things just aren't as simple as one would like them to be imo....

The other thing that is haunting me, is the "Good Samaratan" story...where the "religious Levi and Priest" did NOT help the, 'left for dead on the side of the road man', for "religious" reasons....it was either the Sabbath, or this man was "unclean" because of his bloodiness...or something of the sort that was against the Jewish religion....but the lowly Samaratan man, who was thought of as an unholy man from a lowly tribe, knew what the RIGHT thing was to do....regardless of the Law...and that was to have compassion, and help the man on the side of the road that needed help at that time....

damn, i'm a real mess!!!! hahahahahahahaha!!!!

care

 

[Glori.B]

In this case ... everything ...




Clever but not clever enough.

The kosher deli restricts what it sells not to whom it sells to.

okay, so the doctor chooses not to sell that procedure to anyone.

in your book the government should be allowed to force an individual practitioner to perform that procedure...why?

 

[Article 15]

okay, so the doctor chooses not to sell that procedure to anyone.

If they want to avoid being sued and losing then, yes, that is what they should do.

in your book the government should be allowed to force an individual practitioner to perform that procedure...why?

In my book, the government should prevent the individual practitioner from refusing to perform the procedure because of the patient's sexuality.

 

[Glori.B]

this is honestly kind of tricky, and i can see some of the concerns on the ''other side'' of this issue....

this doctor, if i have it right....i didn't read the initial article but popped in on the thread midstream so i ''gathered'' that this doc refused because he did not want to artificially inseminate this woman because she was in a lesbian relationship, there would be 2 mothers....but i think someone mentioned that he did perform this procedure for other women, in hetero relationships....

so, there is the potential of it truly being discrimination imo....thus the trickiness of it....

agreed. it is quite tricky...

 

[Gunny]

okay, so the doctor chooses not to sell that procedure to anyone.

in your book the government should be allowed to force an individual practitioner to perform that procedure...why?

If they are private practioners I would tell the government to go pound sand. They're as likel to get inseminated by immacualte conception as by me under the circumstances.

 

[Article 15]

If they are private practioners I would tell the government to go pound sand. They're as likel to get inseminated by immacualte conception as by me under the circumstances.

They tried that ... and lost.

 

[Glori.B]

They tried that ... and lost.

that may be so...and OJ won too.....so............

back to the deli...ahem.

Clever but not clever enough.

The kosher deli restricts what it sells not to whom it sells to.

please equate this and tell me what you think is fair for the individual practitioner under the law.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

let individuals take their stance.

as long as the procedure is not prohibited and thus will be provided by someone else who has a different stance...why not?

I agree with both of y'all. The rights of the doctor have to be respected and it's quite clear that they're being violated. I woudn't abide if I were the doctors. My guess is that this will eventually be overruled.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They tried that ... and lost.

The doctors will eventually have that ruling overruled. The doctors rights are in clear viloation.