Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
no, it is not that cut and dry....it could be the doctor does believe, for RELIGIOUS REASONS, that homosexual relationships are not Biblically, or whatever the religion's belief, sound relationships to bring forth a child in....they could truely believe that doing such, would be religiously unsound for them.....offering the paid referal of another doc who does not object should satisfy BOTH, without harming either.
why would this couple even WANT a surgeon near them that religiously objects?
did they SET THIS UP, for the lawsuit? sure seems like it....
care
They tried that ... and lost.
The harm is you are setting a bad precedent ... if a doctor can refuse a service because of one's sexuality because someone else is willing to do it ... then other services can be denied to groups by groups ... because other groups are willing to provide that service ... and so on ... and so forth.
Yes. What's your point?
Discrimination is practiced all the time. Do you have any idea how many ways there are of telling someone " NO " without telling them the truth ? Unfortunately these silly doctors had to wear their religion on their sleeves and were sitting ducks for a couple of lesbians who found out about it.
The government is not in the right just because they won.
You saying this tells me that you realize it was a mistake and wrong for the doctors to cite their religous beliefs as a reason for denial.
It seems like that is the case that they made ... they argued their side and lost ... IMO rightfully so ... if you opine otherwise so be it ... IMO to decide otherwise would allow other services denied to homosexuals because of one's religious beliefs ... that's a huge can of worm to be opened.
To your latter questions ... I wouldn't be surprised at all ... often times that is a way of exposing discrimition to get it heard in court.
You saying this tells me that you realize it was a mistake and wrong for the doctors to cite their religous beliefs as a reason for denial.
It seems like that is the case that they made ... they argued their side and lost ... IMO rightfully so ... if you opine otherwise so be it ... IMO to decide otherwise would allow other services denied to homosexuals because of one's religious beliefs ... that's a huge can of worm to be opened.
To your latter questions ... I wouldn't be surprised at all ... often times that is a way of exposing discrimition to get it heard in court.
It isn't a huge can of worms at all. Private citizens in private practice can pick and choose whoever they wish to and not to provide services for.
I could even see if it was a life-saving measure and the physician refused to render aid. You would have a point.
The decision is NOT right. This is an elective proccedure and the physicians in private practice. It is clearly a case of government interfering with individual liberty, not upholding it.
These physicians are not denying anyone the right to artificial insemination. They are refusing to perform the procedure themselves. The difference is OBVIOUS.
The physicians are however being denied their First Amendment Right to exercise the religion of their choice.
Why the hell don't the lesbos just get lesbo doctors to do the procedure? I mean, it isn't like it's that rare or difficult a procedure, in and of itself.....
These doctors had no more right to discriminate against lesbians than do pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or day after pills.
i can see that, but i can see a difference in this particular situation where a child is involved because i have witnessed religious people speak/think in this manner, like the doctors....and sincerely believe it....to be anti their beliefs....and the referal to another doctor seems like it could have accomodated both consciences.
i do not in any way see how this situation, if it had been determined in the doc's favor, would have made this be the ''right'' of a restaurant owner to refuse service for religious reasons to anyone...there are no religious reasons that could or would compare to this type of thing with the docs...imo....they did recommend/refer another doctor that would provide the elective surgery....
to me, the lesbian couple had an ''agenda'' from the beginning, which is their right i suppose, but lessons my compassion in this situation....i think....
care
So they can either comply, kick a can, or appeal to a higher court ... that's how these things work.
And yet weren't you JUST arguing that the Republicans in Pennsylvania were wrong for trying to get Barr off the ticket? I suggest you REREAD what you WROTE here and apply it across the board.
No decision has been handed down in the Barr case yet ... all I did was give my opinion on what the decision should be ...
You did more than that.
