Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
Bingo--it's ok to discriminate against Christians.
Hey dilloschmuck. Where in the Bible does it say doctor's shalt not artificially inseminate lesbians?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bingo--it's ok to discriminate against Christians.
i can see how you might think that is an excellent point until you realize that we are talking about a particular medical procedure not necessarily who is having that procedure.
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....
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.
I didn't read the entire thread, but seriously, if someone doesn't want to perform their job, they need to find a new job. Revoke their license. A medical license isn't a license to be God.
It's kind of funny, these doctors kind of create unnatural life and yet they have a problem with who they create unnatural life for?
sexual orientation is not a protected minority
I'm not certain on that....to force them to do something that they are religiously against doing, would be violating the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights imo....they have the right to their religious stances in the Public square according to the Bill of Rights and our government including the Supreme court which is part of the government does not have the power to take that away from them, is the way the First amendment reads, again, in my opinion....but it seems pretty clear...
care
Bullshit. It's like asking the proprietor of a Hassidic Jewish establishment to serve up pork with cream sauce.
There are doctors who don't object. Trying to force people to do things they find morally objectionable is tryanny, and it's bullshit.
it has nothing to do with a religious theocracy Midcan, to some it does have something to do with religious FREEDOM, the First Amendment, and what it stands for and what it means to have that right....which includes the government, to stay out of individual's religion....i don't see that happening, with this decision....and yes, this individual doctor discriminately chose not to service this couple with a procedure...doctors do this all the time, when they choose or not choose to take on a surgery for someone....for instance, with plastic surgeons...many are now being more discriminatory with performing repeated elective plastic surgeries, to make them look younger patients and turning them down, for ethical reasons and even recommending psychiatrists for them.....Hate to brake this to those who want a religious theocracy in America, but what this doctor did was discriminate against a fellow citizen who lives under the same government and same constitution and thus should be treated the same as any other person in America. In other cases there would be an uproar, consider only AA. This doctor should lose his license.
On one hand we have the government telling doctors if they proscribe hemp to their patients, they will be punished for their clinical opinions that that drug serves some medical purpose, and on the other hand this same government grants them the right to decide to deny medical treatment based on their spiritual beliefs.
Yeah, we're doing a fine job keeping government and religion seperated, aren't we?
This nation is mad, I'm telling you...quite, quite mad.
This wasn't medical "treatment" it is an ELECTIVE procedure, like cosmetic surgery. Seems to me two lesbos made their choice concerning children when they got together since it is physically impossible to two women (or two men) to naturally procreate. If either of them want a brat running around, well, there's a time worn solution for how to make that happen.....without doctors in the room at all.....
Americans for Truth California Supreme Court Rules Against Christian Doctors Who Refused to Artificially Inseminate Lesbiandeviant sexual and gender preferences
Americans for Truth California Supreme Court Rules Against Christian Doctors Who Refused to Artificially Inseminate Lesbian
In the first place it is not considered deviant.
The second point is these doctors are in a licensed practice. If their religious beliefs don't allow them to do they job they are hired to do. They may need to reconsider the firld that they are in. The may not discriminate against anyone. This is the law. A 7-0 lose im the court says that this is pretty much the way that it is.
It is about time that gay rights are being expressed fully by the courts. I applaud the decision.
Ridiculous. Religious beliefs are protected by the constitution. There is no right to artificial insemination in the Constitution, and there is no right in the Constitution that allows for the discrimination against religious beliefs in favor of someone's belief in aberrant sexual behavior.
I think as citizens we owe our allegiance to the principles that guide civic affairs. If the doctor wants to practice in a religious nation or a Christian only hospital so be it but so long we all pay for and support schools/doctors/hospitals their civic duty should come before their religious beliefs. Religion has no place in this situation and the doctor is discriminating against an American citizen. Rights come before religion in the public arena.
On one hand we have the government telling doctors if they proscribe hemp to their patients, they will be punished for their clinical opinions that that drug serves some medical purpose, and on the other hand this same government grants them the right to decide to deny medical treatment based on their spiritual beliefs.
This nation is mad, I'm telling you...quite, quite mad.
Yeah, we're doing a fine job keeping government and religion seperated, aren't we?
hemp is a very good description of government supplied pot. why not just legalize it across the board period. all drugs. Hyropondics beat hemp any day.