Goodbye Religious Freedom

[Anguille]

Bingo--it's ok to discriminate against Christians.

Hey dilloschmuck. Where in the Bible does it say doctor's shalt not artificially inseminate lesbians?

 

[Anguille]

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.

Why would discrimination be acceptable for elective procedures but not otherwise? Why would discrimination be acceptable in any situation?

 

[Anguille]

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....

In many rural areas there is no other pharmacist to turn to. I believe it was in Missouri a few years ago that pharmacists working for Walmart were refusing to provide day after pills. Walmart allowed them to continue refusing until a suit was brought against them. I'm not certain of the result but I think Walmart and the nazi pharmacists lost.

If a person doesn't believe in abortion or birth control, fine, proselytize all you want but if you are going to abuse your power as a medical provider to force your own beliefs on others you should have your license revoked until you comply.

Messing with someone's life and health, forcing them to bear a child they do not chose to bear is equivalent to rape IMO.

 

[Anguille]

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.

Sure, Gunny, but if some doctor refused to treat you for itchy balls because he thought Jesus wanted Marines to have itchy balls I'm pretty sure you'd be pounding doctor.

 

[Anguille]

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?

 

[axessterminated]

sexual orientation is not a protected minority

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Newsflash, champ, if you assault a gay man because he's gay, it's a hate crime. Therefore, his group is federally protected, just as much as any other group, whether it's a "minority" or not.

Now, we're not going to get into an argument about hate crimes here (because this isn't one), but current law says that unless you run a totally private medical practice, you cannot discriminate. Doctors have lost their licenses for much less in the past. An MD has a duty to screen patients for eligibility based on medical or ethical criteria as established by law. Last time I checked, a gay person can legally birth or adopt a child.

The doctor is wrong whether you're for or against gay rights. QED.

 

[axessterminated]

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

If you are a civil servant in any manner, as any medical practitioner is, you give up many of your own rights for the benefit of others, much like the military does. It does not have to be a life or death situation for this to matter. An elective procedure is still a procedure and there is currently no legislation or case law in place that denies a homosexual the right to have a child. You are only allowed your rights so long as it does not interfere with another's pursuit of happiness. It doesn't matter if "religious freedom" is literally printed first; the law is not interpreted in that manner.

 

[bobbymcgill]

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.

Accepting the doctors view that it is morally objectionable based on the bible, a book that in the same Old Testament text promotes selling your daughter into sexual slavery is BS.

 

[bobbymcgill]

What's next? Christian paramedics refuse to work on atheists?

 

[WhiteLion]

social reindoctrination of an entire nation

 

[Care4all]

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.

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.....

This doctor immediately gave the couple a referral to a doctor that would perform the invitro and even offered to pay for it....

What these women did, was extremely selfish and not giving the same due to the doctor's religious concerns as they expected to get for their own concerns, imo...AND it was set up...from the beginning of this couple, to sue this doctor when turned down, is how it looks to me....and that does not sit well, one iota....

this was not a life threatening situation, this was an elective surgery, such as a face lift....and the doctors accomodated the couple immediately, with no ill will....that counts for something in my book but obviously not for this couple that had an ax to grind, where the other person's Right which the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights gives us, was not even a nano second of a thought, in their selfish little heads....and yes, this might be harsh...but it is still what i see in this whole case....

Care

 

[Zoomie1980]

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.....

 

[Care4all]

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.....

i don't see it like that zoomie....i think these doctors did the right thing by immediately offering a referral to doctors within their own practice or practicing in their building, that did not consciously object....but that just wasn't good enough for these 2 women....these doctors even said they would pay for the referal.

not all doctors would object to artificial inseminating a lesbian couple...in fact, i would bet most docs doing this procedure wouldn't....but some would....

heck, the catholic church is against in vitro/artificial fertilization because of so many fertilized eggs killed in the process, and for even hetero couples not permitted, so if catholic, the procedure itself is a no no....

 

[Inferno]

deviant 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.

 

[JuniorCitizen]

I agree completely.

 

[Care4all]

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.

hired to do? these doctors OWN their own private practices....they went to school for 8-12 years, they paid for their education, they used their money to open their own business, they took the appropriate tests that showed their competency....the gvt had no part of that....

nearly every occupation needs a license, you are giving up our first amendment rights because the gvt issues a licence? you've got to be kidding? sheesh, hairdressers need a license, public accountants, day care providers.....what does a license have to do with the first amendment for goodness sakes?

care

 

[editec]

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.

So if a cop's religion is Rastfarianism, he doesn't have to bust Rastas who are smoking their sacrament?

 

[strollingbones]

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.

I take it you mean doctors who are christians only.....or do you mean the whole bunch have to be christians...would these said religion based hosptital treat pagans are send them to a pagna hospital?

No profession has the right to force any type of religion on you...or their religious beliefs on you at work. Human life should come before religion.

 

[strollingbones]

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.

 

[editec]

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.

I prefer that the government simply decriminalize it, personally.

Most drugs are not harmless, and some controls seems warranted to me.

Hemp is not one of those.