- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
Again, the court disagrees with you. I wonder who has more legal expertise?
the STATE court disagrees. I wonder if this will be the first time a STATE court is overturned by a FEDERAL court.
Last edited:
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.
Again, the court disagrees with you. I wonder who has more legal expertise?
You are generalizing, dude. Feel free to take that intellectually lazy path if you like.. but it leads down a less than convincing destination. Im including myself in the group that is willing to consider more than knee-jerk naivety when considering whose rights were actually being shit upon here. Do YOU know what the supremacy clause is? Can YOU find any place in our government documents that remotely suggests that a woman, gay or strait, has a RIGHT to pregnancy?
welcome to the club, by the way.
No there is nothing like a pregnancy right. There is a right not to be discriminated agaunst though.
It's debatable whether certain churches are non profit.
One good thing about this case is that it makes it clear to doctors and future doctors that if you are planning on discriminating against certain would be patients because of some belief you claim is religious and therefore sacrosanct and above the rule of law you had better find another profession.
Doctors know well ahead of time before they pay tuition that they will have to comply with licensing rules if they want to practice medicine in this country. This case has improved consumer protections from unethical and abusive doctors as well as demonstrating that discrimination and injustice will be not tolerated in America.
anguille, there is NO licensing rule that says doctors must operate on ANY PATIENT that is having an elective surgery...these doctors can turn down any hetero couple too, if they deemed so....
the doctors WERE NOT TOLD when they paid for their schooling that the government would have the right to force them to go against their conscionable religious objections...THIS IS COMING AFTER THE FACT.....
The Civil rights amendment DOES NOT protect sexual orientation, and if it did it still does not give ANY RIGHT to any patient seeking an elective surgery...
it protects people from being discriminated against in hiring, (equal opportunity), and in public facilities, public schools, and in private establishments of hotels, restaurants, and the likes of these....but those protected under gender, race, religion etc...does not include sexual orientation...unless it was amended somewhere down the road that i missed when i just looked the Civil rights amendment up....
though i did just see shoggie post something about California having this law...so i guess it will be up to the supreme court if it gets there...to decide if california's law trumps the federal first amendment.
and as i said, i disagree with the religious "thinking" of these doctor dudes, but i do believe they have the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, on their side....and that is the only thing that matters to me at this time....
One more time. Sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected status. And, state laws regarding such do not trump the FEDERAL first amendment.
Someone please explain this to me...are you guys trying to say that a woman has no right to get pregnant? I'm not talking get pregnant by AI, but get pregnant, period.No there is nothing like a pregnancy right. There is a right not to be discriminated agaunst though.
maybe ob/gyn doctors should be allowed to designate in their credentialing that they only offer natural birth services, or not...as long as the government does not prohibit ob/gyn doctors from their freedom to practice artificial insemination or abortion, and likewise not prohibit them to opt out of offering those services, there is no harm...both could be protected under the law...think of it as a conscientious objection...this concept can not be universally applied when it comes to discrimination, but it works in the case of reproductive medicine.
Someone please explain this to me...are you guys trying to say that a woman has no right to get pregnant? I'm not talking get pregnant by AI, but get pregnant, period.
What next? What other basic biological functions is the government going to be allowed to control?
I'm pretty sure the medical board requires doctors to behave in an ethical manner if they wish to have a license to practice medicine and these doctors have not behaved ethically.
I don't see how in what way the 1st Amendment grants permission for people to impose their religious beliefs on other people as these doctors attempted to do. I think to interpret it as such goes against the concept of freedom for all in as much a capacity as society can allow. I think the 1st Amendment protects people from being oppressed by religious ideas they don't subscribe to, such as it's okay to discriminate against people for being different than you are or for not having the same religious beliefs as you do. Obviously, I am not a scholar of constitutional law but I think the the Constitution was created and amended to with the aim to define and protect human rights. And one of those rights is the right to be treated equally and fairly. If doctors are granted permission to practice medicine, they must respect the concept of equality for all, not just for people who think like them.
Someone asked earlier in the thread if people thought it would be okay for doctors with religious convictions against providing medical services to blacks to go ahead and refuse to service blacks. The "elective surgery" thing has been tossed about as if it had some bearing on the case, which it does not. You can't refuse to serve food to people, rent or sell houses to people, deny carnival rides to people or perform medical services which you offer to the public just because you think you are on a mission from God and God told you to go ahead and act out your bigoted ideas. Anyone is free to express, within reason, their bigoted ideas but that's it. In this country, discrimination is not permitted. That's what I read in the Constitution.
Someone please explain this to me...are you guys trying to say that a woman has no right to get pregnant? I'm not talking get pregnant by AI, but get pregnant, period.
What next? What other basic biological functions is the government going to be allowed to control?
Amazing that this thread continues its excuses for what is simply discrimination against an American citizen who lives under the same constitution as the rest of us.
Amazing that this thread continues its excuses for what is simply discrimination against an American citizen who lives under the same constitution as the rest of us. The wingnuts argue everyone should be armed and dangerous but when it comes to taking care of their medical request their rights change! 7-0 is pretty clear for most.
Amazing that this thread continues its excuses for what is simply discrimination against an American citizen who lives under the same constitution as the rest of us. The wingnuts argue everyone should be armed and dangerous but when it comes to taking care of their medical request their rights change! 7-0 is pretty clear for most.