Goodbye Religious Freedom

[Inferno]

The thing is, it's none of the doctor's business if the woman is a lesbian or not. Women are genetically predisposed to have children and he denied her a natural right.

That said, if a doctor ever indicated he or she didn't like me for some reason, I'd be out of there before the paper nightgown was on the chair.

I would not stay there either. I would find another doctor as well. In this case these women chose to take it to the courts. Perhaps these doctors have a very good record. They may get results when others don't. It may have been for these women a 2nd 3rd 4th attempt. These doctors may have been their best bet for sucess.

 

[Care4all]

Care, I can understand your concern for protecting religious freedom but in this case someone's religious freedom prevented other freedoms.

The trouble with protecting religious freedom is that you run into situations where people with certain agendas claim God or the Bible or whatever told them to do what they do and who can argue with them because who can prove that God or whatever did or didn't tell them to do what they are trying to do.
If these doctors want to pick and choose, according to religious reasons NOT medical reasons, who they will reward with their services and if these reasons are in direct opposition to anti discrimination laws and equality, then the doctors are in the wrong. They have abused their position as persons of authority to promote their anti-gay agenda.
some people need to realize freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and from religious oppression.

i fully understand this anguille, but the first amendment IS the FIRST RIGHTS we were given in the Bill of Rights, of the constitution of the United states...i believe, there is good reason for this...even if it is not easily visible to all of us today, in the same manner and depth as it was when it was writen....it was writen for good reason, and maybe it is by a sort of Faith that i believe this, but it is.....the way I see it.

the Bill of Rights came as our FIRST amendments added to the Constitution.

Civil Rights, given in later amendments are equally important, but they certainly do not, in any way, supercede the First Amendment....imo....BOTH, could have been accommodated.

Tell me, if something went wrong with this surgery that this doctor was forced to do because the government forced him to do it, if he flubbled up, would the gvt be responsible for paying the malpractice suit against him or help pay the much higher malpractice insurance for him in the future?

I personally think it is whacko for these doctors to not consciously feel comfortable in gifting this woman with the ability to deliver a child, if all went well....but i also know that the Catholic church sanctions any member, including heteros from performing it or getting the procedure done and there is NO WAY IN HECK that the government should be able to make a law to force these gyno doctors to perform an abortion or to perform artificial insemination/invitro....and this kind of decision that the courts made, is leading to exactly THAT, and THIS would MOST CERTAINLY BE, breaking the first amendment of the constitution of the united states.

Because congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of religion....

And to someone else who mentioned this about the Rajahs and they should be able to smoke pot because it is there religion....to me, that is much, much different than this scenario....BECAUSE smoking pot is against our laws and making it against our laws had nothing to do with it being a part of the jamaican's religion of Rajah...thus constitutionally the first amendment of making no laws to control a religion were being broken...

The same thing with the laws we have on the age of consent....or earliest age a girl/boy can marry etc...it had nothing to do with the religion of the Mormons at the time (supposedly) it was just what the western world was accustomed to and people really saw the possibility of abuse towards women and children if these type of laws were not instated.....so as these reasons, this was not breaking the first amendment of hands off govt on religion.

Same with laws giving Church's their tax exemption....how the gvt was not breaking the first amendment of congress making any laws for or against religions, the reasons church's have tax exemptions is because ALL NONPROFITS or Not for Profit organizations have tax exemptions from the NRA to the salvation Army to the American red cross, to registered Churches, IF they are non profit, then they are tax exempt groups, SOOOOOOO NO FAVOR or law was made to accomodate Churches by our government, again, this is why the first amendment was not broken....

HOWEVER, where we are parting on this is that there WAS NO LAW IN PLACE, imho, that superceded any private practice individual, from consciously objecting or discriminately choosing their patients, who they perform an elective surgery on, in place prior to the lesbian's visit....thus, the judges imo, ruled wrongly because they essentially WROTE LAW that did not exist....and this decision, MADE a law out of thin air....that ultimately regulates a private person's religious belief, these were not government doctors...

and as said, the doctor's belief is not mine....but to me, this decision will and does affect my right to religiously object to something i would find unconscionable....like being sent to fight in a war to kill people or being forced to perform an abortion if I was set against it or a number of things.

sooooo, i disagree with the decision.

Care

 

[Shogun]

I am pro life too. That's why I believe in a woman's right to choose. But otherwise a very sensible post.

your choice is weather or not to ****.. the same as that which your lil breast buddy above suggests is the only input a man should have...


i know i know.. EQUALITY SUCKS.

 

[Care4all]

I do not believe that it is THEIR RIGHT to have a child outside of natural conception....

there is no law that gives ANYONE THAT right imho Ravi....

This is an elective surgery, by doctors that have spents years of their lives and boocoos of their own money to learn about these various elective surgeries....

if THIS WAS A RIGHT as you say, then ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES would be FORCED to cover this surgery with this Private practitioner...

sooooooooo, based on this alone...it being an ELECTIVE SURGERY, it is not a right. again, imo.

 

[Ravi]

I do not believe that it is THEIR RIGHT to have a child outside of natural conception....

there is no law that gives ANYONE THAT right imho Ravi....

This is an elective surgery, by doctors that have spents years of their lives and boocoos of their own money to learn about these various elective surgeries....

if THIS WAS A RIGHT as you say, then ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES would be FORCED to cover this surgery with this Private practitioner...

sooooooooo, based on this alone...it being an ELECTIVE SURGERY, it is not a right. again, imo.

I more meant getting pregnant was a right. Certainly no one has a right to force someone to make you pregnant. All the same, if they are offering the service, they cannot pick and choose who they provide it to unless there is a medical reason. And yes, a medical license is granted by the government and therefore subject to regulation and can be taken away.

If people can't do their job, they should find another one, it's as simple as that.

 

[Shogun]

except that, again, sexuality is NOT a protected status and, last I recall, the federal first amendment trumps the application of state discrimination laws.

But, it didn't seem her point was that anyone FORCED lesbians to get pregnant.. rather, THEY don't have a right to pregnancy enough to FORCE a doctor to provide a service that conflicts with his religion.


why wont you quote where it states that pregnancy is your right, ravikins?

 

[Ravi]

except that, again, sexuality is NOT a protected status and, last I recall, the federal first amendment trumps the application of state discrimination laws.

But, it didn't seem her point was that anyone FORCED lesbians to get pregnant.. rather, THEY don't have a right to pregnancy enough to FORCE a doctor to provide a service that conflicts with his religion.


why wont you quote where it states that pregnancy is your right, ravikins?

Prove that it isn't. I know if something isn't written in the constitution you don't think it is a right. But you are wrong, and have been wrong for as long as I've posted here.

Only a moron would question someone's right to get pregnant.

 

[Anguille]

i fully understand this anguille, but the first amendment IS the FIRST RIGHTS we were given in the Bill of Rights, of the constitution of the United states...i believe, there is good reason for this...even if it is not easily visible to all of us today, in the same manner and depth as it was when it was writen....it was writen for good reason, and maybe it is by a sort of Faith that i believe this, but it is.....the way I see it.

the Bill of Rights came as our FIRST amendments added to the Constitution.

Civil Rights, given in later amendments are equally important, but they certainly do not, in any way, supercede the First Amendment....imo....BOTH, could have been accommodated.

Tell me, if something went wrong with this surgery that this doctor was forced to do because the government forced him to do it, if he flubbled up, would the gvt be responsible for paying the malpractice suit against him or help pay the much higher malpractice insurance for him in the future?

I personally think it is whacko for these doctors to not consciously feel comfortable in gifting this woman with the ability to deliver a child, if all went well....but i also know that the Catholic church sanctions any member, including heteros from performing it or getting the procedure done and there is NO WAY IN HECK that the government should be able to make a law to force these gyno doctors to perform an abortion or to perform artificial insemination/invitro....and this kind of decision that the courts made, is leading to exactly THAT, and THIS would MOST CERTAINLY BE, breaking the first amendment of the constitution of the united states.

Because congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of religion....

And to someone else who mentioned this about the Rajahs and they should be able to smoke pot because it is there religion....to me, that is much, much different than this scenario....BECAUSE smoking pot is against our laws and making it against our laws had nothing to do with it being a part of the jamaican's religion of Rajah...thus constitutionally the first amendment of making no laws to control a religion were being broken...

The same thing with the laws we have on the age of consent....or earliest age a girl/boy can marry etc...it had nothing to do with the religion of the Mormons at the time (supposedly) it was just what the western world was accustomed to and people really saw the possibility of abuse towards women and children if these type of laws were not instated.....so as these reasons, this was not breaking the first amendment of hands off govt on religion.

Same with laws giving Church's their tax exemption....how the gvt was not breaking the first amendment of congress making any laws for or against religions, the reasons church's have tax exemptions is because ALL NONPROFITS or Not for Profit organizations have tax exemptions from the NRA to the salvation Army to the American red cross, to registered Churches, IF they are non profit, then they are tax exempt groups, SOOOOOOO NO FAVOR or law was made to accomodate Churches by our government, again, this is why the first amendment was not broken....

HOWEVER, where we are parting on this is that there WAS NO LAW IN PLACE, imho, that superceded any private practice individual, from consciously objecting or discriminately choosing their patients, who they perform an elective surgery on, in place prior to the lesbian's visit....thus, the judges imo, ruled wrongly because they essentially WROTE LAW that did not exist....and this decision, MADE a law out of thin air....that ultimately regulates a private person's religious belief, these were not government doctors...

and as said, the doctor's belief is not mine....but to me, this decision will and does affect my right to religiously object to something i would find unconscionable....like being sent to fight in a war to kill people or being forced to perform an abortion if I was set against it or a number of things.

sooooo, i disagree with the decision.

Care

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.

 

[Shogun]

Prove that it isn't. I know if something isn't written in the constitution you don't think it is a right. But you are wrong, and have been wrong for as long as I've posted here.

Only a moron would question someone's right to get pregnant.

I dont have to "prove that it isnt". It's YOUR ASSERTION that it is. so, prove it. or kindly stfu.

and, thats how our constitution works, ravi. I know, it's a ******* SHOCKER that women didn vote until an amendment was added but, hey.. this is why you should have paid attention to civics 101.

so, spare me the bullshit and provide some evidence to back up your claim that getting pregnant is a right.


only a stupid **** would imagine that the nation stops and starts according to what SHE thinks is a fact.

 

[Anguille]

only a stupid **** would imagine that the nation stops and starts according to what SHE thinks is a fact.

I predict you are going to lose big time on my poll, Monsieur Vaginaphobe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/57063-ladies-only-poll.html

 

[Shogun]

I predict you are going to lose big time on my poll, Monsieur Vaginaphobe.

I'm unwrapping the razor blades right now for my wrists in the event that I don't fare well on that poll.

 

[Ravi]

I predict you are going to lose big time on my poll, Monsieur Vaginaphobe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/57063-ladies-only-poll.html

Wow, I missed that the first time around. He edited that in. What a jerk.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, all you right wing christian conservatives should consider a couple of things.....

Jesus (proper name Yeshua) DID NOT DISCRIMINATE ON PEOPLE WHOM HE HEALED! Nor did He consider sexual orientation or social status when He performed miracles for others.

A doctor's job is to provide help. One of the first rules in the Hippocratic Oath is to "do no harm", which means help where you can.

One of the things that really bugs me about Christians in this day and age, is that they think that just because something is bad for them, it's bad for everyone. Look at the world sometime, is it in black and white? Are all cars the same color, and does everyone dress the same? The short answer is no. Consideration should be given to all, and a fair shake should be given regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or whatever.

Oh yeah.....for you dumbasses that say the doctor should be able to determine who is and isn't able to have kids, think about this....

What part of "be fruitful and multiply" do you keep missing?

 

[Shogun]

Wow, I missed that the first time around. He edited that in. What a jerk.

what the **** are you even talking about? WHAT did some big bad penis do to you THIS time?

 

[Shogun]

You know, all you right wing christian conservatives should consider a couple of things.....

Jesus (proper name Yeshua) DID NOT DISCRIMINATE ON PEOPLE WHOM HE HEALED! Nor did He consider sexual orientation or social status when He performed miracles for others.

A doctor's job is to provide help. One of the first rules in the Hippocratic Oath is to "do no harm", which means help where you can.

One of the things that really bugs me about Christians in this day and age, is that they think that just because something is bad for them, it's bad for everyone. Look at the world sometime, is it in black and white? Are all cars the same color, and does everyone dress the same? The short answer is no. Consideration should be given to all, and a fair shake should be given regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or whatever.

Oh yeah.....for you dumbasses that say the doctor should be able to determine who is and isn't able to have kids, think about this....

What part of "be fruitful and multiply" do you keep missing?

Well, IM not a christian by any means so, please, feel free to make a point that you think is relevant to all of us before you start generalizing here.


The Hippocratic oath is not a mandate on ELECTIVE procedures. No lives were in jeopardy here.

If this was about fair shakes then the lesbians in question could have had their ELECTIVE PROCEDURE done by any of the numerous docs whose personal religion was not in conflict. But, this wasn't about that at all. And, thats why this kind of thing WILL produce legislation to reflect as much just like the court decision on gay marriage WILL come back to haunt come the fall.

And, for you dumbasses who think that private doctors should ignore their federally guaranteed first amendment rights I invite you to point out where a pair of women have the "right" to get fertilized in ANY government document, state or federal.

 

[Anguille]

Well, IM not a christian by any means so, please, feel free to make a point that you think is relevant to all of us before you start generalizing here.


The Hippocratic oath is not a mandate on ELECTIVE procedures. No lives were in jeopardy here.

If this was about fair shakes then the lesbians in question could have had their ELECTIVE PROCEDURE done by any of the numerous docs whose personal religion was not in conflict. But, this wasn't about that at all. And, thats why this kind of thing WILL produce legislation to reflect as much just like the court decision on gay marriage WILL come back to haunt come the fall.

And, for you dumbasses who think that private doctors should ignore their federally guaranteed first amendment rights I invite you to point out where a pair of women have the "right" to get fertilized in ANY government document, state or federal.

Hey, with the world population growing at the rate it is and with too many children available for adoption living out their childhoods in fostercare, I might be in favor of banning all kinds of artificial insemination. But if you're going to perform the procedure for one segment of the population, you had better be prepared to be expected to perform it for all and everyone who wants it. If not, if "God" told you to discriminate, then you'd better turn in your medical license and make room for a more ethical physician to take your place.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Someone is saying that G-d told them to discriminate?

WTF people? Are you THAT stupid?

You gotta be kidding me.

BTW Shogun......the reason that I picked out Christian conservatives is because those are the ones with the minds that are closed off the most. Are you including yourself in their herd?

 

[Shogun]

Hey, with the world population growing at the rate it is and with too many children available for adoption living out their childhoods in fostercare, I might be in favor of banning all kinds of artificial insemination. But if you're going to perform the procedure for one segment of the population, you had better be prepared to be expected to perform it for all and everyone who wants it. If not, if "God" told you to discriminate, then you'd better turn in your medical license and make room for a more ethical physician to take your place.

Again, sexual orientation IS NOT A PROTECTED STATUS. THIS is why your "blacks in the drivethru" rebuttal falls flat on it's ass. I can, in a state that does not specifically have laws otherwise, discriminate against gays ALL DAY LONG. However, CA does have these laws.. but they don't stand in the face of the SUPREMACY of the federal constitution and the First Amendment.

if GOD told someone to discriminate while there are plenty of other options available then THAT is their religious freedom via the first amendment. More ethical my ass. It's not a doctors responsibility to get a lesbian pregnant. Especially since it clashes with his faith.


Are any of you bitches going to show me where it's your American right to be pregnant or shall we go back to penis size jokes in lieu of evidence?

 

[Shogun]

Someone is saying that G-d told them to discriminate?

WTF people? Are you THAT stupid?

You gotta be kidding me.

BTW Shogun......the reason that I picked out Christian conservatives is because those are the ones with the minds that are closed off the most. Are you including yourself in their herd?

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.

 

[Anguille]

Again, sexual orientation IS NOT A PROTECTED STATUS. THIS is why your "blacks in the drivethru" rebuttal falls flat on it's ass. I can, in a state that does not specifically have laws otherwise, discriminate against gays ALL DAY LONG. However, CA does have these laws.. but they don't stand in the face of the SUPREMACY of the federal constitution and the First Amendment.

if GOD told someone to discriminate while there are plenty of other options available then THAT is their religious freedom via the first amendment. More ethical my ass. It's not a doctors responsibility to get a lesbian pregnant. Especially since it clashes with his faith.


Are any of you bitches going to show me where it's your American right to be pregnant or shall we go back to penis size jokes in lieu of evidence?

Again, the court disagrees with you. I wonder who has more legal expertise?