California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules

[seeker777]

That's affirmative! I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws ,as they pertain to the private sector. Let the market decide! And decide it will. "Bad discrimination" will be rewarded accordingly.

The rights of minorities and the marginalized will be trampled.

No problem, unless your that marginalized person, eh oldbetang?

What your suggesting, ( and I'm certain you haven't thought this through) in particular with a small town. Say a small town of 15000 people, and there lives one man who is a cross dresser.

In this small, mid-western, Bible believing and ultra conservative town, this cross dresser is not accepted with tolerance or any type of respect.

The free market in this town decides that under no circumstances will any business sell him anything or provide any service to him. The man is forced to move away, as he cannot continue to live under this oppressive, unconstitutional and bigoted atmosphere.

After the man leaves, the towns people rejoice, until that family of Koreans move into town. That too is easily taken care of and the small towns businesses are rewarded by all the racists and bigots that populate the town.

If this type of example were a reality as you would like to see, you may as well use the constitution as toilet paper.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I have tried to be respectful to you. But answering my posts in the same manner, with the same rhetoric is getting annoying.

The point is simple. My posts are simple. If you had bothered to look, you would have seen my apology to certain verbs which offend you in the tread about the girl who was treated unfairly at her high school. Such as 'lifestyle', and 'choice'. Apparently, those words are not acceptable, and forbid I offend the 'Word Police',

You STILL haven’t answered the question.

You have repeatedly made reference to “lifestyle” an “Choice”

What is the “lifestyle” you keep bringing up? Is it anything like the black lifestyle or the left handed lifestyle?

What “choice” are you saying is involved?

Sniping at me isn’t an answer - Why don’t you answer the questions?

In this present thread, my point is still simple. It has nothing to do with 'black', 'women', 'choice', 'orientation', or any other word with which you take offense.

Having said that, unless you can 'respond' to my inputs here, instead of attack every point I make with questions unrelated...get off my back, Jack.


Tolly

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who its target is. Your response indicates that somehow discrimination isn’t so bad (“I bet it would be less than 3 or 4 percent”). My question to you remains. At what number does discrimination become bad?

 

[BigBadWlf]

That's affirmative! I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws ,as they pertain to the private sector. Let the market decide! And decide it will. "Bad discrimination" will be rewarded accordingly.

We tried that. It was called segregation and it took legal action to get rid of it

 

[tollyT]

The rights of minorities and the marginalized will be trampled.

The free market in this town decides that under no circumstances will any business sell him anything or provide any service to him. The man is forced to move away, as he cannot continue to live under this oppressive, unconstitutional and bigoted atmosphere.

After the man leaves, the towns people rejoice, until that family of Koreans move into town. That too is easily taken care of and the small towns businesses are rewarded by all the racists and bigots that populate the town.

If this type of example were a reality as you would like to see, you may as well use the constitution as toilet paper.

What a nice town. If you know the name of it, please PM me.
Listen, I live with whom I chose, and do business with whom I chose, and bar-b-que with same. Who says I have to live like the devil? My associates and I give what we choose to give, much more than you blowhard ash hatted Dimwitcrats, and we are still excruciated.
follow the money, honey, and let us have a real debate.

 

[funyun]

You're argument might work in the present case where this is an isolated case and someone could probably drive a couple miles and find another doctor.

But what if this were the segregated South, and every doctor in the area were white and all refused to treat blacks?

Any reasonable society would hold that any member of that society should have access to things like health care.

It is one thing if one doctor refuses and the one next door doesn't, but society does have a reason to regulate behavior when it results in a systematic and insurmountable unavailability of some service to some group.

This is why I am in favor of socialized health care.

 

[seeker777]

What a nice town. If you know the name of it, please PM me.
Listen, I live with whom I chose, and do business with whom I chose, and bar-b-que with same. Who says I have to live like the devil? My associates and I give what we choose to give, much more than you blowhard ash hatted Dimwitcrats, and we are still excruciated.
follow the money, honey, and let us have a real debate.

Are you admitting that you despise all races except for your own?

 

[Flashlight]

It is disgusting how many people here don't care about the US constitution. It gives people the fredom of speech, expression and association. It gives a person the right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason.

 

[Washington]

It is disgusting how many people here don't care about the US constitution. It gives people the fredom of speech, expression and association. It gives a person the right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason.

It's amusing that you have such a literal understanding of the Constitution. Obviously you're oblivious to the fact that our courts interpret the Constitution, which has resulted in judgments that temper any such a literal reading.

 

[oldbetang]

It is disgusting how many people here don't care about the US constitution. It gives people the fredom of speech, expression and association. It gives a person the right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676 [hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act]. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

Dr. Ron Paul

​

Say what you will about Ron Paul, he's not scared to stand on the principles that he believes in.

 

[seeker777]

I can't wait for the Chinese to take over the world and use the American constitution to legally discriminate against the white good 'ol boys.

The good news is that good ol' boys can't look beyond who they hate presently, let alone 50 years from now!

 

[seeker777]

It is disgusting how many people here don't care about the US constitution. It gives people the fredom of speech, expression and association. It gives a person the right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason.

Anyone?

Please...it's minorities, homosexuals and women that get the shaft. Does that concern you?

I didn't think so.

 

[Flashlight]

Anyone?

Please...it's minorities, homosexuals and women that get the shaft. Does that concern you?

I didn't think so.

It concerns me greatly but that doesn't mean we can deviate from the constitution.

 

[bluegreensea]

Doctors may not discriminate against gays and lesbians in medical treatment, even if the procedures being sought conflict with physicians' religious beliefs, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday.

It's taken a court to come up with this decision?? In 2008? That's sad. One would think it would be simply common sense dictating this.

Funny, pharmacists have the right to refuse anyone any drug without giving a reason.

I know...isn't that frightening?

Not sure why doctors can't do the same.

Probably because of the tremendous importance of their work. If a doctor decides he isn't going to provide a fertility treatment for a lesbian, what's to stop him from saying he won't set her broken arm, or mend her wounds after a car accident or perform other necessary, urgent operations? A doctor should have the right to refuse to perform surguries or other procedures he is not trained for -- like providing chemo when he's an eye doctor, or removing an appendix when he's a ear, nose and throat specialist -- but they cannot pick and choose their preferred clients based on personal bias, whatever their specialty. If a doctor provides insemination, that is his specialty. That is what he does for those who come to him. He could refuse someone for being in too ill of health to carry a pregnancy to term, and it would make sense for him to refer the case to police if he felt the baby that may result from his work would be abused, but he can't just say he doesn't like someone and refuse. He doesn't have the right to refuse someone because they have an ugly face, or sleep with someone of the same sex, or because he thinks they don't share his taste in wine and music. Disapproving of the romantic relationship someone has is not a reasonable basis for denying them care.

 

[Washington]

It concerns me greatly but that doesn't mean we can deviate from the constitution.

We don't, but you have to begin realizing that the Constitution IS an interpreted document--even state constitutions. That's what the US Supreme Court was doing when in 1995, for instance, of the 79 cases it considered, 29 (37%) involved constitutional issues. (In 1973 the percentage was over half, 55%). If the Constitution, and state constitutions, could be interpreted literally there would be no need for such judicial action.

 

[SallyNow]

What other way could the court rule in this matter?

If they had ruled that it is okay to refuse elective treatment for non-medical reasons there would have been a serious backlash. Some may have even used it to try to justify what is elective and what is not, and found a way to turn the legal ruling inside out.

 

[Billnew]

Does anyone want a Dr to operate on them with anything less then a
positive opinion?

If a Dr doesn't feel comfortable doing something invasive (meaning inside you, with potential for harm) then find one that doesn't have a problem doing it.

Life threatening emergency care, A Dr must provide care, all others, the Dr has the right to refuse to do any procedure they don't believe is best for society and their patience.
Basically the California courts are going to side with whatever goes for Homosexuals.
Forget anyones elses free will.
This is no suprise, and it will be overturned in higher courts, or California will loose all ethical Drs. If a Drs ethics don't matter for one case, then the courts can demand Drs do anything unethical.

 

[trunks2k]

It all comes down to CA Law that says a business may not refuse to provide services based on race, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. A fertility clinic is a business, and as such has to abide by those rules. Just because they are doctors, they do not get some special exemption from the law.

 

[Allegory]

How would an emerg. doctor know a person's sexual orientation?

 

[Billnew]

Sorry.
Doctors make decisions every day based on feelings and ethics.

No Dr can be forced to do anything unethical. Where as I doubt a whole clinic of Drs
would be against this procedure, I see no problem in letting the person have their moral oppinions.
Just more of the Homosexuals forcing everyone to do as they wish, rather then wanting equal rights.

 

[Billnew]

How would an emerg. doctor know a person's sexual orientation?

more importantly, why would they care.
If the ER Dr won't care for a person based on sexual preference, they should be disbarred. Emergency care or non-elective care is what Drs
get in the business for.

A Dr that wants to do fertility services on a traditional married couple should be able to practice as they wish. Even a Dr that would do a procedure on a single woman(with no known male donor) could be allowed. But if a Dr draws the line at non-traditional couples, why not let them work within thier comfort boundrys?

Refusal to serve food to gay couples at a resturant is alot different then
refusal of a Dr to implant a fetus into a gay female.(and so far, no gay male has ever been pregnant.)

We can prevent discrimination without infringing on peoples rights.