forced acceptance of homosexuality.

[bcp]

And the forcing of acceptance by law begins.
cant wait for the earthquake that sinks the state of California.

The California Supreme Court, which recently legalized same-sex marriage, has ruled by a 7-0 vote that homosexual rights trump religious freedom. The ruling barred doctors, because of their Christian beliefs, from withholding unnecessary medical care to gays and lesbians. The ruling says that under state law sexual orientation rights trump religious freedom.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

Doctors at the Christian clinic referred the lesbian to another clinic, but the lesbian refused their referral - demanding that the Christian clinic perform the procedure. When the Christian doctors refused to violate their religious convictions, the lesbian sued and the Supreme Court gave her the victory.

This ruling will affect every business in California. If a similar victory in a federal court is won, every business in America will be affected.

For example: Alabama Fertility Specialists (AFS) has begun a campaign to bring Honda of Alabama to its knees because Honda will not cover artificial insemination for a lesbian in it’s insurance.

Honda advised their insurance carrier to "exclude domestic partners (same-sex partners) from ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) benefits including diagnostic services related to fertility/infertility..." If this doesn't work, then count on AFS to sue.

Alabama Fertility Specialists alerted the media, their supporters and gay groups about Honda’s actions and called on supporters and gays to bombard Honda with phone calls and letters.

 

[Vince]

Time to close up shop in California and move. :shrug:

 

[bcp]

Time to close up shop in California and move. :shrug:

that would be my choice.
but is that fair to the non homosexuals to be denied good medical care because the doctors leave or retire?

 

[Larry Gude]

Turn it...

And the forcing of acceptance by law begins.
cant wait for the earthquake that sinks the state of California.

...around.

Should a gay doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to a straight patient, a person of faith, based on the doctors beliefs?

 

[bcp]

...around.

Should a gay doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to a straight patient, a person of faith, based on the doctors beliefs?

yes he should.
now dont get me wrong, If a Doctor in the ER refuses to perform emergency life saving support for a patient based on sexual choice, then we have a problem. However this is about a forcing a private practice to accept anyone that wants to come there.
A doctor should be able to pick and choose his patients just as the patient picks and chooses the doctor.

 

[Vince]

...around.

Should a gay doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to a straight patient, a person of faith, based on the doctors beliefs?

Why are their gay rights more important than the other guys religious beliefs? This country was founded on religious freedom, etc. And it's not like there aren't a million other doctor's/clinics she could have gone to for the procedure. But instead she choose to fight that one to prove her point. Point is, no one's freedoms should be more important than anothers.

 

[Xaquin44]

Why are their gay rights more important than the other guys religious beliefs? This country was founded on religious freedom, etc. And it's not like there aren't a million other doctor's/clinics she could have gone to for the procedure. But instead she choose to fight that one to prove her point. Point is, no one's freedoms should be more important than anothers.

yeah yeah and blacks can go to this guy but not this one and jews can't come here and japanese guys can only go over there etc.

 

[bcp]

Why are their gay rights more important than the other guys religious beliefs? This country was founded on religious freedom, etc. And it's not like there aren't a million other doctor's/clinics she could have gone to for the procedure. But instead she choose to fight that one to prove her point. Point is, no one's freedoms should be more important than anothers.

If she had the time to waste fighting it, whatever it was could not have been that critical in the first place.
this is about what sounds to be an elective type treatment.

should a Catholic Charities health clinic be forced to perform abortions?

 

[bcp]

yeah yeah and blacks can go to this guy but not this one and jews can't come here and japanese guys can only go over there etc.

why do the blacks and jews or any other ethic group always get pulled into the homo discussions.
race and color are not choices. Homosexuality is. Unless you have finally found proof that it isnt.

 

[Vince]

yeah yeah and blacks can go to this guy but not this one and jews can't come here and japanese guys can only go over there etc.

And of course you turn something about freedoms into a racial discussion. Sorry, it's not about that. It's about gays rights being more important in the California laws eyes than religious rights.

 

[Larry Gude]

How...

yes he should.
now dont get me wrong, If a Doctor in the ER refuses to perform emergency life saving support for a patient based on sexual choice, then we have a problem. However this is about a forcing a private practice to accept anyone that wants to come there.
A doctor should be able to pick and choose his patients just as the patient picks and chooses the doctor.

...is this any different than a restaurant refusing to serve whites? Or Hispanics?

This private practice sets up shop in this society wishing to sell their goods and services to this society. Seeings how tax policy is not race or gender or sexual preference based, should a business seeking benefits from tax payer roads and sidewalks and other infrastructure so that customers can access this business, haven't we long reached the point where we're done with this type of thing?

 

[Xaquin44]

And of course you turn something about freedoms into a racial discussion. Sorry, it's not about that. It's about gays rights being more important in the California laws eyes than religious rights.

actually, I was turning it into a chat about discrimination ....

(well actually, it already was about discrimination)

 

[bcp]

And of course you turn something about freedoms into a racial discussion. Sorry, it's not about that. It's about gays rights being more important in the California laws eyes than religious rights.

they have to change the conversation to civil rights because those are rights that can not be disputed, where at the same time, sexual preference rights do not exist in the constitution, and therefore can be successfully disputed.

if you cant win the argument at hand, try to turn it to an unrelated issue to get the opponent on the defense, then switch back.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is...

And of course you turn something about freedoms into a racial discussion. Sorry, it's not about that. It's about gays rights being more important in the California laws eyes than religious rights.

...a place of business also a place of worship? How does treating lesbians with a service they offer assault their religious principles? For that matter, doesn't artificial insemination violate all sorts of religious tenants?

 

[bcp]

...is this any different than a restaurant refusing to serve whites? Or Hispanics?

This private practice sets up shop in this society wishing to sell their goods and services to this society. Seeings how tax policy is not race or gender or sexual preference based, should a business seeking benefits from tax payer roads and sidewalks and other infrastructure so that customers can access this business, haven't we long reached the point where we're done with this type of thing?

yes it is different. Race is protected by rights in the constitution. sexual preference is not.

 

[Xaquin44]

...is this any different than a restaurant refusing to serve whites? Or Hispanics?

This private practice sets up shop in this society wishing to sell their goods and services to this society. Seeings how tax policy is not race or gender or sexual preference based, should a business seeking benefits from tax payer roads and sidewalks and other infrastructure so that customers can access this business, haven't we long reached the point where we're done with this type of thing?

it's different bacause they're gay and it's icky.

this is bcp we're talking about.

 

[Larry Gude]

Homsexuality...

why do the blacks and jews or any other ethic group always get pulled into the homo discussions.
race and color are not choices. Homosexuality is. Unless you have finally found proof that it isnt.

...is a choice in the exact same way heterosexuality is; preference.

You're using the same argument that used to be made to keep whites and blacks out of relationships; it's not natural. It's a sick choice.

 

[bcp]

actually, I was turning it into a chat about discrimination ....

(well actually, it already was about discrimination)

If you wish to discuss unlawful discrimination, I suggest you start a thread to do so.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

yes it is different. Race is protected by rights in the constitution. sexual preference is not.

...the doctors have been required to have gay sex? I thought they were being told that if they want to be in business, it has to be open to the public as a whole.

 

[bcp]

it's different bacause they're gay and it's icky.

this is bcp we're talking about.

its different because
1) there is no right to marry your own sex outlined in the constitution.
2) the requirement for government not to interfere with religion is a constitutional right
3) has nothing to do with icky, has to do with the government dictating the doctrine of a specific religion and forcing those followers of a religion to practice based on the governments directives.