forced acceptance of homosexuality.

[toppick08]

I just felt sorry for those San. Fran. priests some time ago.....:shrug:

 

[Xaquin44]

Well, you're wrong so get over it. And you're naive.

I'm wrong that you can't tell if a guy is a bigot or that his 'religious beliefs' are such that he won't provide his advertised service just by looking at him?

I'm pretty sure that I'm right. In fact, I'm 100% sure.

Word gets around that a certain whatever is anti-whatever. Then the people who are pro-whatever go out of their way to be "discriminated against" so they can get the whatever in trouble and get some publicity for themselves.

In some cases sure .... certainly not every case, and there is no evidence that this happened in this case.

That's the way it works, and if you think this woman is honestly just trying to have a baby and this doctor is the only one in the world who can do it for her, then you are in serious denial and should seek help.

I've given you a list of reasons why she may have not wanted to go to another doctor. A reasonable list at that. I may be wrong, or I may be right. I guess really only she knows for sure.

edit: also, I'm hardly wrong that information in public locations is easily garnered by the public ....

 

[Merlin99]

bcp, what can you not figure out about the fact that this Doctor's office is providing a PUBLIC service? The examples you listed are completely private entitiies, they are free to exclude anyone they choose, but a Doctor is to provide medical services to any and all, and cannot discriminate based on their personal feelings.

What makes this a public service? Did the state of california pay for their education? How much did california put down to start the office? Just because they are doctors that makes them a public service? Next tyhing you'll want is medicare provided vaginoplasty.

 

[Merlin99]

So what?

As I've said time and again, if a community has the right to license business's then they have the right to make rules, pursuant to the constitution. These doctors are free to disagree with the conditions and go open up shop elsewhere. They do NOT have to serve her. They do if they want to do business in that community.

I do NOT see a constitutional violation in requiring a business to do what they say they do without discriminating based on personal issues.

What is the purpose of the license? Maybe that's the part of the argument that I'm not getting. I thought it was there to verify that the doctor was competent and that the business met the minimum standards for providing the service.

 

[Larry Gude]

Business...

What is the purpose of the license? Maybe that's the part of the argument that I'm not getting. I thought it was there to verify that the doctor was competent and that the business met the minimum standards for providing the service.

...license. Permission to operate with in a given community. The community is in no position to verify his medical qualifications. He has med school and other industry documentation for that. Communities license you and require you to meet certain conditions; handicap accessible. Parking rules and regs. Fire safety. Health codes. Building code compliance. Advertising rules. Display guidelines. Community standards. Discrimination policies. Hiring and payroll tax rules and guidelines.

Maybe there is nothing in there as regards discrimination or service providence guidelines. If there's not, there will be.

 

[Xaquin44]

What makes this a public service?

the same thing that make any given grocery store, fast food joint, etc. etc. a public service.

 

[bcp]

A doctor has the right to see the patients he wishes to see, there is no requirement that forces him to carry a clientele other than the one he wants.
If he does not wish to deal with people based on whatever his standards are, that is his business to do so.

The license does not create a contract with the city other an to ensure he is properly accredited, Insured and he pays his taxes.

Its called a private practice for a reason.

 

[Larry Gude]

Of...

The more I read on this subject the more I get the feeling this womans agenda is all about the money. She ended up going elsewhere for her insemination and had a baby, but sued the other place for all her fees for the insemination and then some. So having a baby didn't cost her a penny. It's all about the money.

...course it is. That doesn't change a thing. She still has a point.

You all on your side take the position that a private business should be able to make their own rules, no matter what, and that's a very fine, survival of the fittest mindset, but, we have rules and regulations and community standards that cover health, qualifications, safety and access and this and that and the other thing...and discrimination.

You all see a simple solution as her just accepting that they refuse her service because of her sexuality and just move on yet you don't see any obligation on their part to just provide the service they went in business to provide and be done with it.

 

[bcp]

what larry fails to realize is that this is not a flower shop refusing to sell someone a flower because they are gay.
this is about placing a child in a gay household.
IF that is against the doctors relgions, or personal belief, he as OWNER AND OPERATOR has the right to deny that service.

 

[Larry Gude]

What...

what larry fails to realize is that this is not a flower shop refusing to sell someone a flower because they are gay.
this is about placing a child in a gay household.
IF that is against the doctors relgions, or personal belief, he as OWNER AND OPERATOR has the right to deny that service.

....you fail to realize is that I realize that. All you are arguing is that they were right to refuse her and are legally able to refuse her for personal reasons.

All I am saying is that the community has the right to tell them, as a condition of being able to do business there, that they may not refuse service for personal reasons.

 

[bcp]

....you fail to realize is that I realize that. All you are arguing is that they were right to refuse her and are legally able to refuse her for personal reasons.

All I am saying is that the community has the right to tell them, as a condition of being able to do business there, that they may not refuse service for personal reasons.

so, the church, can be dictated to by the community what their belief will be?

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh...

so, the church, can be dictated to by the community what their belief will be?

...I'm sorry. Why didn't someone say so? I was under the impression that she went to their place of business, not their place of worship.

My bad.

 

[LastSon]

What makes this a public service? Did the state of california pay for their education? How much did california put down to start the office? Just because they are doctors that makes them a public service? Next tyhing you'll want is medicare provided vaginoplasty.

What makes this a public service is the fact that they recieve government (aka public) funding to provide said service.

EDIT: And also if you had read my other posts on this topic, you would notice that I clearly stated that IF this practice was completely 100% privately owned and operated then, yes, they have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason they choose. That is their right as a business owner. However, since that is not the case in this instance, the Doctor's personal feelings and beliefs cannot dictate who he/she decides to treat and not treat.

 

[Larry Gude]

Who...

What makes this a public service is the fact that they recieve government (aka public) funding to provide said service.

...does? The doctors? How?

 

[LastSon]

...does? The doctors? How?

Medicare, government funding for research, etc. There are lots of ways that fertility clinics recieve government money and grants.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

Medicare, government funding for research, etc. There are lots of ways that fertility clinics recieve government money and grants.

...you know they get government money or you think they do?

 

[LastSon]

I've actually been trying to research this since i first read about this story, and I can't find anything definitive. However, I have read the California Supreme Courts' judgement and what it honestly comes down to is the fact that these Doctors directly violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act which is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on sex, sexual orientation, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition.

You can read the ruling for yourself here.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't...

I've actually been trying to research this since i first read about this story, and I can't find anything definitive. However, I have read the California Supreme Courts' judgement and what it honestly comes down to is the fact that these Doctors directly violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act which is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on sex, sexual orientation, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition.

You can read the ruling for yourself here.

...need to read anything; this thing is a obvious and simple as it gets.

To me.

 

[bcp]

...I'm sorry. Why didn't someone say so? I was under the impression that she went to their place of business, not their place of worship.

My bad.

the key word here is "Their" as in Their, not the governments. any business can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

If the Doctors Christian faith prevented them from doing business with this beatch, then they have the right to do so.
seems like she got her kids anyway (God help them) So its not like his refusal to squeeze the baby batter into her kept her from her desire to conceive.

now, had the doctor refused to perform a service that would have saved her life, I would agree with the lawsuit 100%

 

[Larry Gude]

Under...

the key word here is "Their" as in Their, not the governments. any business can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

If the Doctors Christian faith prevented them from doing business with this beatch, then they have the right to do so.
seems like she got her kids anyway (God help them) So its not like his refusal to squeeze the baby batter into her kept her from her desire to conceive.

now, had the doctor refused to perform a service that would have saved her life, I would agree with the lawsuit 100%

...what logic do you see their right to deny doing what they do for a living yet see that they are obligated to provide something they don't even do?

If an ER doc, working for a private hospital in your world, is not required to treat a lesbian if it's not life saving as it offends his faith, why is that doc is then REQUIRED to do something life saving?