forced acceptance of homosexuality.

[bcp]

...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?

Look up the definitions of elective, and life saving.

saving the lesbians life is not an option. if you can, you have to. even I would do that if in the position. same with food, I would not deny somebody food because of their lifestyle choice.

performing an elective procedure is different. She will not die without it, she will not be harmed without it. However, in the doctors eyes, as in mine, the child of that elective procedure could end up being harmed by being raised by two lesbians. not enough data to make an informed conclusion on that.
At the least, his religious beliefs are being compromised by doing so.

the elective is a choice, and therefore can be denied.

should he be forced to impregnate a 25 year old severely retarded woman?

 

[Larry Gude]

Where...

Look up the definitions of elective, and life saving.

...shall I look? Is that in Genesis? Luke?

 

[bcp]

...shall I look? Is that in Genesis? Luke?

nope, in the dictionary
is artificial insemination in Genesis? Luke?

I expect better responses from you.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

nope, in the dictionary
is artificial insemination in Genesis? Luke?

I expect better responses from you.

...see. Now here you go again. First, the doctors religion trumps everything. Then, it's his hippocratic oath that is the determining document. Now what, Websters?

 

[bcp]

...see. Now here you go again. First, the doctors religion trumps everything. Then, it's his hippocratic oath that is the determining document. Now what, Websters?

what does the Hippocratic oath bind him to?

 

[Larry Gude]

Do...

what does the Hippocratic oath bind him to?

...no harm.



And fill out lots of insurance claim forms.

 

[bcp]

...no harm.



And fill out lots of insurance claim forms.

He did no harm.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh...

He did no harm.

...look! 23 pages and we're back where we started.

Yes, he did. As a doctor offering specific services to the public, he discriminated against this woman for personal religious reasons.

 

[czygvtwkr]

...look! 23 pages and we're back where we started.

Yes, he did. As a doctor offering specific services to the public, he discriminated against this woman for personal religious reasons.

Artificial insemination is not a public service, treating a burning case of genital warts is.

 

[Larry Gude]

What...

Artificial insemination is not a public service, treating a burning case of genital warts is.

...if your religion tells you to let people with a case of genital warts burn?

 

[bcp]

...if your religion tells you to let people with a case of genital warts burn?

when you have to make up ridiculous examples, it shows that you can not defend your position.

 

[Larry Gude]

I agree...

when you have to make up ridiculous examples, it shows that you can not defend your position.

...which is why I didn't bring up any nonsense about warts or religion or dictionaries or medical oaths.

 

[foodcritic]

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

I agree. Doctors should be required to treat people with disease and illness. Asking a doctor to inseminate someone is certainly not denying them treatment. But what do you expect in the land of fruits and nuts???

 

[Merlin99]

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.

Nope, not only is there nothing definitive, but nothing that even hints of the possibility of any public funding.

 

[Merlin99]

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

To me.

Larry,
Can you give me your definition of public accomodation, every time I read it I see private practice.

 

[Xaquin44]

Artificial insemination is not a public service, treating a burning case of genital warts is.

it is a public service .... same way the sale of any good or service is.

 

[outlawrc]

...can be a firm believer in the Easter Bunny if you want to. Go ahead and deny someone a link or banner based on their sexual preference. See how that works out with your firm beliefs.

While you're reading this woman's mind, maybe the other office wasn't convenient? Maybe they gave her the creeps? Maybe they had cold hands? Maybe she's a modern day lesbo Rosa Parks trying to stir up ####. Does she get any choice in this? At all?

She deserves a choice but the firm does not?
I assume that the firm pays taxes as well.

 

[Xaquin44]

She deserves a choice but the firm does not?
I assume that the firm pays taxes as well.

so what if they pay taxes?

the point is they offer a service and are denying said service for unacceptable reasons. Simply because you don't like/approve of someone, doesn't give you automatic grounds to refuse them.

This has been pointed out sevreal times in this thread.

 

[Larry Gude]

I have no idea...

Larry,
Can you give me your definition of public accomodation, every time I read it I see private practice.

...why this keeps going on. The points of view are set; One said says you should be able to refuse service anyone you want, period, for any reason, end of story. The other side says you have to conform to what the community wants as long as it conforms to the constitution.

End of story.

 

[This_person]

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.

See, if she just accepted that this particular private practice doesn't provide service to everyone that asks, no one is being harmed. There are other places that will provide the service, there is no immediate health risk to consider, no safety concern, etc., etc.

If the doctor is forced to provide a service for which they are uncomfortable, someone is being harmed.

By your logic, you must provide me with any and every flower I desire, no matter how little profit you make or how difficult it is to provide. The grocery store must provide me with each and every food item from each and every manufacturer that I desire, because they advertise that they have a great selection. If I don't deem it "great", they are discriminating against me for my taste in food, and it's Selma all over again!