CA Supreme Court to Consider Lesbian's Rights vs. Docs' Religious Rights

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-lesbian15jun15,1,5331771.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a lawsuit by a lesbian against two fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her on religious grounds.

Without comment, the court said it will hear the appeal by attorneys for Guadalupe T. Benitez, 34, of Oceanside in her lawsuit against Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group and Dr. Christine Brody and Dr. Douglas Fenton.

An appeals court ruled last year against Benitez, saying that the doctors could use religious freedom as a defense against her lawsuit. The doctors say their refusal was based on the fact that Benitez was unmarried, not because she's a lesbian.

In their appeal to the state Supreme Court, attorneys for the Los Angeles office of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund said there is an "urgent public need to resolve persistent confusion" over whether religious rights can trump protection under state anti-discrimination laws

I'd say religion is fine, but it shouldn't be a person's right to refuse to do their job on religious grounds. And in this case, it is blatent discrimination.

They want to find out what its like to be discriminated against, fine. Get the fuck out of the country. They are in the fertility business, period.

or black? or non-Christian? or - hell - I just don't like Tuesday, so I won't treat anyone that day?

:wtf:

refusing to treat because a guy came in with his boyfriend.

The refusal of treatment based solely upon religious grounds threatens the health of the general public and should be cause for immediate termination of the "doctor's" license, and it should be permenant.

:applause:

Clearly a blanket exception to non discrimination laws based on religious beliefs can't be allowed but in cases like this it is harder to see the harm. These ladies were referred to another clinic who did the procedure. It wasn't an emergency situation, where this behavior can't be tolerated. I honestly don't know how I would end up ruling on this.

My concern lies in what kind of precedent this may set. If the doctors are allowed to refuse treatment of any kind based on religion, where would it end?

I am no lawyer, so I may be looking at this completely wrong.

Clearly as a precedent for all medical care this would be a disaster. I certainly would have to see this limited to non emergency situations.

then they should get a blanket exception and refuse to perform the procedure for EVERYONE

but these doctors performed the procedure for married heterosexual couples and not for this lesbian

this was clear discrimination on the part of the doctors

between a married couple and an unmarried one for many people. There certainly is a legal difference. Given the numbers of us who need this service vs the numbers of married couples I think most places won't behave this way. I think the market and boycots when needed are the answer in this case. I am presuming that these people also won't serve unmarried heterosexual couples.

You're religious rights stop at the end of your own personhood. If you are opposed to gays or lesbians on religious grounds, then by all means don't have a relationship with someone of the same sex - you have that right. You do not have the right to force your religious views onto someone else. A doctor does that when he discriminates against patients and refuses them service based on who they are sleeping with.

If you are religiously opposed to something, and you think that conviction might interfere with your DUTIES as a medical professional, you also have the right to choose another profession. But once you take that oath, and begin that practice, you take on ALL the responsibilities associated with it, without discrimination or prejudice.

I'm getting really sick and tired of right wingers saying things like "what about my rights to my religious beliefs" and "what about my right to be intolerant" and all that absolute nonsense. And I get even more irritated when we on the left act like its a good argument or makes a valid point. It makes NO valid point. You're right to your beliefs applies to your life, body and choices. Don't like gays? Don't have a relationsihp with someone of the same sex. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Don't believe marriage between homosexuals is ok? Don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't think a gay couple should raise a child? Then don't raise a child with someone of the same sex.

You have the right to make choices FOR YOU -- you never have the right to take away choices from someone else. If a doctor feels so strongly about someone else's personal choices that it interferes with him faithfully carrying out his or her duties, then that doctor needs to find the integrity of conscience to step down and get the fuck out of the profession. How about having the courage of your convictions rather than trying to have it both ways.

Didn't John F Kennedy say, "Your rights end where somebody else's rights begin."

After all if you are morally opposed to selling books then you shouldn't have a bookstore. I wouldn't want this doctor treating me and would appreciate him and her being honest up front like this pair of doctors were.

Equating matters of medical service treatment with the plight of a private bookstore owner is fairly disingenuous. And even if it weren't, you're comparison is flawed. The question would be should a book store owner be able to sell books he stocks to some customers then refuse to sell that same book to another customer becuase he was black? That would be a fair comparison.



Doctors should not be allow to pick and choose what patients they will serve based on their racist or bigoted "belief" systems.

If it were then poor people could get it too. This isn't a doctor refusing to treat an AIDS patient or an emergency room refusing to dispense drugs. This is a purely elective procedure and they were offered a different doctor to get the procedure with. When we make it so poor people don't get dumped on skid row in CA for lack of funds then maybe we should worry about the people in this case.

becuase ruling against the lesbians would be setting a terrible precedent. I can see where ruling against the lesbians would set GLBT rights way back as far as getting fair medical treatment, and medicine is one field would discrimination of any kind for a public or private practice is just totally intolerable.

"I will refuse treatment to anybody I disapprove of based on my religion, or my own personal prejudices that I cloak under the guise of my religion."

Doctors figured if it worked for pharmacists it can work for them. After all, the law is letting them get away with it. Women seeking reproductive services, gays/lesbians, transsexuals--who will be next on the list of the moral police who deal in medical care?

You are "playing God" by creating life other than the standard method.

Sometimes I swear I have to remind myself this is 2006 and not the dark ages.

"CA Supreme Court to Consider Lesbian's Rights vs. Docs' Religious Rights" I can't believe this is even a question that the courts have to decide on.