Imagine a Christian shows up at a hotel run by a Jewish person and the proprietor says, “I don’t like Christians, I’m not going to rent you a room for the night because your level of intolerance and hatred is incompatible with my faith.”
Does the fact that the Christians can go to another motel ameliorate the discrimination? Should hotel owners have a conscience clause from having to rent room to people they consider religious bigots?
These people ran a fertility clinic. They were happy to provide her services–knowing she was a lesbian–up until the point it was necessary to do a more serious procedure. There was no medical reason not to provide the service. The post hoc religious rationale for discrimination was not a product of conscience–they provided other fertility treatment that appeared not to offend their conscience–but instead bigotry.
If you become a pharmacist or a doctor, you need to fill prescriptions or provide medical treatment and not pick and choose your professional obligations based on some sliding scale of conscience. If your faith makes it to difficult to fulfill your professional obligations, then it’s time for another profession. The patient shouldn’t bear the burden of the professional’s crisis of conscience.

Michael,
That was one of the best comments I’ve seen posted at any blog. Well said.

If it’s true, as Lawrence Friedman has written, that the law reflects the attitudes and beliefs of society, then if a segment of society believes that the law violates our conscience, it stands to reason that our goal shouldn’t necessarily be to fix the law, but to target the society that has shaped that law.

Screwed by religion YET AGAIN!

Would the conscience clause allow gay doctors to refuse to treat Christian patients?

Michael and others, imagine this. A Muslim enters a mosque, takes 0ff his shoes, and enters. A Christian walks to the entry of the mosque and attempts to enter. Will the Christian, or person from the a Jewish community, or any other non-muslim person be welcomed? No, because the Koran refers to these types as an infidel. Now, what if the man who is an Muslim, has to treat one of these people whom his religion regards as devils. What if the Muslim says Sharia law trumps American law and says he does not have to treat a segment of this country. Would you be as tolerant toward those that the Muslim denies treatment too? It appears from your comment that a bias against Christian belifs and practices can be struck down without regard to their choices and lifestyles. The California Supreme court in this decision, create a law that do not exist on the books. If had existed, then the couple would have had prior recourse. The Supreme Court is attempting to create statues for the California legislature. A law could not be passed that could cover the breath and depth of the ruling covered in this decision. It would not pass muster, because the inference and intent would so impact other socieltal functions to make it impossible to police.

An outrage, simply an outrage…. Liberals wonder why conservative think they are arrogant? A perfect case in point….
This homsexual movement isn’t about their supposed “rights”, it is about them trying to cram their view of the world upon us as believers of Jesus. For many THOUSANDS of years, Jews, Christians and others have held that homsexuality was inherently sinful. This is not soemthing new, this has been commonly recognized as the case for THOUSANDS of years. Even Western law for many years acknowledged this world view.
Now these arrogant black robed liberals from California come along and say. Geee. your book (the Bible) doesn’t count. Your views, which have been commonly held for THOUSANDS of years, do not count. What you believe your God has said EXPLICITLY doesn’t count. Well, I certainly hope this goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. If this outrageous ruling is made to stand, we will be living in a left-wing police state where all religious views that do not conform will be under attack.
Note to left-wing tyrants: If my religious views do not affect my actions. they are of no value. You and I know that…

How does one group being allowed to do something ‘cram their view upon’, well, anyone?
Someone can call a sandwich a ‘snickerdoodle’. It doesn’t cram their view down my throat, force me to think the same, or to do the same.
If you think something is inherently sinful, then DON’T SIN. Last I checked, the rest of the folk have free will too, and its up to God, not government, to punish sin.

And your book counts very much.. to you.
But this isn’t about you, is it? It isn’t about what you can and can’t do. It isn’t about what you can or can’t think, or believe. After all, your life, personally, won’t change one iota.
It is about you wanting to take sections from the book and impose them on people who do NOT believe in it.
So, if it counts for you, then YOU follow it. If what you do, regarding your sacred text seems to work for you and yours, maybe others will want to follow your example.
If it seems you and yours need not just your faith, your texts, your church and your God to follow your beliefs, but need it enforced on everyone else or else it ‘doesn’t count’.
Which, to be honest, doesn’t sound like a problem with us…

Bigotry?
Really what the your argument comes down to is this:
I have a right to anything that I want, regardless of whether that want infringes on your beliefs or not.
A rebuttal case for you:
I have a long history of breaking into banks and taking what is not mine.
I come to your office of plastic surgery and want you to make me look completely different.
We go completely through the consultation and have come up with a date to perform said surgery and you suddenly find that I have a criminal background.
Your analogy says that regardless of your beliefs, you must perform that surgery, even though I have other avenues I can take.
This is another classic case of those who make a decision in their lives not wanting to take the consequences along with that decision.
What do you think are the consequences of the “gay” lifestyle?
You have no way to procreate.
If you as a person decide that you want to live that lifestyle, why should I be required to further or enhance that lifestyle?

Religion is a deeply individual thing. Not a group thing, not a government’s thing, but an individual thing.
A doctor should have the choice as the woman should have the choice whether or not to perform an abortion.
Over my life I have found that even within a single religious group the understanding and views of the individuals of the congregation on their own religion are as varied as snowflakes. No one person has the same outlook, or view, or base beliefs as the person sitting next to them on the pew.
If a doctor does not perform abortions because of his or her religious beliefs then that doctor is practicing what he or she believes. If another doctor does perform abortions then he or she is practicing their view, and it is his or her individual choice. Neither should have legislation controlling what the individual has to legally obey.
I dislike people like Mr. Sekulow, and Pat Robertson, because they want to inject their solitary group view as the only view, and propose it as laws that end up controlling the individual. To them the individual does not have the intelligence to make up their own mind, and they must be saved by those who do. How contrite, and invasive. I personally hate it when government or religious groups step in and try to legislate a religious belief or lack thereof.
It boils down to the old argument of freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. I believe in the latter. People, as individuals, should be able to practice what they believe without religious groups or government telling them what they must believe (or obey).
The points made above are valid, no one should practice a singular belief in deference to another’s. There has to be wiggle room, and any singular religion must respect the tenants of another no matter how different, bizarre, or arcane that religion is.

I am beginning to believe that the supreme court of my beloved California has to be impeached.
This is the second time this year that they have rules against the religious freedom that is guaranteed under the Constitution of the Sovereign State of California and the Constitution of The United States of America that says that there shall be no law that infringes on the freedom of Religious expression.
To demand that a doctor must violate his or her sacred trust to their beliefs is wrong. We, the people of California must start to remove these violators of trust.

Let’s try some others, see if you agree.
Should Muslim cabdrivers be required to transport people who are carrying alcohol, or not?
Should Muslim cashiers in grocery stores be required to handle (i.e, scan and bag) pork products?
Should Scientologist pharmacists be required to dispense psychiatric drugs?
Should Jehovah’s Witnesses in the medical profession be required to do transfusions or authorize the use of blood products? Should JW pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense drugs that come from blood products?
Should.. heck, we can go on, and on and on and on….

Steve: So, in your opinion, a lesbian getting fertility treatments is the same as a bank robber getting plastic surgery (I’m assuming to hide from the police, but your reasons are a bit unclear)? Please enlighten us on what Ms. Benitez took that didn’t belong to her. Also, how much jail time do you think her “crime” should receive?

If you as a person decide that you want to live that lifestyle, why should I be required to further or enhance that lifestyle?
Because you are a health care professional who has taken a professional oath to provide ethical service and you offer yours services to the public?
“Should Muslim cabdrivers be required to transport people who are carrying alcohol, or not?”
They aren’t providing a medical service, so the state’s interest is less.
“Should Muslim cashiers in grocery stores be required to handle (i.e, scan and bag) pork products?”
Again, they aren’t providing a medical service, so the state’s interest is less. If there is a law banning such discrimination, then yes.
“Should Scientologist pharmacists be required to dispense psychiatric drugs?
Should Jehovah’s Witnesses in the medical profession be required to do transfusions or authorize the use of blood products? Should JW pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense drugs that come from blood products?”
Yes. The states interest in providing health care overrides the interests of medical professional to use religion to avoid performing a vital function of their job.

So far ‘Michael, August 19th, 12:14pm’ post is the only one to make any sane and sensible remarks.

Yes, I am a bigot.
I am a bigot against, a man a chicken and a dog marrying each other. I am bigoted against that.
I am bigoted against people showing up to job interviews naked , and then crying against discrmination because they were not hired.
I am bigoted against people with no formal training opening up clinics to perform brain surgery. You are right I am a bigot.
If I am a “bigot”, you left-wingers are tyrants. Forcing doctors to do something against their convictions that for THOUSANDS of years they have held to be wrong and AGAINST their moral convictions…
Left wingers are tyrants….

“Should Muslim cabdrivers be required to transport people who are carrying alcohol, or not?”
They aren’t providing a medical service, so the state’s interest is less.”
Actually, people offering services to travellers, because those who travel are considered vulnerable and have fewer resources are often handled MORE stringently, not less. This is why such places as hotels, taxis, and restaurants were the first to be dealt with when it came to segregation.
You be stuck at an airport with nobody willing to carry you so you can’t get to food or shelter and let me know if it is a ‘necessary’ service.
“Should Muslim cashiers in grocery stores be required to handle (i.e, scan and bag) pork products?”
Again, they aren’t providing a medical service, so the state’s interest is less. If there is a law banning such discrimination, then yes.”
Yes, food isn’t necessary either. Actually, being medical makes it necessary to be MORE universal, not more restricted.
People can go home without their bacon without being in danger.
People CAN’T go home without their surgery without being in danger.
Being medical makes it more necessary to be as widely accessible as possible, not less. That actually works against the argument that they have the right to refuse service.
“Should Scientologist pharmacists be required to dispense psychiatric drugs?
Should Jehovah’s Witnesses in the medical profession be required to do transfusions or authorize the use of blood products? Should JW pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense drugs that come from blood products?”
Yes. The states interest in providing health care overrides the interests of medical professional to use religion to avoid performing a vital function of their job.”
Exactly.
And interestingly, even those lesser services, less necessary, less life and death? Councils and courts ruled in each and every time (at least three are real life examples) that they could NOT be assured of keeping their jobs if they refused to do their job based on their religious restrictions.

“If I am a “bigot”, you left-wingers are tyrants. Forcing doctors to do something against their convictions that for THOUSANDS of years they have held to be wrong and AGAINST their moral convictions…”
Hmm. Things have been the same for thousands of years and so they should be that way now. Sounds a lot like an argument the Pharisees would have used. But hey, don’t knock the Pharisees. Without them Jesus would have died of natural causes and THEN where would all you poor believers be? Without a savior!
I think the only answer is to deny people medical licensure based on their religious convictions. It certainly is the moral equivalent of denying someone treatment for religious reasons.
Or perhaps we could try this: if the doctor is using medical techniques mentioned only in the bible then s/he should have the right to deny treatment for religious reasons. And I suggest that anyone who feels so strongly about doctors’ religious freedom should go to these “bible doctors.” Often. Go when you have a pain in your chest or an earache or blurred vision. And go with a pure heart. God heals all (except, evidently, amputees).
Cheers!

“Liberals wonder why conservative think they are arrogant?”
No we don’t. We know it’s because we make you feel stupid.

“This homsexual movement isn’t about their supposed “rights”, it is about them trying to cram their view of the world upon us as believers of Jesus.”
This is an example of the the Freirian notion of an oppressor feeling oppressed when losing his ability to opress others. Gay people are living their chosen lifestyle and he, a memebr fo the dominant group, feels somehow put upon by this. He thinks he has the right to demand others’ live as he does and wants the government to do his dirty work.

Sorry, but the days of hiding bigotry behind religion are long gone. America will no longer allow religious zealots to discriminate against Americans merely to feed their own faith-based prejudices.
It’s dirt simple: If you’re not capable of providing medical services equally to all people, you’re not fit to be in in the healthcare profession. But you can always get a job as a preacher, of course.

But you can always get a job as a preacher, of course.
Sure, until the left-wing tyrants start invading the church. Take a look at what has happened in Canada, and in Europe. The left-wing tyrants have their supposed, “hate-speech clauses” (Christian preachers, calling homsexuality sinful), have been brought up on trial.
It won’t be lnog until the left-wing tryants start invading the church saying, “If you can’t provide religious to all citizens equal under the law, you should not exist”… Same rational that they are using right now..
People of faith, watch out. The left-wing tyrants are coming after you. It is not enough to get the government to condone their conduct. They feel the need to stamp out all disension, all debate. If they can’t get it done through legislation, they will get it done through 4 black robed tyrants in California….

“People of faith, watch out. The left-wing tyrants are coming after you.”
You already live under the tyranny of a vengeful, hateful god and we will not sit idly by while you try to take out your frustrations on those who would live free from that tyranny.
It is not intolerance to refuse to tolerate intolerance.

It is not intolerance to refuse to tolerate intolerance.
Wrong it is intolerance.
1.) You and your black robed tyrants are forcing people to choose
between their jobs, and their concsiences. That is simply wrong.
2.) The black robed tyrants are saying that our “laws”, which they
just made up, nobody voted on them, are more important than your
firmly held religious beliefs that existed for THOUSANDS of years!
3.) The height of hypocricy! By arguing against intolerance, the
supposed tolerant crowd has become the most intolerant crowd!
They are not allowing doctors to exercise firmly held convictions.
No, we need to FORCE them to do what is against their views.
If that isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.
1.) It’s called arrogance (Your religious views, don’t count just
what 4 blacked robed tyrants say. LAWS WE JUST MADE UP!)
2.) Tyranny (see above)
3.) Intolerance (see above)
4.) Alarming…
Where will the tyrants stop? Going inside the church. Arguing against free speech of all kind, “calling it hate speech”, like Canada and Europe. If the church makes any moral judgement that is not in lock-step-and barrel with the PC of that day, the left-wing tyranny thought police is coming to get them?
Oh well, the early church had endured persecution. Guess we have had it easy, it is our time….

Believer: Sorry to inform you of this, but your freedom of religion (THOUSANDS of years old thought it may be) ends when it tries to side-step my freedom of religion (or freedom from religion, as the case may be sometimes).
“Where will the tyrants stop? Going inside the church. Arguing against free speech of all kind, “calling it hate speech”, like Canada and Europe.”
You’re missing an important point. The United States isn’t Canada and Europe. There are no laws against hate speech here. You can hate whoever you want, as long as you use your words, and not a gun. Otherwise Fred Phelps would be in jail now.

Oh, that’s supposed to make me feel better?
Blacked-robed tyrants are a law unto themseleves. There is no debate among the electorate with them. They can just say “oh this is unconstutional”, end of debate. There is no recourse for their activism. They just say this is the way it is, and that is that.
“Living document”, what a crock. That means it is just what we want it to say. “Seperation of church and state”, nowhere in constitution. Yet how many times have you heard black-robed tyrants repeat that junk.
Also, take a look at the left-wing tyrants decisions (Supreme Court). They have been quoting sources from OUTSIDE this country. No debate, no challenge, they are the final authority. So, what does that do to your arguement, “This is not Canada or Europe”. If black-robed tyrants want it to be Canada/Europe, they can make it that way.
You have an out-of-control activist judiciary, who is making up laws and hiding under the guise of “constitutional”, when gee, where is it in the Contitution. Basically, they can say and do as they please, and they are..
Want to know what I really think??…

Believer: “Oh, that’s supposed to make me feel better?”
I figured it was worth a try.
Believer: “Seperation of church and state”, nowhere in constitution. Yet how many times have you heard black-robed tyrants repeat that junk.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” I guess you’re right. So much for freedom of religion then.

When it comes to a decision of protecting an individual from getting fired or not because they did not distribute the morning after pill, of course they need protection! It’s murder in a bottle. Of course some credited professionals might refer to it as, a safe alternative to abortion. How many lies can our nation face. It is abortion. Does it not keep a baby from sticking to the uterine wall? In effect murdering the individual. Who wants to be a part of that? Is this what Planned Parenthood and pharmacist distribute as if it were a vitamin? Someday I would like to see our nation without a policy for murder as an option without penalty. Of course young mothers or old for that matter are scared of being pregnant at times. The more education we put out there will not keep people from getting pregnant when they don’t want to be. A murder pill is not the answer. I would need some kind of protection if I worked for a pharmacy which distributed pills of murder. I of course, would quit the establishment and tell them that they are murdering children quite possibly every time one of those pills are swallowed and I want nothing to do with the establishment or the individuals which pass out murder 101. Question is do I boycott pharmacist and the like which distribute the pill or gynecologist which
write the prescriptions? Or do I look them in the eye and tell them what they are doing is murdering children and they need to stop? What would Jesus do in this situation? Would he sit in his house and write letters or e-mails? Would he pray? Would he wait for the court case to open up to stop the pill from being disbursed? Would he try and stop it somehow in the formation of our written documents of our country by proclaiming that it is murder?
Cara Floyd

“When it comes to a decision of protecting an individual from getting fired or not because they did not distribute the morning after pill, of course they need protection! It’s murder in a bottle. ”
I do not accept your definiton of the morning after pill. It is not murder. It is the removal of a non-viable symbiote. Call it murder all you want, it is not. Just like calling the bible the perfect word of god does not make it so.
The real problem you fundies have isn’t that it’s murder: it’s that people are having sex. Millions of you fundies have no problem marching people off to war. THAT is much more clearly murder than termination of a fetus.BUT since no one is having sex, you’re ok with it. And I ‘ll say that Jesus was much more clear about “turning the other cheek” than he was about terminating pregnancies.

“‘Living document’, what a crock. That means it is just what we want it to say. ‘Seperation of church and state’, nowhere in constitution.”
Nor are the specific phrases “right to privacy” or “right to a fair trial”, but these are,nonetheless , rights described by the third and sixth amendments. Just as “seperation of church and state” is a right described by the first amendment.

“”Living document”, what a crock. That means it is just what we want it to say.”—“Believer”
This statement comes from a man who surely thinks the bible is “the perfect word of god” and then proceeds to interpret it to his liking. How do I know he does? Because Jesus said unequivocally that, “Unless you take up your cross and follow me you are not fit to call yourself my disciple.” I’m sure “Believer” thinks this has something to do with bearing suffering in life, as if the other choice was to not bear it.
But, no, Jesus did not say, “I’m about to use a metaphor here.” He said, “Take up your cross and follow me.” And I would think that if the bible were perfect that it would be pretty clear. In fact I’d be willing to bet that “Believer” thinks that we should teach creationism in schools, that he takes THAT part of the bible literally.
So, don’t get all high and mighty about the constitution. Whether you admit it out not, the bible is a living document for you which you interpret as you see fit, or take the interpretations of others whom you choose to based on the criteria that you think are appropriate. You decide for yourself every day what your sacred document means. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. We all interpret the meanings of in our lives.

North Coast can be differentiated from the Conscience Clause cases because life is being given instead of taken away. Is a physician really qualified to determine who is fit to be a mother? This decision should be left to the psychological and social work professionals. One should not be offering opinions, whether they be implied or expressed, outside their area of specialization or practice.