Over at Overlawyered.com, in No conscience clause for California fertility doctors IGF contributing author Walter Olson questions a recent California Supreme Court ruling that would require the fertility doctors in question, against their religious convictions, to inseminate (artificially) a lesbian patient. (Just why the lesbian patient wants to force the fundie doctors to do this when San Diego isn't lacking alternative fertility services appears more a matter of bile than babies.) Olson writes:
The ruling also allows doctors to excuse themselves on the basis of religious scruples if there is a second doctor within the same practice-but not, apparently, a doctor across town at a different practice-willing to perform the work in question. And of course the legislature in Sacramento could readily help bring peace to the culture war by inserting into the law a generously drafted conscience clause-if it wanted to.
But then, how would that stick it to the 'phobes?
More. In certain respects this case brings to mind the suit brought by a lesbian couple who wanted the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights to order the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church to rent their seaside pavilion for the couple's commitment ceremony. Or the Canadian pastor ordered by a government Human Rights Commission to apology and pay $1000 in fines for his anti-gay letter published in an Alberta newspaper.
Across the page, IGF contributing author John Corvino argues in When Tolerance Isn't Enough that acceptance, rather than tolerance (or, I assume, mere legal equality) should be our goal. But expressions of acceptance must be voluntary and achieved via convincing arguments and moving examples, not coerced through threat of punishment by the state.
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Northdallass, I did condemn those democrat racists, just as I condemn Republican, Christian, and LGBT racists. It is you who refused to condemn helms and the racists in the Republican party. Yet again you lie.
Not surprisingly you’re avoiding the issues at the heart of your evil and dishonesty.
You said “you have proudly proclaimed how you endorse and support Democrat Party members like Harold Ford, Howard Dean, and Jesse Jackson, just to name a few.”
Provide a quote or acknowledge you are lying.
If Christians and gays should be allowed to freely discriminate, on what basis do you oppose whites runnning “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed signs or blacks running “black only” busnesses or “blacks only” signs?
Answer, you have no basis for objection, you’d like to see a return to the day when blacks were oppressed and people refused to serve them, just as you’re thrilled when people refuse to serve gays. You think blacks should be grateful for slavery that they were brought over here to eventually be free but second class citizens, you’d like a return to those times.
Richard you’ve also avoided the heart of the situation, it seems you are also afraid to answer this question:
If Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gays, why shouldn’t they be allowed to discriminate against blacks as they’ve done in the past?
To further highlight Northdallass’s dishonesty, he quotes this bit from the court papers as though they were the whole story:
In August 1999, Benitez and Clark first met with defendant Christine Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist employed by defendant North Coast. Benitez mentioned that she was a lesbian. Dr. Brody explained that at some point intrauterine insemination (IUI) might have to be considered. In that medical procedure, a physician threads a catheter through the patient?s cervix and inserts semen through the catheter into the patient?s uterus. Dr. Brody said that if IUI became necessary, her religious beliefs would preclude her from performing the procedure for Benitez(1).
but omits that which immediately followed:
According to Dr. Brody, she told Benitez and Clark at that initial meeting that her North Coast colleague, Dr. Douglas Fenton, shared her religious objection to performing IUI for an unmarried woman, but that either of
two other North Coast physicians, Dr. Charles Stoopack and Dr. Ross Langley,
could do the procedure for Benitez. According to Benitez, however, Dr. Brody
said that she was the only North Coast physician with a religious objection to
performing IUI for Benitez, and that ?all other members of her practice ? whom
she believed lacked her bias ? would be available? to do this medical procedure.
1 The parties dispute the factual basis for Dr. Brody?s religious objection to
performing IUI for plaintiff. Dr. Brody claims that her religious beliefs preclude
her from active participation in medically causing the pregnancy of any unmarried
woman, and therefore her refusal to perform IUI for Benitez was based on
Benitez?s marital status, not her sexual orientation. But Benitez, whose complaint
does not allege marital status discrimination, asserts that Dr. Brody objected to
performing IUI for a lesbian, and consequently the alleged denial of the medical
treatment at issue constituted sexual orientation discrimination. The trial court
ruled that the factual basis for Dr. Brody?s objection presented a disputed issue of
material fact to be resolved at trial.
In so ruling, the trial court apparently concluded that, at the times relevant
here, California?s Unruh Civil Rights Act did not prohibit discrimination based on
marital status. The Court of Appeal in this case expressly so held. Because
Benitez?s claim for relief under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is not based on marital
status discrimination, we do not address that issue.
Brody afterwards embarked upon treating Benitez for infertility from August 1999 through june 2000, something she obviously wouldn’t or shouldn’t have done if she knew no one there would do the insemination for Benitez
I don’t buy the argument that since medicine is heavily regulated by the government, and/or that medical professionals are increasingly linked in to state resources and support networks, that doctors lose the right to object to performing certain procedures on religious grounds. It’s a view that would make us all serfs of the state because we walk on government-funded sidewalks.
So Avee, you also support “whites only” businesses and “no coloureds” signs?
Wow, no new articles in four days. What’s the matter Mr. Miller, no new slime to throw at the Democrats?
Northdallass, I did condemn those democrat racists, just as I condemn Republican, Christian, and LGBT racists.
No you did not. You need to state publicly that Kwame Kilpatrick and Emil Jones are both racists, and that anyone who is associated with them, has ever supported them, or even belongs to the same party as them is a racist as well, just as you claim for Jesse Helms.
Provide a quote or admit you are lying..
So now Priya Lynn is denying that she supports Democrats and Democrat Party members.
Not surprisingly, she’s dropped her whole attempt to argue that she never accused all Christians of supporting murder.
Answer, you have no basis for objection, you’d like to see a return to the day when blacks were oppressed and people refused to serve them, just as you’re thrilled when people refuse to serve gays. You think blacks should be grateful for slavery that they were brought over here to eventually be free but second class citizens, you’d like a return to those times.
The funny part about that is how much it sounds like Kwame Kilpatrick’s tantrums about how holding him accountable for his behavior is “racist” and how it’s all about how white people are using the law to “oppress” him and treat him like a ‘second-class citizen”.
Just like how Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that investigating her and holding her accountable for her several years of sexually harassing others, demanding sex from unwilling people, and discriminating against people to whom she wasn’t sexually attracted or had rebuffed her was “homophobia and sexism”.
As to the “grateful” remark, as outlined elsewhere, that was something that you and ColoradoPatriot created yourself and then decided to proclaim to the world. Interestingly enough, the original post where ColoradoPatriot mentions it was deleted for content — which speaks volumes about the degree of hate and prejudice that was involved on ColoradoPatriot’s and your parts in writing it.
Furthermore, given your sudden insistence that anyone who has any concerns about this case is a racist who wants “whites only” businesses and “no coloureds” signs, regardless of their political affiliation, I think it should be obvious to everyone that you’re pretty much off the rails at this point.
To further highlight Northdallass’s dishonesty, he quotes this bit from the court papers as though they were the whole story:
And, just in case you missed this part, Priya, there WERE two doctors who were perfectly capable of performing IUI with frozen sperm, as the patient had requested.
Two of his colleagues, Drs. Charles Stoopack and Ross Langley, had no such religious objection
Which is what Dr. Brody said in the first place.
Again, I see less a matter of discrimination than I do impatience, bad timing, and miscommunication.
Was that worth a court case that now establishes that gay and lesbian-owned or operated businesses can be sued and punished for refusing to print or perform services for groups they don’t like?H
Northdallass said “You need to state publicly that Kwame Kilpatrick and Emil Jones are both racists, and that anyone who is associated with them, has ever supported them, or even belongs to the same party as them is a racist as well, just as you claim for Jesse Helms.”.
I never claimed that about Jesse helms, I don’t believe that. I stated that by YOUR logic, not mine, you and all republicans are racists because Jesse Helms was. It was YOU who insisted all Democrats are racists because a couple of isolated individuals were.
You can’t have it both ways, claiming on one hand that a Democrat racists makes all Democrats racists but that a Republican racist doesn’t mean the same thing. But of course like the troll you are you will lamely attempt to do so.
Once AGAIN, I condemn Kwame Kilpatrick Emil Jones, Jesse helms, all republican, democratic, christian, and LGBT racists, its you who refuses to condemn helms and Republican racists because you support discrimination including racism.
Northdallass said “So now Priya Lynn is denying that she supports Democrats and Democrat Party members.”.
Nonsense, I made no such denial. You claimed that I supported Democrat Party members like Harold Ford, Howard Dean, and Jesse Jackson, and that I “fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth”.
I deny that. You couldn’t produce a quote demonstrating that I supported such people because you lied.
Northdallass said “Not surprisingly, she’s dropped her whole attempt to argue that she never accused all Christians of supporting murder.”
The quotes you provided made it clear I never said “all Christians support murder”. The quotes of me said some christians do and that is the truth. Many, perhaps most Christians, have never read their bible or distributed it and are unaware of the evil contained within. You have read it and fully support and endorse it, you clearly support murder.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, given your sudden insistence that anyone who has any concerns about this case is a racist who wants “whites only” businesses and “no coloureds” signs, regardless of their political affiliation, I think it should be obvious to everyone that you’re pretty much off the rails at this point.”.
LOL, not even close. YOU advocate allowing Christians and LGBTS to discriminate as they see fit. YOU refuse to condemn Helms and other republican racists. YOU have repeatedly refused to explain on what basis “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed” signs should be prohibited given your support of discrimination. YOU have repeatedly passed up the opportunity to condemn racism or discrimination and have expressed your support for them. YOU have said that blacks should be grateful for slavery. Its obvious YOU would be thrilled to have “whites only” businesses “no blacks or gays allowed” signs.
Northdallass said “Was that worth a court case that now establishes that gay and lesbian-owned or operated businesses can be sued and punished for refusing to print or perform services for groups they don’t like?”.
Don’t be insane, of course. Just as Christians should not be allowed to discriminate against blacks or gays LGBT groups should not be allowed to discriminate against Christians or people they don’t like. You support allowing open discrimination because you know Christians and whites are powerful and blacks and LGBTS are not. You know the result of open discrimination will result in the powerful (Christians and whites) oppressing the weak (blacks and LGBTs) and that’s just the way you like it. Once again I clearly and unequivocally stand against evil and you clearly and unequivocally support it.
I missed this earlier, at August 25, 2008, 4:51pm Northdallass said “You have the right to post your sign and run your business as you see fit”.
LOL, he advocates “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed” signs at one point and then at August 26, 2008, 3:48pm he whines about my pointing it out and that he doesn’t want to look like the racist he is.
This is such an easy question, I wonder why PrincessPriyaLynn has to go through all these ridiculous contortions– it’s almost like she misses the irrelevant debates about how many angels can dance on a pin’s head.
The simple fact is that civil societies have long recognized that forcing professional medical personnel to conduct medical procedures, that they oppose on conscientious grounds, is foolhardy. Abortion ring a bell anyone?
Frankly, I think these are the kind of gay-centered matters which, when brought into the light of MSM’s exposure, make gays look like a bunch of self-centered, me-versus-society, it’s-my-agenda-and-I’m-the-victim whiners who have little regard for the standard that if medical professionals have conscientious objections to performing a procedure, don’t force them. Find a willing, supportive physician –yes, gayHysterics, even it means you have to go outside your PPO or HMO. Document and get a referral… and get on with your life. It’s not ALL about you –but isn’t that what gayLefties want? To have it all about them? 24×7?
Just like the gayLeft’s embrace of securing marriage equality via judicial fiat… this case strikes most Americans as overly self-indulgent and needlessly antagonistic.
But, then, when those are the leading values shared by the gayLeft leadership in our community, it should be no wonder the message they send to the public is one of in-ur-face and you WILL validate our lifestyle or be placed in a re-education camp for the politically incorrect.
Why PrincessPriyaLynn wants to make an inappropriate parallel to racial segregation in this case defeats all logic, reason or sanity.
Oh, wait, we have the answer right there… the goal is to irritate as many “religionists” as possible, stand reason and logic on their head, and try to practice watersports on the public’s perception of gays while she’s at it… that’s the answer.
No wonder we keep losing on gay civil rights in state after bloody state; we have the wrong “voices” speaking on behalf of gays and setting the agenda.
I never claimed that about Jesse helms, I don’t believe that. I stated that by YOUR logic, not mine, you and all republicans are racists because Jesse Helms was.
An example would work best here for explaining the problem with Priya using that attempted defense.
What is the truth is that you passionately defended pedophelia and deviant sex at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm in this thread:
In that thread I stated the following:
It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions, which you allegedly oppose.
Furthermore, your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional — given that you argue marriage is a matter of “equal protection” and therefore cannot be denied anyone under our Constitution.
Finally, it is the Christian church that has, over centuries, pushed the idea of a two-person, male and female, monogamous, lifetime commitment as being marriage — which means your insistence on any of the above is religious-based discrimination and should not be considered part of public policy.
Now, note the difference: while Priya Lynn is allowed to use “other peoples’ logic” without supporting or believing it, she insists that other people doing so means that they support and believe the thing in question.
Again, as noted by others of the liberal persuasion, this is typical of Priya Lynn; she demands of others that which she will not provide herself, and she imposes arbitrary standards that she has no intention of following.
Finally, I think the grip that Priya Lynn has — or more precisely, doesn’t have — on reality is best illustrated in this statement:
Many, perhaps most Christians, have never read their bible or distributed it and are unaware of the evil contained within.
Of course, this is little more than an attempt on Priya’s part to spin away from her very clear statements above that Christianity and all Christians support murder. But unfortunately for Priya’s argument, that would mean that anyone who has read or quotes the Bible as a reference supports evil and thus supports murder, torture, and whatnot — which means she supports and endorses such a person.
NDXXX observes: “Of course, this is little more than an attempt on Priya’s part to spin away from her very clear statements above that Christianity and all Christians support murder.”
Wow, what is it with all these gayLefites on IGF who spin feverishly in circles to avoid simple, clear, immutable and rational truths? It’s like watching a dog chase his tail at a MikeVick fight to avoid entering the ring.
But it does seem the Princess is getting a little more heated, more wild in her statements these days… I call it the Obama Effect. As Obama continues his inexorable slide into 2nd place in the prez sweepstakes, the gayLefties and gayDemocrats shilling for him get more partisan, more heated, more anxious in their speech.
It’ll be just moments or days before we start getting the “gays who support McCain-the-Maverick are sell outs” line again… just like in the early fall of 2004 and 2000. The ObamaEffect on gayLefites is a force to be reckoned.
Be careful NDXXX, be verrry careful.
Wow, what is it with all these gayLefites on IGF who spin feverishly in circles to avoid simple, clear, immutable and rational truths? It’s like watching a dog chase his tail at a MikeVick fight to avoid entering the ring.
I’ve seen this exchange go on for awhile, Matt, and it goes back a ways. All I can tell you is that the feverish spinning and the avoidance of simple, clear, immutable, and rational truths isn’t only coming from the left on this site. Anyway, that’s my last word on this exchange.
Pat writes “I’ve seen this exchange go on for awhile, Matt, and it goes back a ways. All I can tell you is that the feverish spinning and the avoidance of simple, clear, immutable, and rational truths isn’t only coming from the left on this site. Anyway, that’s my last word on this exchange.”
Yes, I know. I’ve watched supposedly gayIndependents get deep into it as well… and even writers at IGF who contend with a srt8 face they are not liberal, elitist gayDemocrats but only fairminded intellectuals who see it all from both sides.
It’s amazing, Pat.
But I do like the visual of a poor ol’ dog awaiting a MikeVick fight and chasing around his tail to prove he isn’t fit for the ring… and saving his hide in the process… to describe some of the spinning by the gayLeft here.
← Previous Comments