Christian sued - refused to impregnate Lesbian

SAN FRANCISCO — Guadalupe Benitez claims that after being treated with fertility drugs for nearly a year, her Christian doctors refused to inseminate her because she is a lesbian.

She sued and a San Diego County trial judge sided with her. But an appeals court reversed the ruling, and her lawsuit is scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court this week.

The case is closely being watched by civil rights and physician groups who think it could have consequences for other medical procedures, including abortion and end-of-life decisions.

"There is confusion among many health care providers who believe doctors have the freedom to pick and choose their patients," said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney with the gay rights legal group Lambda Legal who represents Benitez. "But doctors' ethics may not be exercised in a discriminatory way."

Benitez, now the mother of a 6-year-old boy and 2-year-old twin girls, sued Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group under a state law that prohibits for-profit businesses from arbitrarily discriminating against clients based on characteristics such as race, age and sexual orientation.

The appeals court noted that at the time Benitez sought treatment, California civil rights law still allowed businesses to restrict their clientele based on a customer's marital status and Benitez's doctors claimed the main reason they would not treat her was because she was unmarried.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Lesbian_Insemination.html

Stephanie wrote:I'm wrong to worry that government sanctioned gay marriage will exacerbate this problem.

I believe that you are, yes. As you and Aaron have shown here, folks do not need to be married to claim unfair discrimination.

Stephanie wrote:No, they don't need to have government recognized marriages to claim discrimination. However, the initial ruling was reversed by the appelate court. It would have very likely been upheld if gay marriage become sanctioned by the government.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

It is a problem because individual citizens have the right not to participate in things they object to on religious or moral grounds. We've been through this.

Armon Ayers wrote:Ziggy do you believe that pacifists should have to pay taxes to support war.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

It is a problem because individual citizens have the right not to participate in things they object to on religious or moral grounds. We've been through this.

ziggy wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Ziggy do you believe that pacifists should have to pay taxes to support war.

If that is the law (and it is), then yes they should. Why shouldn't they?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Ziggy do you believe that pacifists should have to pay taxes to support war.

If that is the law (and it is), then yes they should. Why shouldn't they?

And if the draft is the law then why shouldn't ALL eligible enlistee's be required to go fight for their country? Why should the be able to object on moral grounds?

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

It is a problem because individual citizens have the right not to participate in things they object to on religious or moral grounds. We've been through this.

And individual citizens have the right to not participate in hetereosexual things they object to on religious or moral grounds. So should we outlaw hetereosexual marriages?

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

It is a problem because individual citizens have the right not to participate in things they object to on religious or moral grounds. We've been through this.

And individual citizens have the right to not participate in hetereosexual things they object to on religious or moral grounds. So should we outlaw hetereosexual marriages?

Are individuals being sued for not participating in them?

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

It is a problem because individual citizens have the right not to participate in things they object to on religious or moral grounds. We've been through this.

And individual citizens have the right to not participate in hetereosexual things they object to on religious or moral grounds. So should we outlaw hetereosexual marriages?

Are individuals being sued for not participating in them?

Not that I know of. But people are being sued for not participating in homosexual ceremonies anyway- even without gay marriage. Those lawsuits are about anti-discrimination of homosexuals- not about marriage.

Too, discrimination against black & whire couples has almost disappeared in our lifetimes. Less than 100 years ago black males were routinely hanged by the KKK for consorting with white women. But legalization of and social acceptance of interracial marriage has virtually eliminated such discrimination because it has removed the stigma associated with interracial dating and marriage.

Why can't we learn something from that and be more forward looking about homosexual relationships?

ohio county wrote:I think Takara was correct when she pointed out that the Civil Rights Act prohibited refusing service to anyone based on race or a host of other biological traits. I see a society that is increasingly color-blind. No, bias and illogical hate still exist and maybe always will. But, all-in-all the melting pot is really melting. And there is evidence that trend will continue - what race is Tiger Woods, for instance? Black? Asian? Who begrudges him his success because of his race(s)? The question "what is your background" has become somewhat taboo. Not so much because of political correctness as total confusion.

ohio county wrote:When little ohio county, jr. was about ten or twelve we took him to a private lake where a fellow I know had taken his many children with very similar names and unique mothers to swim.

As we were leaving mrs. ohio county and I were remarking how much we enjoyed watching the little black kids yelling ("wat's uh- matta wit y'all"?) and splashing.

Little oc, jr said, "Why do you say 'black' kids?".

"Well," we said with great wisdom recognizing the teaching opportunity, "we try to call people what they want to be called."

"No," he responded, "why don't you just say 'kids'? Why do they have to be 'black' kids?".

We recognized the superior wisdom.

I saw a statistic yesterday that made me smile and if I can find it again, I'll share it. The number of white folk who felt threatened by those of color was smaller than the number of people of color who felt threatened by people of color. And I'm thinking that was here in WV. Now, please don't get me wrong - racism is alive and well and WV holds no monopoly on it. However, my belief is that the issue of race may be abating. It is the issue that stains our history and defines us. Times change.

If one is exactly 50% black and 50% white, why is he or she 100% black and not 100% white?

I think most Arab-Americans would agree with me, as well as a fair percentage of Latinos.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

It is a problem because individual citizens have the right not to participate in things they object to on religious or moral grounds. We've been through this.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

It is a problem because individual citizens have the right not to participate in things they object to on religious or moral grounds. We've been through this.

Remind him again, ........ he done forgot he didn't want to participate in the Viet Nam War.

.

Armon Ayers wrote:If one is exactly 50% black and 50% white, why is he or she 100% black and not 100% white?