Note to California's social conservatives: you need to get over yourselves. For the second time this year, the state's Supreme Court came out for the gays. Who could forget, of course, the monumental marriage decision earlier this year. Well, this week brought another ruling, one which may not be as explosive, but definitely has larger implications.
It all began back in 2004, when lesbian Guadalupe Benitez asked her doctors to artificially inseminate her. Citing their religious beliefs, the medical "professionals" refused, which led to a lengthy lawsuit, various appeals and, finally, a showdown at the state's Supreme Court. And the ruling will not doubt infuriate the religious right:
Doctors in California may not discriminate against gay patients on the basis of their religious beliefs, the state's supreme court ruled on Monday.
…
In an unanimous decision the justices ruled that Benitez was entitled to be treated like other patients with the same condition, and that constitutional protections for religious liberty do not excuse unlawful discrimination.
Benitez took the news well, telling reporters, "This isn't just a win for me personally and for other lesbian women. It's a win for everyone." Well, except the doctors who lost…
Can’t A Television Show Say ‘Fag’ Anymore Without GLAAD Getting Upset? (76)
· vune says: I had a friend who used the same logic with the word “nigger.” said that not... »
Jay Leffew Is Sorry For Attacking Davey Wavey, But Not YouTube’s Apathetic Gays (21)
· heydano says: @Mallard: It’s about our fundamental civil rights being assaulted and what we... »
· Fitz says: R- not at all. Thinking about it is one thing. Attempting it is a WHOLE other, and it... »
Were These Dads Harassed + Detained By Wal-Mart Because They’re Gay? (24)
· Tweek says: Walmart is, and has been since it’s rise in popularity, a HORRIBLE PLACE. Walmart... »
The Big Problem If ENDA Doesn’t Stipulate What Changes Must Be Made to Employee Bathrooms (3)
· alex says: “One size does not fit all, and not all transgender employees want the same... »
Gov. Paterson Wants NY’s Lawmakers to Choose a ‘For’ or ‘Against Discrimination’ Column (3)
· Brian says: The Governor gets it. Enough of the “gay-friendly” ; bull-shit. Either you... »
Former Advocate Editor Judy Wieder Didn’t Mean to Come Off That Bitchy (2)
· hardmannyc says: Judy: Maybe you should apologize for destroying the Advocate with your celebrity... »
The Zealots Who Will Try to Incite a Religious-Based Hate Crime (20)
· jason says: i don’t know what’s wrong or right in all of this. but you know for sure... »
Judgment Day Sure Looks Like Something to Look Forward To (8)
· romeo says: Get your mind out of the gutter, Republican. This is a religious picture! LMAO !!! BTW:... »
Naked Proof That Lady Gaga Is a Lady Saga (6)
· Mike L. says: Boobs are grose, that is unless they’re man boobs, lol. »
I loves me the California Supreme Court, I really does.
If you're licensed by the state to practice medicine, you don't get to pick and choose your patients, unless you're a foot-and-ankle guy and someone comes to you for brain surgery.
BRAVO CA
Jeez who knew gays/lesbians DESERVE the same medical care they give….HUMANS.
CHRIST where the f*ck do these Christian Reich f*cktards get their medical licenses, and Pharmacy licenses and Law degrees…never mind forgot LIBERTY Law skoOl
That this was even permitted to wend its way through the courts is despicable.
"CHRIST where the f*ck do these Christian Reich f*cktards get their medical licenses, and Pharmacy licenses and Law degrees."
From Hell, along with the rest of the pseudo-Christian Satanistas.
I think there are coupons in the back of their bibles, AJ: "Have you always wanted to be a pharmacist/doctor/lawyer? Send this coupon and $10 to Christian F*cktard Holyroller U! In six to eight weeks you'll be turning down requests for birth control, refusing to treat homosexuals, and working for the US Justice Department! Or all three at the same time! Yay!"
Note to Queerty: That is one tatty bible. Was it used to throw at the anti-social conservatives?
In a free society, you are allowed to discriminate in who you associate with, and who you are willing to serve. This decisionis tantamount to slavery, and will no doubt cause many physicians to leave their practice. Get a clue: The state can't force an individual to do something that is against his conscience. Who's really the f*cktard, here?
"Who's really the f*cktard, here?"
YOU, Greg with that unbelievably idiotic, lame-brained statement.
>This decision is tantamount to slavery, and will no doubt cause many physicians to leave their practice.
The first part of your statement is a straw man and has no basis in fact. You are simply advocating out and out discrimination and trying to support it with an illogical argument.
As to the second half of your equally illogical supposition, did you notice how many thousands of bartenders left their practice when they had to start serving women at the bar instead of at a 'lady-like table?
And did you, perchance, notice the hordes of priests, ministers, Rabbis and preachers who left their 'practice' when interracial marriages became the law of the land?
It is you who needs to get a clue.
No doubt, you'd support a white waiter/waitress refusing to serve a black person because it is 'against his/her conscience"?
You'd support a Justice of the Peace refusing to marry a Gentile and a Jew because it is 'against his/her conscience"?
You'd support a Mormon refusing to allow antibiotics to be administered to his sick child to save it's life because it is "against his/her conscience"?
And you'd support an intern, nurse or physician refusing to administer medical care to a person whose life could be in jeopardy simply because it is 'against his/her belief"?
What fucking slimy hole did you crawl out of you cretin? Do us all a favor. Crawl back into it and pull the dirt over you as you do so.
Dayum! Slam…
Go Charles!
It bears noting that the decision was unanimous. Recall also that six of the seven justices were Republican appointees–said not to advocate voting Republican (perish the thought!), but rather to show that sometimes the question of equality is just too obvious.
Well, Charles, in a free country, all the statements you made would be true. Yes, we are ALL allowed to "discriminate" against whomever we want to. That is the nature of being free. Look it up, sometime. When the state FORCES someone to do something that is against their will, well, what term would you prefer? What you sadly ginorant people are advocating is tyranny, plain and simple. But, I suppose that that is just fine, when you're the tyrant, eh? Bottom line: None of you have the legal right to force ME to provide a service, the douchebags on the Ninth Circuit notwithstanding. You WILL be denied, got it?
well, I would love to live in the dreamland you live in greg. you know the one that allows slavery because, according to my religous beliefs, black people are inferior and should be property. HUMANS HAVE RIGHTS ASSHOLE, and whether you like it or not all HUMANS are created equal and therefore DESERVE the same privilages as every other HUMAN in the US. FUCKTARD!
Derek,
you certainly don't do your cause any good by your language and rotten attitude. Your words embody the stereotype many anti homosexuals have of the gay community. You apparently feel you can be as rude, shameful, and obscene as possible yet still think that everyone should treat you like royalty. Well I am sorry Derek but when I see dog shit on the walk I discriminate against it. I walk around it! I don't go and wallow in it!
If you ever came to me to have some medical procedure done, I would not discriminate against you because you are gay. I would discriminate against you because I discriminate against dog shit.
The right to follow my conscience trumps any other right and if the law disagrees, they can put me in jail.