California’s Supreme Court sure has been gay recently.
First they had that little old marriage ruling and now the state’s justices will hear yet another queer case:
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments – all covered by insurance – [Guadalupe] Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant by artificial insemination. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for “religious” reasons.
Benitez, now 36, is a lesbian. She sued her doctors under California’s civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation. Today, the state Supreme Court will consider whether a doctor can invoke his faith to refuse a patient treatment.
The main tension in this case revolves around whether or not one’s religious beliefs can be used to justify what others perceive as discrimination. You can guess where the right fall on this one…
Kevin
It’s interesting how ultra-conservatives will use the “slippery slope” argument when defending their stance on gay marriage, that if we allow W/W and M/M marriages, soon we’ll allow W/W/M or M/W/M/W or M/animal marriages.
At the same time that they’re making this unsupported claim, I would doubt we would hear their voices on this medical practice issue, that if we allow someone to refuse medical treatment against GLBTs because of religious beliefs then we’ll be allowing refusal of a Christian (for example) refusing to treat a Jew or an unwed mother.
foofyjim
Sorry Kevin, but they already do that. Pharmacists have been known to deny single women the morning after pill or the birth control pill (properly prescribed by a doctor mind you) because it goes against their christian beliefs.
Chad
This sort of behavior once again makes me wonder why religion is protected to begin with. If religious folks want to use it to suport discrimination why turn the cheek and protect them?
Chad