Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, August 18, 2008 7:25:08 PM
The California Supreme Court struck again today, deciding that freedom of religion, free trade, property rights, and freedom of association, and the best interest of children are all to be sacrificed on the altar of esteeming homosexuality. Los Angeles Times staff writer Maura Dolan has the story.
Doctors may not discriminate against gays and lesbians in medical treatment, even if the procedures being sought conflict with physicians' religious beliefs, the California Supreme Court decided today.
In the second, major gay-rights victory this year, the state high court said religious physicians must obey a state law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
So the doctors were refusing to give life-saving treatment to a woman just because she was a lesbian? Well, not quite.
The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe T. Benitez, an Oceanside lesbian who lives with her partner and wanted to become pregnant with donated sperm.
That’s right – a doctor chose not to perform an elective procedure and lost a lawsuit over it. Never mind that the lesbian was able to get another doctor to do it. Never mind that the doctor did not want to intentionally deprive a child of a father, or at least married parents. No, a lesbian has a right to male sperm, and a right for treatments to make her pregnant. Go figure.
Benitez, 36, and now the mother of three, said she has been pursuing her case for 10 years.
"This isn't just a win for me personally and for other lesbian women," she said. "It's a win for everyone, because anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people."
I wonder if a Muslim doctor can be forced to graft pig skin onto a burn vicitim? I doubt it. Or if a Muslim veterinarian can refuse to treat pet pigs. I bet they can.
Kenneth R. Pedroza, who represented the doctors, predicted that many doctors would simply refuse to do the insemination procedure at all.
Oh well! Everyone else has to suffer in a vain attempt to protect the feelings of homosexual people.
So this is what we’ve come to. Laws and rulings meant to give black people access to lunch counters where only "whites" were allowed are now being used in this way. Combine it with “reproductive rights” and the First Amendment goes out the window.
Sorry, but an unmarried person, no matter how long he or she has been partnered, or a “marriage” without a bride or groom simply isn’t the same thing for a child as having a father and mother married to each other. No law or court ruling can change that basic fact of nature. But looks like we’ll soon have what I’ve warned about for a while here now – state-funded third-party reproduction for homosexual couples to try to mitigate “inequality” – heterosexual couples being able to conceive naturally.