CA Supreme Court May Favor Gay Rights Over Religious Liberty
Posted by: Jubal | 05/29/2008 12:53 PM
I just read today's Los Angeles Times article, "State Supreme Court May Give Gays A Medical Victory."
The gist of the case: A lesbian woman wanted an intrauterine insemination from the North Coast Women's Medical Care Group in Vista (that's northern San Diego County for those not in the know). The two doctors, both Christians, refused on religious grounds.
Rather than simply find another provider who had no such religious compunctions, Ms. Lupita Benitez and her partner found another provider who had no such religious compunctions and filed a lawsuit against the two doctors who turned her down. This is California, after all. Diversity is only for the diverse.
LAT reporter Maura Dolan writes "the California Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to rule that physicians have no constitutional right to refuse medical treatment to gays on grounds it would violate their religious beliefs."
Dolan further reports:
Good to know Justice Corrigan wants to insert the court into the business of deciding what services a business has to offer and to whom. This is an example of why legislating should be confined to the legislature, not exported to the courts.
In the wake of the gay "marriage" ruling, nothing our state Supreme Court does will surprise me. After all, when domestic partnership legislation was being enacted, advocates of it dismissed worries that it was paving the way to gay marriage. Yet, that is exactly what happened.
And if the court does decide to elevate the group rights over our historic guarantees of religious liberty, I look forward to the dismayed response from all those libertarians who cheered the court's gay marriage decision. After all, the will have been cut from the same positivist cloth, and now that this door has been swung open, my libertarian friends should be surprised at what walks through in the years to come.
So if the court builds on this case law to forced Catholic hospitals or doctors to provide abortions, sterilization procedures and artificial contraception, how will the OC Register editorial page react? Now that they've made their piece with imposing social policy their comfortable with via judicial diktat.
The gist of the case: A lesbian woman wanted an intrauterine insemination from the North Coast Women's Medical Care Group in Vista (that's northern San Diego County for those not in the know). The two doctors, both Christians, refused on religious grounds.
Rather than simply find another provider who had no such religious compunctions, Ms. Lupita Benitez and her partner found another provider who had no such religious compunctions and filed a lawsuit against the two doctors who turned her down. This is California, after all. Diversity is only for the diverse.
LAT reporter Maura Dolan writes "the California Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to rule that physicians have no constitutional right to refuse medical treatment to gays on grounds it would violate their religious beliefs."
Dolan further reports:
Justice Carol A. Corrigan, who voted against same-sex marriage, appeared strongly in favor of Benitez's right to medical treatment.Brilliant reasoning, Justice Corrigan. I think I'll go out and sue a foreign auto repair shop for not "offering procedures" in domestic auto repair, because if they're don't want to perform certain procedures, "they could take up a different line of work."
Corrigan noted that the physicians were running a business.
She added that if they did not want to perform certain procedures, they could take up a different line of work.
Good to know Justice Corrigan wants to insert the court into the business of deciding what services a business has to offer and to whom. This is an example of why legislating should be confined to the legislature, not exported to the courts.
In the wake of the gay "marriage" ruling, nothing our state Supreme Court does will surprise me. After all, when domestic partnership legislation was being enacted, advocates of it dismissed worries that it was paving the way to gay marriage. Yet, that is exactly what happened.
And if the court does decide to elevate the group rights over our historic guarantees of religious liberty, I look forward to the dismayed response from all those libertarians who cheered the court's gay marriage decision. After all, the will have been cut from the same positivist cloth, and now that this door has been swung open, my libertarian friends should be surprised at what walks through in the years to come.
So if the court builds on this case law to forced Catholic hospitals or doctors to provide abortions, sterilization procedures and artificial contraception, how will the OC Register editorial page react? Now that they've made their piece with imposing social policy their comfortable with via judicial diktat.
CATEGORY:
California Stuff
you can see the documentary I made about him at recallingrocco "dot" com....
Though in general I agree with the ability of doctors to refuse to perform procedures (such as abortion) based on religious grounds, that does not appear to be what is at play in this case. From the LA Times Article, the Drs refused to perform the procedure because the client was a lesbian, not because of underlying moral problems with the procedure. They then offered their religious beliefs as a defense to the discrimination suit. Accordingly, I doubt that any decision (which hasn't even happened yet) will be as broad as you make it seem Jubal.
Yup, it's a whole new day. All y'all can't discriminate or abuse the gays no more. As we say at the Cabana, "We're here, we're...."
What if a doctor doesn't believe in performing artificial insemination for lesbians for religious reasons? Must the religious objection attached only to procedure for it to be a legitimate objection?
Cabana:
Yes it is a brand new day, when you can use the all-purpose lasso of "fighting discrimination" to restrict the liberty of your fellow citizens.
But I have the feeling that doesn't matter to you in your solipsistic little cabana.
Jubal's argument is flawed. The analogy of foreign vs. domestic car service is ridiculous. Artificial insemination can be performed on any woman by any doctor that knows how to do the procedure. Not every mechanic can work on any car.
As far as legislating being confined to the legislature - the court is not legislating from the bench. They are saying you cannot discriminate against a customer based on a lifestyle choice. I liken it to a doctor refusing medical services to a sexually promiscuous individual - some may find that person to be immoral, but in no way does anyone have the right to deny them services based on lifestyle choices.
Furthermore, if anyone tries to argue that being gay is not a lifestyle choice then you will defeat your own standby argument that it is a choice not biological.
What if a mechanic knows how to do the procedure, but chooses not to? According to Justice Corrigan, he/she needs to find a new line of work.
So merely knowing how to do a procedure obligates one to provide that procedure on demand?
One thing about this gay marriage issue. Social Security has a “marital benefit” so that a non working spouse can collect her husband’s Social Security.
I don’t understand why there is no outrage about a gay person having to pay for this benefit when by law he or she cannot marry.
We need private social security accounts so that we eliminate this injustice. I just do not understand why I am the only candidate out there campaigning for private accounts.
Andy Favor
73rd Assembly District Candidate
Knowing how to do a procedure/work and actively shopping that knowledge then deciding who is worthy of the services is fundamentally wrong.
Whats next? Will medical treatment be denied to unwed pregnant women? Will health insurance companies deny claims filed by an individual who contracts HIV while unwed?
If the court ruled that the doctors had a right to deny services there would be enormous unintended consequences. Widen your scope a little and imagine what would start to happen. Jews don't believe in Christ, so would a Jewish lawyer be permitted to refuse representation to a Christian client?
Jubal,
You have forgotten a crucial detail: A doctor practicing medicine is NOT engaged in a private act: s/he is an agent of a government sanctioned monopoly.
Doctors practicing medicine receive all sorts of legal privileges (dispensing potentially addictive drugs, the right to say 'NO' to a court requested medical information, etc) and certain legal responsibilities.
If the doctors didn't want the government to dictate the parameters of their ethically responsibility then they should not have sat for those government run Medical Examinations....
Me: I think we should get the government OUT of the medical monopoly business in general, and then let doctors form their own certification groups. Sort of like Universities. Then the homophobic doctors could form their own groups -- and a lot more people could pursue a career in the healing arts without the threat of government prosecution hanging over their head.
But so long at doctors salaries remain high because of the artificial constraint of the government-approved (and M.D. run) licensing procedure, those doctors have a public obligation to treat anyone a court tells them to treat.
if you take the king's shilling.....
Actually I find this case an easy one. It's simply a matter of discrimination (hence the difference with your example of a foreign car shop - there's no law protecting domestic autos from discrimination).
The wrinkle here is that the doctors claim religious belief as an excuse for discrimination.
Which doesn't work.
Can't be allowed to work, because then it can be used for any kind of discrimination - racial, sexual, whatnot. I once saw on daytime TV a Klan member who claims Biblical support for discrimination against blacks. Imagine the 1970s and some doctor refusing to treat "baby killer" Vietnam vet, on grounds of religious belief. You can't couch your discrimination that way.
I think the harder question will come when some county clerk refuses to perform gay marriages on religious grounds. One argument will be "You can't discriminate against gays." The other will be "I'm not discriminating against gay people, I'm just religiously against gay marriages."
Assuming this case here (the case of the doctors) comes down on the plaintiff's side, it will be interesting to see whether it will extend to the case of a county clerk.