CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Do you want doctors to have the right not to perform plastic surgery on young girls because they're uncomfortable performing the surgery for reasons of conscience?

This isn't a black and white case. No doctor should be allowed to decide to harm (or allow harm to come to) a patient because of an issue of conscience, but if its not a life/death issue there is more room for discussion.

There is a difference between ethics and morals. This would be an ethical issue.
 
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????
 
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????

If the doctors offer abortions, and then say

"We refuse to serve you
you are less than human
go to a veterinarian."
 
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????

You are grossly misunderstanding the ruling. No one is forcing a podiatrist to perform an abortion.

If the doctor doesn't believe in insemination then they can go and be an orthopedic surgeon. :doh:
 
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it.


Unless the patient is in a small town.

Good thing the docs in Canada can't refuse to treat over-reacting conspriracy theorists who really dislike assertive women.

You'd be fucked.
 
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????

What is your experience with California state discrimination law? Which section of the law do you think was misapplied?

You aren't just rejecting this court's ruling because you disagree with the result, right?
 
What is your experience with California state discrimination law? Which section of the law do you think was misapplied?

You aren't just rejecting this court's ruling because you disagree with the result, right?

Apparently reading the actual case is superfluous.
 
Apparently reading the actual case is superfluous.

When it comes to cases with ethical and moral issues, I don't understand why some people view the courts almost religiously- like they're deciding good and evil for us. The issue the SC decided was more worldly, simply "was this permissible under California law", and the answer was evidently "no". That's it. The law could be stupid, but that's not a judge's fault. I don't have anything invested in the California decision, if their reasoning was flawed I'd genuinely be interested to hear where.

Ironically, most people would probably say that evaluating a ruling based on your gut emotion, not the case law is the definition of an activist court.
 
The thing is, most of the argument on this thread was centred on whether IVF is a necessary medical procedure and whether it is a RIGHT to be inseminated. Neither of these was an actual live issue before the judge. It was really a simple case of statutory interpretation of the relevant provision dealing with discrimination.

So the outrage on this thread is completely unrelated to the case at hand.
 
In reading the info in the original post I got that the legal basis for the judgement has nothing to do with the defendants in the case being doctors or even that what they were selling were medical procedures, but that they are operating a business and as such are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is legally the same as if she went into her local deli and ordered a sandwich. The deli could not refuse to serve her because she is a lesbian.

Interestingly, the doctors may still have been allowed to refuse to treat the plaintiff because she was unmarried at the time she sought treatment from them in 2000. In 2006 the law was amended to include marital status as well, but according to the article it's unclear if change would be retroactive.

Lawyer-type people -- is how I'm reading that correct? If not, where have I gone wrong?
 
In reading the info in the original post I got that the legal basis for the judgement has nothing to do with the defendants in the case being doctors or even that what they were selling were medical procedures, but that they are operating a business and as such are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is legally the same as if she went into her local deli and ordered a sandwich. The deli could not refuse to serve her because she is a lesbian.

I'm not a lawyer type but I think that's correct

It gets all complicated apparently because there are females and/or lesbians involved
 
In reading the info in the original post I got that the legal basis for the judgement has nothing to do with the defendants in the case being doctors or even that what they were selling were medical procedures, but that they are operating a business and as such are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is legally the same as if she went into her local deli and ordered a sandwich. The deli could not refuse to serve her because she is a lesbian.

Is "No shoes, no shirt, no service" discriminatory? Is it illegal? Can you discriminate against someone because they're not holding to what some would say is an arbitrary standard set by the business? Is it illegal for a business to reserve the right to refuse service? I'm intrigued to know what people think these lines should be.
 
Is "No shoes, no shirt, no service" discriminatory? Is it illegal? Can you discriminate against someone because they're not holding to what some would say is an arbitrary standard set by the business? Is it illegal for a business to reserve the right to refuse service? I'm intrigued to know what people think these lines should be.

There is quite a difference between discriminating against someone based on what they're wearing (or not wearing) and discriminating against someone based on who they are or any other area that the subject has no control over.
 
There is quite a difference between discriminating against someone based on what they're wearing (or not wearing) and discriminating against someone based on who they are or any other area that the subject has no control over.

Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Discriminatory or not?
 
People who do not wear shirts are not an identifiable class against whom there has been historical and legal discrimination.
 
How so? How does one presume this from this thread?
Discriminating on the basis of race - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of gender - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of sexuality - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of ideas - alright.

I think that discrimination should be protected under certain situations, namely when it involves ideas that one has a problem with. I presumed that Diemens comment encompassed the first three examples, however the latter one is not an innate quality, and consequently it should be alright to practice some discrimination on the basis of that.

Would you discriminate against a potential employee that was a skinhead, or a religious bigot that wouldn't serve gays or lesbians?

The example of the doctor is complicated by the fact that he is licensed by the state (as are pharmacists) which does have an obligation to taxpayers not to discriminate, but if he was a plumber or an accountant that didn't want to give his service to people he finds morally disagreeable do you think he should be allowed to?
 
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Discriminatory or not?

A convenience store owner is licensed by the state and enjoys perks provided to him by the state to the exclusion of other non-licensed people like you and me?
 
I have some sympathy for the arguments about innate qualities such as race, gender and sexuality, and those become a question about the limits of private property, what encompasses the public sphere, if the law is a tool for social engineering etc. but I think beliefs (political, religious etc.) sit within a different domain, and there should be room for discrimination.
 
Discriminating on the basis of race - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of gender - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of sexuality - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of ideas - alright.

I think that discrimination should be protected under certain situations, namely when it involves ideas that one has a problem with. I presumed that Diemens comment encompassed the first three examples, however the latter one is not an innate quality, and consequently it should be alright to practice some discrimination on the basis of that.

Would you discriminate against a potential employee that was a skinhead, or a religious bigot that wouldn't serve gays or lesbians?

The example of the doctor is complicated by the fact that he is licensed by the state (as are pharmacists) which does have an obligation to taxpayers not to discriminate, but if he was a plumber or an accountant that didn't want to give his service to people he finds morally disagreeable do you think he should be allowed to?


But we're talking about medical treatment, not plumbers. That's what this thread is about...
 
Unless the patient is in a small town.

Good thing the docs in Canada can't refuse to treat over-reacting conspriracy theorists who really dislike assertive women.

You'd be fucked.

Geez. I thought you bitter assertive Hillary supporters wouldn't resurface on a thread that has nothing at all to do with politics. You never cease to amaze...or disgust me.
 
It comes down to this:

If you run a business, you must follow anti-discrimination laws, which, in California, covers sexual orientation. I imagine that the only exceptions come with religions and private clubs (i.e., the KKK).

The only reason this is even up for debate is that some here, consciously or unconsciously, still see sexual orientation as something frivolous. All I can say here is that if these same doctors did this stunt, but to a black couple, we'd see all hell break loose, and I doubt any of you here would be trumpeting the right of these doctors to choose not to provide medical services to blacks. But, as usual, when it comes to "the gays," then we start getting into all these arguments about the right of people to discriminate. And, yet, as it seems to be a pattern here, those who trumpet the right to discriminate are those who have no fear of discrimination at all, and are more than content to thumb their noses at those pesky minority groups that get in their way.

This should be simple, stupid. The law and the logic here are consistent, and the California Supreme Court's ruling is--basically--little more than elementary common sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom