Then that means that NO person with this religious conundrum is allowed to do something they might've lived for their whole life...

You're happy to do deny someone their dreams and vision of doing 99,9% of their job because of less than 1%?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Would you have a problem with forcing a lawyer to take a case for the Klan suing for the re-establishment of slavery? People have a right to say "No, I will not do that since it violates my moral standards." and only the left would put a legal "gun to their head" to force them to do so. This decision is going to force a much tighter application process for Drs. who hold to a higher moral standard to assure that they don't take cases which violate thier morals. Or do you support forcing the Dr. to take in any case without regard to their moral standards??

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

Wow.
Way to go into complete hyperbolic exaggeration land...

Health care is a civil right.
Employment is a civil right.
Housing is a civil right.

Being in the Boy Scouts is NOT a civil right, and I completely support the Boy Scouts having a right to say "we don't allow gays in".

The list of things that people can't discriminate against blacks, women, gays, Jews, etc is actually pretty small.
The list of topics that people can't discriminate based on, like race, gender, religion, etc is also pretty small.

But I guess if some redneck racist has wanted his "whole life" to discriminate against blacks or gays or Jews, you would want to bend over backwards for him?
Or is it just the gays you want off that list?


Actually, I'd be more curious if the person doing the job is going to fixate on the "less than 1%" and ignore the other 99,9%.
There are laws in how civil rights are to be treated.

The impact on OTHER PEOPLE is greater than just "less than 1%".


Public defenders, provided for the court, ARE forced to defend people.
Frivolous law-suits like you describe are not a "right". The "Klan" can have the right to bring their case up in court, but they have no right to get whatever lawyer they want to come along for the ride.


Actually, no.
They don't.

What you don't seem to realize is that racist bigots in the south had "moral standards" about segregation of whites and blacks. Some even tied it into their Christian mentality, which IMO is like tying a bottle of perfume to a skunk.

The thing that some people don't seem to get, or want to admit, is that we ALREADY VIOLATE people's "moral standards" when it comes to racism, religious prejudice, misogyny, and a short list of other things.
It's just that having "sexual orientation" on that list isn't popular for some people.

The principle you are talking about? A "right" to not violate "moral standards"?
Doesn't exist for blacks, women, Jews, etc, etc.


Considering in that history is the same type of legislative "gun to the head" used to protect the civil rights of blacks, women, Jews, etc, etc...

I'm actually flattered that you're giving us credit for it.

But I'm guessing the inevitable reply, or possibly lack thereof...
It's only "the gays" that you object to, right?
When it comes to forcing racists to allow blacks to eat in the diner, or forcing misogynists to employ fully qualified women, you have no problems with those "guns" to the "heads".
It's just us "gays" that conjure up this hyperbolic nonsense, right?

Here's the text of the Civil Rights Act - http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...age=transcript - It's the basis for how we in America define Civil Rights. Please point out where any of the above are mentioned....

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

No. It is PART of how America defines "civil rights".

It, like the 9th amendment, should not be used to pretend that these are the ONLY "civil rights"...

Will you find anything about owning a firearm in there?
Whoops! Guess that must mean owning a gun isn't a right, huh...

Incidentally, you should review the ACTUAL legislation which was used to rule against the artificial insemination clinic.
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/publications/...spx?showPub=36


Nevertheless, I notice you're not answering my question...
Let me repeat...
Do you think it would be legal for a doctor to refuse treatment to a black patient, because the patient is black?

[quote=foundit66;37400]Public defenders, provided for the court, ARE forced to defend people.[quote]
That's their job. Their employment agreement i ssuch that they are required to take on cases that they may have objections to, so they have, by virtue of their employment agreed to take on these cases. Lame-ass argument.

From a legal represenetation/medical treatment standpoint, an elective medical procedure is no different than a frivolous lawsuit. Both are completely at the discretion of the person requesting them and both are unnecessary. While there may be some substantial benefit, elective medical procedures are not life/health saving procedures and as such would fit into the same category as a frivolous lawsuit. No Dr. should be forced to carry them out and no lawyer should be forced to take the case.

Yes, we do. You cannot force me to do something that I find immoral. While the moral standards of society do over-ride those of the individual, the worst thing you can do is punish me for not doing something that I find immoral, but you cannot force me to do it.

Here we go again.... Captain Moral Equivalancy to the rescue!!!


WTH does that mean. ??????



No one forced anyone to do anything they found immoral, they just stopped them doing things that society decided was immoral.

Don't be. The left's repeated assault on the individuals rights is nothing to be proud of. It's the biggest emabarrassment you should have. But, you don't see it as something bad when you take away someone's rights for not agreeing with you. You just bury it in your litter box of political correctness and hope that no one notices the stench.

Now swoon and throw your hand across your forehead. Maybe Foxes Book Of Martyrs has a free page or two for you.

If a plastic surgeon had a moral issue with seeing a woman's naked breasts, then he should have the right to not do breast implants. Society does not have the right to force someone to carry out an immoral act. It can punish them if the failure to do so violates the law, but it can't force you to carry it out.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

No, it's how you want to define civil rights. Show me anywhere in our federal body of law that says people have a right to a job. Put your money where your mouth is, foundit. Just show me...

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

it's not about the right to have a job

it's about the right to not be discriminated against by those offering a job

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

According to foundit, having a job is a civil right...

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

The only "lame" part is that you don't realize that "by virtue of their" doing business in the state of California, doctors are not allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, gays, women, etc, etc...


Show me any legal document which excuses the situation for "elective procedures", but not for "non-elective" procedures.
You're making junk up.


Let's try to make this quite clear for you.
Obviously, the doctor cannot be "forced" to inseminate...
But there ARE CONSEQUENCES if they choose to violate the law.
Don't do the crime if you don't want to face the punishment...


Again, I ask a simple question.
Do you hold the SAME STANDARD when people have religious problems regarding blacks, Jews, or women???


Quit trying to talk in vagueries and then whine like crazy when I point it out.
Answer the question...

You speak REPEATEDLY VAGUELY about how "moral standards" should not be "forced"...
But I think the truth is that you have NO PROBLEM enforcing SOME "moral standards" that you agree with. Like moral standards involving race, religion, or gender.

The REAL root of the issue is that you can't get over the fact that the EXISTING LEGISLATION ALSO INCLUDES GAYS, and ergo you whine like crazy.

Either the argument of "moral standards" is REAL and applies ACROSS the board...
Or you are just using as an excuse to ignore SOME of the laws that you don't agree with.

Which is it???


Do you think "moral objections" to gays are the ONLY "religious moral standards" in existence?
Do I really need to draw you a map to show you that people ALSO have "religious moral standards" involving Jews, women, and blacks???


You're playing semantical games that are actually quite boring.
Nobody was "forced" to do anything in this case either, were they...
Did the doctor who didn't want to perform the procedure actually have to perform the procedure???

Quit playing games and address the issue.


So Rosa Parks? That should be an embarassment?
Fighting to prevent "colored only" entrances? Fighting for women's equality? Fighting for religious equality?
Those are "embarassments"???

It's like you're punching yourself in the face, and then insisting that I'm the one who is bruised...


Do you realize when you use the word "should" and what it means?
Do you also realize what the LAW ACTUALLY SAYS on the issue you are discussing???
Do you think there is a law that requires plastic surgeons to perform boob jobs?