Be Married/Straight = Discrimination?

[karenM]

http://www.10news.com/news/5085629/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=news

Should these doctors be allowed to refuse treatment to a patient because of their own religious beliefs?

[kpickell]

If it was a private hospital, then yes.

[das_nut]

If the article is to be believed, the only discrimination that the doctors adhere to is discrimination against the unmarried.

The government's definition of marriage as the union of only one man and one woman results in the doctor's policy being discriminatory towards lesbians and gays.

I'm not sure if that changes anything or not.

[Joe]

http://www.10news.com/news/5085629/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=news

Should these doctors be allowed to refuse treatment to a patient because of their own religious beliefs?

I would say it depends on California law and also depends on whether they were refusing treatment because the couple was unmarried or because the couple was homosexual. Doctors are licensed by the State, so should not be allowed to practice in violation of the policies of the State. It's unclear what the policies of California law really are.

Yes, I believe that religious liberties deserve some respect, but I don't really see what would prevent someone from claiming that their religion required them to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, national origins, etc.

[kpickell]

I would say it depends on California law and also depends on whether they were refusing treatment because the couple was unmarried or because the couple was homosexual. Doctors are licensed by the State, so should not be allowed to practice in violation of the policies of the State. It's unclear what the policies of California law really are.

That might be (I don't know) but it sure doesn't sound right. Someone shouldn't have to violate their own moral and religious beliefs in their own private practice to conform to a state law. These doctors should definetely contest that law to the Supreme Court if it is in fact a State law that anti-discrimination laws trump religious liberties. It's just not right.

[frenchie]

They said they aren't discriminating against her because of sexual orientation, that they wouldn't do it for an (unmarried) heterosexual either. She said religious conviction isn't the issue (that's her ASSUMPTION) that it's because she's a lesbian. Sounds to me like she is mad that they wouldn't do it for her, and is pulling the victim card...(woe is me, I'm a poor helpless lesbian being bullied by big bad people with religious convictions.)

I could understand her rage if they flat out to her face said, "we don't service gays here"...but that doesn't seem to be the issue. If it's their private practice, they should be allowed to have the right to refuse service based on their religious convictions.
MOVE ON!! If Dr. so and so isn't going to do it for you, then go somewhere else!!!! Which they obviously did...get the hell over it, you have your baby, now move on!!

[karenM]

What about other services?

Should an unmarried couple be refused rental of a one-bedroom apartment if the landlord doesn't condone pre-marital sex?

Could a devout Muslim restaurateur refuse to seat me if he feels I'm not dressed "modestly" enough because my head is uncovered?

If I divorce, use birth control, or remarry outside the church, can/should my children be booted out of a Catholic school?

[kpickell]

What about other services?

Should an unmarried couple be refused rental of a one-bedroom apartment if the landlord doesn't condone pre-marital sex?

Could a devout Muslim restaurateur refuse to seat me if he feels I'm not dressed "modestly" enough because my head is uncovered?

If I divorce, use birth control, or remarry outside the church, can/should my children be booted out of a Catholic school?

Yes. Yes. and Yes.

If that is what they want to do with their own apartment, restaurant, or private school, then they can create whatever rules they want. This country is big enough to support the religious liberties of conservative groups and liberal groups.

[eggplant]

A doctor, even one in private practice, is not there to enforce a moral code. Here is the modern version of the Hypocratic Oath: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Nowhere in there does it say that doctors can pick and choose who they want to treat based on their own personal beliefs.

[xrodolfox]

I don't think that doctors should have the right to refuse anyone service.

If doctors were 1) cheap, 2) numerous and 3) accesible to all, then it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, usually people go to doctors because they are 1) sick, or 2) in need of help.

That would be akin to a police officer not stoping a crime at a Gay Bar because they live in sin.

[kpickell]

A doctor, even one in private practice, is not there to enforce a moral code. Here is the modern version of the Hypocratic Oath: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Nowhere in there does it say that doctors can pick and choose who they want to treat based on their own personal beliefs.

Treating someone that is sick is very different from helping someone get pregnant.

[Joe]

That might be (I don't know) but it sure doesn't sound right. Someone shouldn't have to violate their own moral and religious beliefs in their own private practice to conform to a state law.

They have the option of leaving the profession, retiring, or practicing in another state if their alleged religious beliefs are so important to them.

If were a doctor, practiced in California and I belonged to a white-supremacist religion, should I be allowed not to treat black people? My religion tells me so.

Or at least all I have to do is say that, and I'm exempt from anti-discrimination laws--at least that seems to be the logic of your position.

[karenM]

If that is what they want to do with their own apartment, restaurant, or private school, then they can create whatever rules they want. This country is big enough to support the religious liberties of conservative groups and liberal groups.
So..... How about a taxi service that doesn't pick up menstruating women because they consider them unclean?

Can a market owner bar non-whites from shopping if he belongs to a racist church? http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=18&m=3

[kpickell]

They have the option of leaving the profession, retiring, or practicing in another state if their alleged religious beliefs are so important to them.

If were a doctor, practiced in California and I belonged to a white-supremacist religion, should I be allowed not to treat black people? My religion tells me so.

Or at least all I have to do is say that, and I'm exempt from anti-discrimination laws--at least that seems to be the logic of your position.

I'm not sure how racial discrimination would or should play out. But yes, basically I'm saying that one type of discrimination should not be trump another type of discrimination. Helping an unmarried person get pregnant very clearly violates the Christian faith's code of conduct. I don't believe that state law should require someone to violate their faith in order to perform elective surgery. This situation is no different from Catholic doctors refusing to perform abortions. The law should not require a person to perform an abortion if it violates a core belief of their religion doctorine.

[eggplant]

Treating someone that is sick is very different from helping someone get pregnant.

I think you overlooked this part: "I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."

[518]

So..... How about a taxi service that doesn't pick up menstruating women because they consider them unclean?

Can a market owner bar non-whites from shopping if he belongs to a racist church?
Can I refuse to sell my roller skates to a one-legged man? :p

Seriously, these are property rights questions disguised as ethical conundrums. If anyone can explain to me why someone else should have more rights to my property (cabs, markets, restaraunts) than me, I will concede.

[xrodolfox]

Can I refuse to sell my roller skates to a one-legged man? :p

Seriously, these are property rights questions disguised as ethical conundrums. If anyone can explain to me why someone else should have more rights to my property (cabs, markets, restaraunts) than me, I will concede.

518, I do like your arguments, even if I don't agree with them. ;)

I think that there is a compelling case in these examples that there is a public good which trumps some cases of personal property. Heck, this goes along the lines of "Emiment Domain" laws, which I recently argued against. :)

The concept, however is simple:
Sometimes, public good trumps personal property. Lets say there's a desperate need for a bridge. My house is on that property. That bridge would bring my area out of isolation and bring in needed jobs, medicine, products, and access to the outside world. Well, I don't want to sell my house.

Do I have to?

This isn't the most compelling case for imminent domain, but it is one which is generally supported by US Law. That is not to say that the law is right, (often, I think it is in the wrong,) but that is one case supported by many public officials of when property rights are trumped by the rights of the community.

[518]

I think that there is a compelling case in these examples that there is a public good which trumps some cases of personal property.
There is no logical basis for such a claim.

[Caped Crusader]

There is no logical basis for such a claim.
When did property become more important than people? Logic, to me, obviously dictates the opposite is true. Property is just stuff. That's all it is, and property rights should never, under any circumstances, trump civil rights.

If you cannot operate your business without injecting your religion into it, you shouldn't be in business in the first place. Doctors should be doctors to help people, not judge them. :no:

[Joe]

I'm not sure how racial discrimination would or should play out. But yes, basically I'm saying that one type of discrimination should not be trump another type of discrimination. Helping an unmarried person get pregnant very clearly violates the Christian faith's code of conduct.

Sorry, but I've never heard of "the" [sic] "Christian faith's code of conduct."
Could you give me a citation please?


I don't believe that state law should require someone to violate their faith in order to perform elective surgery. This situation is no different from Catholic doctors refusing to perform abortions.

I think it is different, in a number of ways. First, abortion is a controversial issue and different people of different faiths disagree on its morality. So, you can't claim that abortion "violates the Christian faith's code of conduct," since different Christian faiths have adopted different formal statements and positions on this issue. Second, I have yet to see the law that supposedly requires doctors to perform abortions. Third, the analogy in the case would not be to a doctor who refused to perform abortion, but to one who would perform them upon married people but not on unmarried people.

Doctors are licensed to practice by the State. With that privilege comes responsibilities, IMHO.

[518]

When did property become more important than people?
Probably around the same time that people started to own property.


Property is just stuff. That's all it is, and property rights should never, under any circumstances, trump civil rights.
You're going to have to show some delineation between property rights and civil rights before you can make that argument.

[Caped Crusader]

Helping an unmarried person get pregnant very clearly violates the Christian faith's code of conduct.
Wait a second... Ain't that exactly how Christ came to exist in the first place???


Probably around the same time that people started to own property.
Then perhaps people should stop owning property, at least until they've evolved enough to get their priorities straight.


You're going to have to show some delineation between property rights and civil rights before you can make that argument.
Are you suggesting they are inseparable?

So rights to equal employment, equal educational opportunities, voting, and marriage cannot be distinguished from property rights?

[518]

Then perhaps people should stop owning property, at least until they've evolved enough to get their priorities straight.
I'm not sure I understand how this is even possible.

[xrodolfox]

518:
The idea of property rights is justified in the terms that a person owns his/her body, and has a "right" to control it. The since a person works a field and produces crops, then the person has a "right" to those crops just as he/she has a right to his/her body.

However, there is compelling reason to say that a person forfeits those rights when certain actions take place.

Heck, people much more conservative regarding property rights than I can easily see how Emminent Domain is a case where property rights of the individual are trumped by public good. If you want to look up those reasons, you can do a wikipedia search.

I think your claims about property rights are becoming a bit absurd.

I think you need to come up with some reasoning for your reasoning: as in why property rights trump all other rights. Meanwhile, I think you are only convincing yourself.

[karenM]

Can I refuse to sell my roller skates to a one-legged man? :p
. :)


Seriously, these are property rights questions disguised as ethical conundrums. If anyone can explain to me why someone else should have more rights to my property (cabs, markets, restaraunts) than me, I will concede.
Just to be clear here, are you saying you'd be okay with whites-only lunch counters, restrooms, drinking fountains, bus seats, etc?