Wednesday - October 12, 2005

Homosexual Lawsuit #4,276,331

Here we go again. In an ongoing effort to completely change society to fit their agenda instead of trying to just fit in with the majority of people, a lesbian woman is suing a doctor who refused to artificially inseminate her, based on the doctor’s personal moral beliefs. How is this discrimination? Does this mean I can sue the next Muslim I see because he refuses to join me for a drink at a local bar? Can I sue a PETA-activist who refuses to help distribute canned meat products to hurricane victims? If not, what’s the difference? Where does this insanity end?

And while we’re on the subject, when did artifical insemination become “treatment”. The lesbian in question was not suffering from any medical condition known to man except for an avowed aversion to men and a distaste for penises in general. Plain and simple, this is moral relativism versus moral clarity disguised as anti-discrimination. If our courts had any sense whatsoever, they’d throw this case out, send the lesbian packing and put the kid up for adoption.

I am sick and tired of the homosexual “tail” wagging the heterosexual “dog”, especially when the “tail” uses the courts to punish doctors who are just as entitled to their own moral code of ethics as you, me or anyone else ... including the rug-munchers ...

Calif. Court Hears Gay Fertility Case
SAN DIEGO (AP)

A California appeals court heard arguments Tuesday in the case of a woman who sued her doctors after they refused to artificially inseminate her, allegedly because she is gay. The physicians are appealing a ruling that prevented them from raising religious freedom as a defense in the test of whether doctors can deny treatment to gays and lesbians. Attorney Carlo Coppo told California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal that religion is relevant to deciding whether his clients wrongly denied fertility treatment to Guadalupe Benitez.

Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton should be allowed to explain “what went through their hearts and minds when they did what they did,” Coppo told the three-judge panel. One of the judges said the case is destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. Benitez, 33, sued the doctors and their small practice in Vista in 2001, claiming their actions violated California’s anti-discrimination laws. Benitez was eventually treated elsewhere and gave birth to a boy who is now 3 years old.

In her suit, Benitez claims that Brody told her in 1999 that her religious beliefs prevented her from helping a homosexual conceive a child by artificial insemination, but that other physicians at the practice would be able to help her. The next year, Benitez said, she was told that both Brody and Fenton were unable to help her because they did not feel comfortable with her sexual orientation. The doctors contend they denied treatment because Benitez and her registered domestic partner of 15 years were not married. But Benitez’s attorneys say she was denied because of her sexual orientation, not her marital status.

The case appears to be the first in the country in which a gay or lesbian patient was allowed to sue doctors over charges that treatment was denied based on sexual orientation, said Benitez’s attorney, Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Pizer argued that California civil rights law should have prevented the doctors from refusing treatment based on her client’s sexual orientation. “The state has a compelling interest to eradicate invidious discrimination,” she told the court.

A Superior Court judge dismissed the case in 2001 on grounds that federal rules covering employer health plans bar state civil rights actions. In 2003, the San Diego appeals court overturned the decision. When the case returned to Superior Court, Judge Ronald Prager ruled before trial that the doctors could not use religious freedom as a defense because there is no such exemption under the state’s anti-discrimination law, setting the stage for Tuesday’s arguments. Justice Gilbert Nares predicted a long road ahead. “As we all know, this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “It’s just a question of when.” The appeals court has 90 days to rule.

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/12/2005 at 06:39 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner