Sexual orientation laws trump religious freedom, California Supreme Court says (CNA)

[Michael_Neal]

If the state legislates that a MDs religious beliefs allow them to not treat homosexuals-something that only some religions believe is a sin- then that would be a de facto establishment of a particular religious view.

Not at all, how does the exercising of ones religious beliefs establish their religious view? People are free to accept or reject whatever religious belief they want. People are free to go to that doctor or not. Nobody is forcing them to receive the elective treatment from that doctor.

The ruling forces the doctor to act against his faith, the doctor’s right is what is being trampled here.

Obviously this is only one interpretation and I should have been clearer on that. As we have seen, judges and legal scholars interpret the Constitution very differently in different circumstances. A judge up for re-election in a very right wing Christian area would likely have made a very different decision in this case…

I guess you would prefer the judges who are pressured by liberal interests groups that lobby for agendas that contradict the very words of the Constitution. Those who use creative interpretation of the law to trump the rights directly mentioned by the Constitution.

How can you justify favoring this interpretation with your faith?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I say let the market solve the problem. There can be practices that will wield the turkey baster and those that won’t, and let them attract simpatico clients. Not everyone has to be forced into the same mold. Let freedom ring.

There can be Christian clinics for those who wish to be treated by MD’s that are Christian, Muslim clinics for those who wish to be treated by Muslim MD’s, Athiest clinics for those who wish to be treated by athiest MD’s…Good grief, and we think medicine is complicated now!

Those who choose medicine as a profession carry a significant burden. In many cases, they must treat the patient that presents before them, regardless of their personal feelings about that patient. If there is a way to minimize the situations where they would be forced to treat someone that they have moral issues about, I would think they would do their best to avoid them before it happens.

 

[Michael_Neal]

There is a Catholic doctor near our parish, Catholic belief is not a requirement but he will not prescribe contraceptives, recommend abortion, or give advice contrary to his faith. He has every right to be in business and do what he does. Nobody is forced to see him. You logic would pretty much force him to violate all of his principles or force him to quit his profession all together.

Those who choose medicine as a profession carry a significant burden. In many cases, they must treat the patient that presents before them, regardless of their personal feelings about that patient. If there is a way to minimize the situations where they would be forced to treat someone that they have moral issues about, I would think they would do their best to avoid them before it happens.

They carry no more burden than anyone else except where basic medical care is concerned.

 

[fix]

Those who choose medicine as a profession carry a significant burden. In many cases, they must treat the patient that presents before them, regardless of their personal feelings about that patient. If there is a way to minimize the situations where they would be forced to treat someone that they have moral issues about, I would think they would do their best to avoid them before it happens.

Yea, they could tell the patient I cannot offer you this elective, non life threatening, treatment because it violates my conscience.

But, then some group will sue in an attempt to change how society views their chosen behavior.

 

[Fitswimmer]

There is a Catholic doctor near our parish, Catholic belief is not a requirement but he will not prescribe contraceptives, recommend abortion, or give advice contrary to his faith. He has every right to be in business and do what he does. Nobody is forced to see him. You logic would pretty much force him to violate all of his principles or force him to quit his profession all together.

This is not my “personal” logic. This is logic developed from reading cases in civil law and watching how the decisions are made and how precedents are set and used.

As for the “creative interpretation”, that same argument is made by those on the other side when a decision goes against their beliefs. An activist judge is one that decides a case in a manner that I disagree with, if I agree with his decision-he’s a wise Constitutionalist!

 

[Michael_Neal]

I guess we should all hide in the dark corners of society and avoid saying anything or acting out our beliefs in fear that we may offend someone. Lets go back to the days when Christians had to hide in caves to practice their faith.

How long before other professions all of a sudden have a “significant burden” as well?

 

[Newbie2]

They don’t have to provide it-they can choose not to enter into a practice where they would have to. This isn’t Communist China, we don’t force people into career choices.

If your faith is that important to you, wouldn’t you be careful about your choice of employment so that you are not put in a position of having to violate it?

It is the individuals responsibility to make choices that do not violate his/her faith.

Not in my view, the view of civil law. Equal access means equal access, whether it’s something we find morally objectionable or not.

Again, easily avoided by the individual medical professional. Don’t set up shop in Nowheresville and you won’t be forced to do a procedure you find objectionable.

I remember the NY case, I’ll have to look it up because I can’t remember how the courts ruled on it.

So the law, in effect, dictate where as well as how one practiced.

“Don’t set up shop in Nowheresville and you won’t be forced to do a procedure you find objectionable.” That’s an absurd notion, that, for example an OBGYN would have to practice in a well-populated area just to be able to bring babies into the world and not be coerced into killing them.

How about the freedom of a doctor to choose which non-essential services he or she performs? And the freedom to practice wherever they wish?

Sounds like you want Big Brother around to tell us what to do and how to do it! :tsktsk:

 

[Fitswimmer]

I guess we should all hide in the dark corners of society and avoid saying anything or acting out our beliefs in fear that we may offend someone. Lets go back to the days when Christians had to hide in caves to practice their faith.

How long before other professions all of a sudden have a “significant burden” as well?

Dramatic, but hardly realistic. Christianity is the dominant religion in this country and is in no way, shape, manner or form being persecuted.

Ask some Christians in other countries like China how they feel about our persecution in the US.

 

[pnewton]

In civil law, access does matter. …I think the decision might have been different in this case if the plaintiff’s insurance covered another clinic.

In which case, they should perform as their conscience mandates, then pay the bill, even if it is unjust. Persecution takes many forms.

I acknowledge that you do have a good point in this specific case. Since the plaintiff had insurance that gave coverage for this procedure and since this was the one and only place to provide such treatment, there was a breach of contract. Since the doctors had entered into the contract to provide this service, I think they did the right thing, though. Held firm to their belief, and now pay for making an unwise contract.

 

[Michael_Neal]

This is not my “personal” logic. This is logic developed from reading cases in civil law and watching how the decisions are made and how precedents are set and used.

You still have not answered my previous question, how do you justify this thinking with your faith and your Church, which clearly says you have the responsibility towards Christian morals which are more important than the interpretation of civil law?

As for the “creative interpretation”, that same argument is made by those on the other side when a decision goes against their beliefs. An activist judge is one that decides a case in a manner that I disagree with, if I agree with his decision-he’s a wise Constitutionalist!

No, incorrect. Creative interpretation is when they find things in the law that aren’t there. Where there is nothing written about it at all in that law and decide to pretend that a law says something else. They completely change not only the intent but the actual reading of the law. An activist judge makes new law through this process ignoring the entire legislative process and basically bypassing the democratic process.

A perfect example is abortion, nothing in the constitution at all about it whatsoever, nothing even close. The proper way to legalize abortion would have been to make a law since the current law did not clearly state anything on it. But activists judges somehow interpret abortion to be legal on the base of privacy.

 

[Michael_Neal]

Dramatic, but hardly realistic. Christianity is the dominant religion in this country and is in no way, shape, manner or form being persecuted.

Ask some Christians in other countries like China how they feel about our persecution in the US.

Yea its the dominant religion yet a handful of anti-Christian judges have been eroding their rights slowly but surely.

So what if it is worse in China, no kidding, just because we don’t have it as bad as China does not mean everything is Ok

 

[po18guy]

Praise God that we have a 5-4 Catholic majority on the U S Supreme Court. I am not familiar with the California State constitution in this area, but it likely is written much as the other states’ constitutions are. This is simply a court making a secular-based decision.

 

[Fitswimmer]

No, incorrect. Creative interpretation is when they find things in the law that aren’t there. Where there is nothing written about it at all in that law and decide to pretend that a law says something else. They completely change not only the intent but the actual reading of the law. An activist judge makes new law through this process ignoring the entire legislative process and basically bypassing the democratic process.

A perfect example is abortion, nothing in the constitution at all about it whatsoever, nothing even close. The proper way to legalize abortion would have been to make a law since the current law did not clearly state anything on it. But activists judges somehow interpret abortion to be legal on the base of privacy.

There is a trail to Roe through other cases that were decided during the 60’s. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with those interperative precedents, but they are there. The justices that wrote those opinions were not intellectually vapid people, their logic is very clear.

The Court evolves, it always has and it always will. Similar cases are decided differently based on the composition of the Court at the time. Which is why everyone is so adamant about voting for the correct President to get the Court they want.

 

[Michael_Neal]

There is a trail to Roe through other cases that were decided during the 60’s. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with those interperative precedents, but they are there. The justices that wrote those opinions were not intellectually vapid people, their logic is very clear.

The Court evolves, it always has and it always will. Similar cases are decided differently based on the composition of the Court at the time. Which is why everyone is so adamant about voting for the correct President to get the Court they want.

Who cares if there is logic, it is not in the Constitution, you can make a logical argument for just about anything. The Constitution clearly says nothing about abortion or nothing about homosexual rights either. It does speak very specifically about religious rights though, but your logic is free to ignore that right? So long as you have logic I guess you can believe whatever you want.

I will ask again, how do you mesh all of this with your faith? it certainly does not reflect the teachings of the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

An activist judge is one that decides a case in a manner that I disagree with, if I agree with his decision-he’s a wise Constitutionalist!

I can’t quite figure out why there are so many activist judges and so few Constitutionalists.

 

[fix]

Who cares if there is logic, it is not in the Constitution, you can make a logical argument for just about anything. The Constitution clearly says nothing about abortion or nothing about homosexual rights either. It does speak very specifically about religious rights though, but your logic is free to ignore that right? So long as you have logic I guess you can believe whatever you want.

Not only that but Jesus is Truth. When judges, and democracy in general, do not have an infusion of moral truth we get this type of tyranny.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Who cares if there is logic, it is not in the Constitution, you can make a logical argument for just about anything. The Constitution clearly says nothing about abortion or nothing about homosexual rights either. It does speak very specifically about religious rights though, but your logic is free to ignore that right? So long as you have logic I guess you can believe whatever you want.

I’ve read Roe, and I’ve read the precedents that the Justices cited as support for their decision. I don’t agree with their interpretation, but I can see how they arrived at their conclusion.

We have religious rights, but they are not unlimited. Our rights end when they do harm to someone else.

 

[HappyPerson]

Dramatic, but hardly realistic. Christianity is the dominant religion in this country and is in no way, shape, manner or form being persecuted.

“Have a nice holiday.”

“Good morning children, today we are going to learn about Charles Darwin’s theories which are absolute indisputable facts.”

“Attention troops, today we are going to pray to an unnamed deity or lack thereof who will protect us in battle.”

“Hey Easter Bunny! Get off that government property in St. Paul, Minnesota. No religious symbols on government property.” “But, , please Mr. Fudd, I’m not a religious symbol. I’m a secular one.” “Well, you represent a holiday celebrated by Christians, so I’m going to ask everyone to be vewy vewy quiet hahahahahaha.”

“Take that cross of off that San Diego mountain!”

“That World War 1 veteran’s monument mentions God? Destroy it!”

“Sorry miss high school valedictorian, but we are going to pull the plug on your speech since you had the audacity to credit Jesus for your success. I told you, don’t mention that Man’s name.” Acts 5 anyone?

“Catholic Charities, you don’t have the right to deny contraception as part of your employees’ health benefits.”

“You doctors must commit a grave sin, because the rights to ruin a child’s life for the purpose of two women making a political point are more important than your own moral convictions.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Michael_Neal]

fortunately the Constitution does not say we have religious freedom unless it does “harm” to someone else. And what does “harm” mean, is that open for interpretation? Am I doing harm by posting my thoughts on this forum? It is possible someone could interpret it that way. This is a can of worms. That is why you have to err on the side of rights specifically designated by the Constitution not on the opinions of judges with their own agendas.

 

[Fitswimmer]

“Have a nice holiday.”

do you know what the root of the word ‘holiday’ is? HOLY DAY. It’s not even offensive!

“Good morning children, today we are going to learn about Charles Darwin’s theories which are absolute indisputable facts.”

In the US, you are free to send your child to religious schools or homeschool them.

“Attention troops, today we are going to pray to an unnamed deity or lack thereof who will protect us in battle.”

nobody can stop anyone from praying anywhere-only from public prayer. Luckily God doesn’t need to hear it out loud. Didn’t Jesus say something about praying to our Father in secret, not doing it for show?

“Hey Easter Bunny! Get off that government property in St. Paul, Minnesota. No religious symbols on government property.” “But, , please Mr. Fudd, I’m not a religious symbol. I’m a secular one.” “Well, you represent a holiday celebrated by Christians, so I’m going to ask everyone to be vewy vewy quiet hahahahahaha.”

So put the rabbit on your front lawn. You own it, put whatever you want there. Why does it HAVE to be at City Hall??

“Take that cross of off that San Diego mountain!”

Again, put it on your own property. Nobody will stop you unless you live in one of those dopey communities with HOA’s

“That World War 1 veteran’s monument mentions God? Destroy it!”

Never heard of such a thing. Monuments with “God” are all over-including our currency

“Sorry miss high school valedictorian, but we are going to pull the plug on your speech since you had the audacity to credit Jesus for your success. I told you, don’t mention that Man’s name.” Acts 5 anyone?

Again-it’s called private school or homeschooling. Keep your kids out of public school if it offends you

“Catholic Charities, you don’t have the right to deny contraception as part of your employees’ health benefits.”

If Catholic Charities is tax exempt or otherwise receives government benefits then they must obey the law. If they don’t want to obey, give back the funding and pay taxes.

“You doctors must commit a grave sin, because the rights to ruin a child’s life for the purpose of two women making a political point are more important than your own moral convictions.”

Hey Doc! If you don’t want to perform abortions-don’t become an OBGYN!!

That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Do yourself a favor-learn about some real Christian persecution going on in the world today and pray for those who are truly suffering. We look like fools in the US whining about how persecuted we are.