First of all, we don't know where in California this happened. So we really can't say if they were often discriminated against or not. Secondly, I don't know many Christian business that don't advertise that their Christian, so more then likely, the couple picked out this particular clinic because they wanted a fight. And the fact that they ended up suing instead of just going down the street pretty much confirms that.
She may have been using it as a chance to make a public statement. I don't know but there is nothing wrong with that. Granted certain small areas could be more tolerable than others but as a whole they are still not given the same rights as we have. To know that you couldn't make a decision in a hospital if your partner were in an accident must be tough. To know that you may not even get in to see them, the person that you love and want to be with. I couldn't imagine if my GF was in an accident and I had to wait in the waiting room and couldn't be with her. She may be angry because religious nuts are working hard to keep her from having those rights. It's the religious people that have started this war, not the gays.
It looks like she was. And trying to deny someone religious freedom is wrong.
Have you ever been to California? Do you consider the Bay Area to be a "small area"?
That's a different thing, I'm not against people being able to see someone they're close to.
See, the thing is that the way the religious people have fought the war is through the ballot box. Prop 22 in California defined marriage as being between a man and a lady. The gays, a very small % of the state's population, kept fighting and got the courts to overturn the will of the people, thereby taking away the right to have your vote mean anything, religious freedom, etc.<!-- / message -->
Religious freedom does not mean you are allowed to deny others of basic freedoms. I could care less about a vote if the vote takes away the right of another. At one time you would have had nearly an entire country vote against blacks being free, that didn't mean that it was right. You seem to think that if it was in my religion to kidnap you and hold you captive for years while torturing you, then it would be ok. It's not. It's not OK for any amount of people to say that another group, no matter how small, can't do something that effects nobody but themselves. And yes, I've been to SanFran and a few other parts of Cali. It is a very small region of the country. Look at a map, you have the entire US and then in a little tiny section you'll see SF. Now if you said that west of the Mississippi river gays were afforded freedom, that would be a large area.
First of all, this isn't about giving someone a check up or treating a sore throat. This ruling is about artificial insemination! As far as I know, there isn't a right to be artificially inseminated. Just saying something is a right doesn't make it so.
That's bull. The Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820.
There is a big difference between kidnapping and torturing me and artificially inseminating someone.
Artificial insemination would effect another person.
Well, the Bay Area is a big part of California. I don't know many places in that state that they would face discrimination.
<!-- / message -->
Artificial insemination does not effect another person. A baby will one day be born, just like with any other birth.
Your're saying that the majority of America did not believe in slavery at one time? The Missouri Compromise does not say that most did not agree with slavery, it merely said that the two sides will co exist. Besides, slavery had gone on for decades and decades by the time this was made.
She went into a clinic to get a service they offered. If it were some rabid breeding couple looking for their 8th kid he would have done it in a heartbeat.
True there is a difference between artificial incemination and kidnapping but it is an extreme example to make a point.
Your're saying that the majority of America did not believe in slavery at one time? The Missouri Compromise does not say that most did not agree with slavery, it merely said that the two sides will co exist. Besides, slavery had gone on for decades and decades by the time this was made.
She went into a clinic to get a service they offered. If it were some rabid breeding couple looking for their 8th kid he would have done it in a heartbeat.
True there is a difference between artificial incemination and kidnapping but it is an extreme example to make a point.
JOSH: Have you ever been to California? Do you consider the Bay Area to be a "small area"?
SH: By no means teaming up with anything REP has posted in this thread, but to answer your question, yeah it's a relatively small area of the USA - a bit more than 1% of the nation's population.
If your main life experience is in California, it's not unreasonable you might have the notion that gays are not unduly discriminated against in most other parts of our country, even in the 21st century.
SH: By no means teaming up with anything REP has posted in this thread, but to answer your question, yeah it's a relatively small area of the USA - a bit more than 1% of the nation's population.
If your main life experience is in California, it's not unreasonable you might have the notion that gays are not unduly discriminated against in most other parts of our country, even in the 21st century.
Yes, it would effect the baby.
Slavery was outlawed in the Northern states at the time of the Missouri Compromise, and importing slaves had been outlawed by 1808. But we're getting off topic here.
You don't know that at all. If I was a fertility doctor I wouldn't inseminate a straight single lady, or any straight lady without a marriage license.
Barman, I was born and and lived through my early teen years in California, and most of my dad's side of the family lives in the Bay Area.
Your refusel to enseminate a gay or single women is forcing your views on others. You're messed up morals have nothing to do with the right to have a child. And I'm pretty sure a christian doctor would allow and encourage a family to grow and grow. I have christian friends and they all have too many kids. The way it was meant to be was two children to take over for the mother and father. Having more has led to the overpopulation that we face today. As for it effecting the child, I guess anytime a birth happens the child is effected. There is nothing wrong with a gay couple raising a baby.
And some judge saying I have a Constitutional duty to enseminate any person who wants it is forcing their morals on me.
Ever been raised by a single mom and spent several years living right around the poverty level? I have. And the the stats show those kids will too.
And I doubt they were artifically enseminated. Again, you have no idea what this doctor would have done.
Again, this whole thing is that a gay couple chose a Christian clinic, hoping they would face discrimination. The doctor didn't refuse to help, but didn't want to perform the procedure himself. However, knowing full well that the doctor in question was against doing this, they sued to force him do to what he believed was unethical. I mean, this would be like the courts going to you and saying that you couldn't help a gay person buy or sell real estate. The Black Robed Oligarchy strikes again!<!-- / message -->
Liberals like "realestatepro" (heatohio -- a previously banned poster) and "barnman" who are unable to discern between between negative and positive rights continue to fabricate 'rights' out of thin air.
For anyone who follows politics, this case should hardly surprise anyone, but it DOES reemphasize the importance of not allowing these left wing fascists in black robes to hijack our courts. Nobody wants these perverts to force their values on the rest of us -- which is exactly what happened in this case.
Elections matter.
VOTE!
For anyone who follows politics, this case should hardly surprise anyone, but it DOES reemphasize the importance of not allowing these left wing fascists in black robes to hijack our courts. Nobody wants these perverts to force their values on the rest of us -- which is exactly what happened in this case.
Elections matter.
VOTE!
It's absolutely insane that someone can't pick and choose to whom they want to provide a service on any basis whatsoever.
I'm allowed to leech off of society; in fact, I'm heavily incentivized to do so. Yet if I decide to apply myself, study for years to become a doctor because I feel like helping certain people, I'm punished because I'm not helping the others. Absolutely insane. Society deserves everyone choosing the leech option until the whole system implodes on itself.
I'm allowed to leech off of society; in fact, I'm heavily incentivized to do so. Yet if I decide to apply myself, study for years to become a doctor because I feel like helping certain people, I'm punished because I'm not helping the others. Absolutely insane. Society deserves everyone choosing the leech option until the whole system implodes on itself.
Fascism is wanting everyone to be just like yourself and fit a uniform mold. I don't want a uniform mold. I want everyone to be who they are until they infringe on others. You seem to feel like you have the "right" to not have "their perverted morals shoved on you". According to you there are no rights. Rights is a word that leftists have made up. Pure semantics. You have no substance to your views so you have to play games with words to make yourself look smart. Like I told the Hank Hill guy, someone that is oppressed and seeks freedom from oppression are not the ones shoving any morals down anybodies throats. If you're not smart enough to understand this then you have more problems than I can help you with.
Tell me how big the uproar was some years ago when a black couple were refused to be sat in a Dennys. I couldn't tell you when or where it happened but it was huge news when it happened. According to you they should have went somewhere else to eat. You don't understand that things need to be done to change society. Do you think that a certain black women was really too tired to move to the back of the bus? Or was she making a statement? Hindsight is 20/20 and you guys are blind until you can look back and see what is right and wrong.
I do understand that society has cancer in several areas, including the esophagus, but I disagree with you on the solution. Forcing hard-working intelligent types into a corner by pointing guns at them and telling them who they should be serving, taking money from them in the form of taxation, and imposing more and more bureaucracy on them is resulting in them having fewer babies. That can't be good for the future.
OTOH the people who get free handouts from the money stolen from the worker bees are having lots of babies and are learning that it's cool to be lazy and irresponsible because you can get free stuff if worse comes to worst.
Believe it or not I actually think the latter group is the smarter group because the former group are a bunch of suckers, letting their own fertility rates suffer because of a bunch of dumb bureaucrats and sheepish voters.
Still, I'm never going to accept that anyone has a God-given right to be a beneficiary of my labor. Thank God it's still legal for me to channel my energies towards people of my own choosing, provided I don't accept money for it. It's a hard constraint but not impossible so I do appreciate you guys not putting me in jail since you do outnumber me, no question about that. We'll see who has the last laugh, though, because economic collapse is just over yonder [sinister laugh with big teeth and and evil sneer]
