Arcana XV

From what the article says, this doctor didn't refuse treatment because the patient was gay, she refused treatment because the patient is not married.

Kind of like those nutjob pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control to unmarried women.

I'll never understand why these people choose to get into a profession that might interfere with their religious beliefs.

__________________
"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

jfuh

THis is quite stupid.
As moronic and pathetic as the physician was, you must wonder from the perspective of the patient.
Life threatening sure - but why in the world would you want someone that hates your guts to be operating on you?

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Alex

This case involves a procedure that is not medically necessary to save a person's life. All the patient had to do was go to another doctor to get inseminated.

The "compelling interest" argument that the court used has another criteria that this law would fail: "...the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive."

The fact that there are alternate doctors to provide service means that there is a less restrictive way to achieve the compelling interest.

I hope this case makes it to SCOTUS. It will interesting to see how they use the criteria.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ikari

Public or private? Since we aren't talking of life threatening disease or injury, it's up to the Doctor to decide if they wish to perform the procedure or not. Private business is ruled by the owner, public is ruled by the State; those are the ones which set the rules for the practice.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Kernel Sanders

Privately owned businesses are still subject to anti-discrimination laws

rivrrat

They shouldn't be.

__________________

Kernel Sanders

So any business that isn't state owned should be able to refuse to hire black people, gays, non-Christians, etc? Private hospitals should be able to refuse to treat Jews? Are you sure you want to advance that opinion?

rivrrat

That's absolutely the position I hold.

Nobody should be forced to provide services to any other person against their will. Additionally, employers should be able to hire/refuse to hire and fire anyone they want for any reason they want.

Kernel Sanders

Well, most of us are happy to be out of the fifties and glad that the civil right movement happened.

Employers should be able to fire female employees for refusing sex? What about for not supporting the same presidential candidate?

rivrrat

For ANY reason. Why should an employer be forced to keep someone employed and give them their money when they don't want to? What right does anyone have to force someone else to employ them?