Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Gay rights

This is retarded.
This story here. (my emphasis added)

A lesbian woman will challenge an appeals court ruling that permitted two doctors to claim a religious defense in their refusal to artificially inseminate her.

Guadalupe Benitez filed a sexual-orientation discrimination suit against the doctors at a San Diego women's clinic after they refused to artificially inseminate her in 2000.

Benitez claims that on her first visit, Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would.

Benitez says, however, that after 11 months of costly, painful tests and surgeries, when the time came for the insemination procedure, she was turned down and told that she "would not be treated fairly" or "get timely care" at the clinic because of Dr. Brody's and other staff members' religious beliefs. what??

The doctors' lawyer, Carlo Coppo, said his clients were committed to fair treatment of Benitez — from fertilization to pregnancy and birth — but that aiding the actual act of conception compromised their religious views. (isnt fertilization and conception sorta the same thing? sorta?)

"[Brody] believes that participating in the [fertilization procedure], she is acting as the male," Coppo said. "It is an elective, invasive procedure, and to be there for the moment of conception, she religiously can't participate."

Benitez's attorney, Jennifer Pizer, said the appeals court ruling was troubling because it opened the door to all kinds of discrimination.

"It certainly is a social problem and a legal problem if someone enters a commercial business and can be told they will not receive the same services that another person can," Pizer said.

Both attorneys agree the case is the first of its kind and tests whether a doctor can choose who to treat based on religious beliefs.

Coppo says denying doctors their religious rights is also a form of discrimination, and that the law allows doctors to choose who they treat consistent with their religious convictions as long as they offer alternative means for care.

Pizer says a doctor's religious freedoms should not come at the expense of a patient's care.

When the case goes to trial, a jury will also be asked to decide if Benitez was denied the fertilization procedure because of her sexual orientation or her marital status.

In 2000, California's Unruh Civil Rights Law protected sexual orientation from discrimination by businesses, but not marital status.

Coppo said Benitez's marital status was the issue — as lesbians, she and her domestic partner are not legally married. Pizer, however, said sexual orientation was always the factor and the defendants' language in court documents will prove that.

Ok. 1st of all..if it bothered them so much, why go thru 11 months of tests and surgeries to get her ready for the insemination process if they werent gonna give it to her? Why not just refer her to another clinic? (are they greedy for the money?? hmmm) And secondly, if they are so religious, why are they in this particular feild in the first place? Dont they have to create and destroy life? (by destroy i am referring to embryos which are created for impantation that are not used, which by law must be destroyed..) Who gives them that right? And if these people cant get pregnant, isnt that God's plan? How do these doctors decide which part of God's Plan and for who they are going to interfere with?

Over the summer i took a sociology class and had to write a paper, i did mine on gay marriage, so i spent weeks sifting thru research on homosexuality...so its all still fresh in my mind. Its unbelievable to me that this prejudice exists. People are so close-minded.

I mean, in Florida, gay couples are banned from adoption. They can be foster parents tho. Does that make any sense? They can even foster special needs children, but they arent allowed to adopt. And if they do adopt and the state finds out that they are a gay couple, DCF can actually come in and remove the child (and possibly put him or her in foster care...with a gay couple...ha) There is absolutely no evidence in the research that gay parents cause any harm to thier children either physically or mentally. And more than likely their kids will still be straight. (the minute higher percentage of children raised by gays to be gay (something like 3%) is attributed to a more open mind of sexual preferences) I mean, most gay people had straight parents, right? and that straight parenting didnt keep those people from being gay. And how are they a threat to the sanctity of marriage? This one i just dont get. We heterosexuals have F'ed that up all on our own, considering that we are the only ones allowed the right, and divorce is at 60% and on the rise. And pedophiliacs are something like 95% heterosexual, so thats not a risk either. I could go on, but i am sure you understand where i stand on this issue. Shit- 50 years ago a white wasnt allowed to marry a black. It was even thought of as against God's plan (a judge actually said thats why we were placed on separate continents, God didnt want us to intermingle, and that we interfered with God's plan when we begin settling in continents with people of different skin color)...But we seem to have gotten past that. People who are racist are osterized in this society (usually) we think they are sick and behind the times for still believing in the garbage reasons why one race is better than another. But we are using the same tactics to keep homosexuals discriminated against.

And just for the record - i am straight, and yes i know a few gay people, but no one that i am like best friends with...so i dont have a strong emotional connection to this to drive me (like a sister or something who is gay...) I just cant stand ignorance and discrimination when it is based on stupidity. And yes i think religion can produce much stupidity. But thats a conversation for another post.
Kristie :: 10:15 AM :: 2 comments

Post a Comment

---------------oOo---------------