4 registered
(mt4me, viola33, 2 invisible)
and 12 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
#107982 - 08/18/08 10:38 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: George Heymont]
|
bobbcat
Member
Registered: 03/27/03
Posts: 6981
Loc: My office.
|
The ruling means the doctors cannot use their religious beliefs as a defense to Benitez's claim that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation when her suit goes to trial. They can still argue, however, that they had religious objections to providing the infertility treatment to unmarried couples, whose rights under the anti-discrimination law were not clearly established when Benitez visited the clinic. 
_________________________
Bottom line, it's either M-TEC or Andrews.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108086 - 08/19/08 10:35 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: bobbcat]
|
BlankKeys
Member
Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 743
Loc: New York
|
I used to transcribe for a doc that wouldn't prescribe birth control pills for anyone because she didn't believe in contraception. She also used to pray with her seriously ill patients. This is great if your patients agree with your views, but seems like it would be kind of awkward if they didn't. I wonder how many health care providers do discriminate against people due to their race, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. Something to think about ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108089 - 08/19/08 10:44 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: BlankKeys]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 1462
Loc: IL, USA
|
I would imagine that if a person did not want to pray, they would say so to the doctor.
I transcribed for a Hematologist that did the same thing.
I admire people that live their faith.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108090 - 08/19/08 10:49 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: ABMT]
|
tropsicleAfter
Member
Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 2674
Loc: Vicksburg, MS
|
Do you admire satanists who live their faith? How about Islamic extremists that live their faith?
_________________________
tropsicle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108091 - 08/19/08 10:52 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: tropsicleAfter]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 1462
Loc: IL, USA
|
Actually, trops, yes I do as long as it does not harm anyone, since no true religion actually condones killing. When an extremist kills in the name of their religion they have distorted it. I admire people who live by their principles and convictions.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108092 - 08/19/08 10:57 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: ABMT]
|
tropsicleAfter
Member
Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 2674
Loc: Vicksburg, MS
|
Well, I think you are applying your standards to others there. The true Islamic extremist does believe in killing, is living up to their principles and convictions, would be more of an expert on their religion than you, and would argue that they are not distorting it.
Likewise, you don't seem to admire BO, who would also tell you he is living up to his principles and convictions.
_________________________
tropsicle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108093 - 08/19/08 11:07 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: tropsicleAfter]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 1462
Loc: IL, USA
|
From the Islamists that I have heard speak they state that Islam is a loving religion and that actually Mohammed said to respect Christians as he believed that Jesus was a great man, but not the son of God.
As for BO he can state that he is living his principles and convictions, as he said at Saddleback, that we all need to keep in mind that what we do to the least of our brothers we do to God. However, his actions do not conincide with his speech when he votes otherwise, such as with BAIPA.
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one too.
Edited by ABMT (08/19/08 11:09 PM)
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108095 - 08/19/08 11:32 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: ABMT]
|
MattsKat
Member
Registered: 11/28/04
Posts: 2863
Loc: Here and Now...USA
|
I admire people that live their faith.
How do you know who to admire? Are you just omniscient about this stuff? Or do you have to physically look them up and down? Do you have to hear their words with your own ears? See their actions with your own eyes? And how do you *know* who's "living their faith" if the only interaction you have with them is online? or from reading a book or newspaper article about them? or from a secondhand recounting of a deed? Or from their church attendance records?
I'm not exactly trying to bait you, but I'm awfully curious to know how you would *know* a person of faith if that person chooses to keep his/her faith quietly, privately, personally to him/herself, and doesn't flaunt it.
_________________________
Those who can laugh at themselves shall never cease to be amused.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108097 - 08/19/08 11:48 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: MattsKat]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 1462
Loc: IL, USA
|
MK,
Obviously, I am talking about people I come in contact with. Also, we were talking about docs that pray with their patients and those who will not prescribe or fill contraception due to their faith.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108230 - 08/20/08 09:28 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: ABMT]
|
BlankKeys
Member
Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 743
Loc: New York
|
Don't get me wrong, ABMT, I did and still do greatly admire this doctor. She and her husband are both docs and are wonderful people. She recently had a hell of a fight with breast cancer right after her third child was born. I'm sure the same faith she shared with her patients helped her through that ordeal and I know for a fact that many of her patients did appreciate her prayers on their behalf. However, I wonder whether a doctor really should - and I'm at a lack of words here - impose their beliefs on their patients as she did with the contraceptives.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108231 - 08/20/08 09:32 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: BlankKeys]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 1462
Loc: IL, USA
|
BK,
I understand that reasoning completely, but I also understand that we are asked to live our faith. I don't believe she is imposing her belief on anybody. They can always go to another doctor. If a store you go to does not carry what you want, do you scream foul or go to another store?
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108237 - 08/20/08 09:56 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: ABMT]
|
MattsKat
Member
Registered: 11/28/04
Posts: 2863
Loc: Here and Now...USA
|
If a store you go to does not carry what you want, do you scream foul or go to another store?
Duh! You scream foul and then you take the store to court, preferably the Supreme Court of whichever state you're living in. (See the link that started this thread in the first place.)
_________________________
Those who can laugh at themselves shall never cease to be amused.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108243 - 08/20/08 10:18 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: MattsKat]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 1462
Loc: IL, USA
|
I guess so, MK. It would have been easier for them to find another doctor, but no headlines in that, huh?
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108355 - 08/21/08 04:08 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: MattsKat]
|
Glory1863
Member
Registered: 03/27/08
Posts: 364
Loc: Beyond Antares
|
Referring to the link that started the thread while keeping to the store theme: Things costing what they do, shoppers (patients) went to the store (doctors) for which they had coupons (covered by their insurance). The store (doctors) advertised having fertility treatment for sale. The shoppers (patients) were looking for fertility treatment, not a boob job or a tummy tuck which the store (doctors) did not advertise as being on sale. The store (doctors) had fertility treatment available. There was no empty bin where fertility treatment should have been; no sign up telling all shoppers (patients) that the store (practice) was temporarily out of that item and that a raincheck would be available. The store (doctors) refused to sell an available product to a particular class of shopper (gay patients).
At the very least, then, that is deceptive advertising. It is not uncommon to threaten to go to court for that, although most retailers have enough sense to make good on their ad before it gets that far if they don't want the bad publicity to cause them to lose other customers.
Perhaps this class of shopper (gay patients) should have lobbied the coupon club (insurance company) to drop this store (practice) for all of their members due to unreliable availability of product and offer instead another store (different practice) that manages to keep its shelves well stocked for all.
On the other hand, perhaps the columnist in the Sun-Times was right: If a doctor refuses to treat a paying patient, how good a doctor can he be?
_________________________
The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108381 - 08/21/08 06:02 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: Glory1863]
|
Phyllis Nilsson
Member
Registered: 05/04/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Toledo, Ohio USA
|
I still see signs in stores saying "We reserve the right to refuse service".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108382 - 08/21/08 06:24 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: ABMT]
|
Badfinger
Member
Registered: 11/07/07
Posts: 507
Loc: Grand Prairie, TX
|
I admire people who live by their principles and convictions.
Even when they are imposing their principles and convictions on those with different principles and convictions, as in the gay/lesbian thing above? What if these gays/lesbians aren't of your faith? What right do these docs have to say NO just because they believe a different way? Not everyone is Christian and not everyone should be forced to live like one if that is not their belief. Have we not learned anything from the Civil Rights Movement? This may not be a race (as in color) issue, but to me it's not much different.
I don't have a problem with people expressing their faith, but the workplace is not the place to express it, unless your workplace is a church or other religious place. I'm sorry, but those docs who refuse treatment because of their beliefs, whether it be Christian or any other religion, should never have brought their emotions to the workplace and should be ashamed for using their religion to keep people from using a service that they are obviously paying for, that is unless fertility treatments and artificial insemination are now free.
_________________________
I've got something to say . . . . it's better to burn out than fade away.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108384 - 08/21/08 06:31 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: Phyllis Nilsson]
|
Badfinger
Member
Registered: 11/07/07
Posts: 507
Loc: Grand Prairie, TX
|
I still see signs in stores saying "We reserve the right to refuse service".
Yep, you usually see these on or near the front door BEFORE you enter a store/restaurant or whatever. I have never seen a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service" on or near the doors of a medical building or outside a physician's office, not here in Texas anyway, not anywhere I've been. In fact, I've always seen the one that state by law, they have to treat you (like in an ER) regardless of color, race, financial status, etc. Or the "NO CELL PHONES BEYOND THIS POINT" but never a disclaimer reserving the right to refuse service, especially the right to refuse service based on someone's own personal beliefs.
_________________________
I've got something to say . . . . it's better to burn out than fade away.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108389 - 08/21/08 06:43 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: Badfinger]
|
Badfinger
Member
Registered: 11/07/07
Posts: 507
Loc: Grand Prairie, TX
|
Also, I have to ask are these docs that are refusing treatment basing their beliefs according to the Bible? If so, would one of the Christians or non-Christians who know the Bible responding to this thread please show me a passage in the Bible where Jesus actually condemns gays/lesbians? Book and verse, please. I was under the impression that it was the Old Testament that condemned them, that Jesus himself never did. And if Jesus never did, then I'm having a hard time understanding why these Christians docs are refusing treatment to these people. Educate me, please.
Edited by Badfinger (08/21/08 06:44 PM)
_________________________
I've got something to say . . . . it's better to burn out than fade away.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#108393 - 08/21/08 06:59 PM
Re: New California State Supreme Court Ruling
[Re: Badfinger]
|
George Heymont
Member
Registered: 05/04/99
Posts: 5370
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
It seems to me that adultery is most specifically mentioned, however. Can you imagine the uproar if patients started getting refused service by medical personnel because of a past history of adultery?
_________________________
George Heymont
Alert & Oriented Medical Transcription Services
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
