Same sex marriage. Impact begins

[Islander]

A few days ago I posted a few times in response to a thread about how negligent the impact of same sex marriage was going to be. Some of the posters are from outside the US and ignore our court system and the activism that takes place in this country.

Here is an article from NPR just today. We will continue to hear many more just like this one. By legalizing homosexual marriage, the California court elevated those relationships to a right under the law. ANYONE that objects will be found liable in civil court and possibly face criminal charges for discrimination. It is the ultimate use of the arm of the government to compel speech and submission even over religious objection and freedom. We are not very far from the end or "religious based services" like schools, counseling, camps, etc.

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR


For those that are non-Christian, or if their own brand of Christianity allow for a liberal position on the issue above this should not be a surprise. For me at least is a frightful reminder that the plan is to make God irrelevant and ultimately the enemy of society. In a few years, the mere mentioning of God in public will be grounds for chastisement. Just watch.

[Hemidakota]

My humble opinion, I noticed a change back 1996/97...and now heading for that day when eventually, the Earth will again convulse.

[MarginOfError]

All the more reason for government to get out of the marriage business entirely.

[jonathanncrm]

I appreciate your perspective and have similar feelings. There are ways to allow all people the same general opportunities, but marriage was one of the last sacred institutions protected. The slope gets very slippery from here. One cannot allow same gender marriage and disalow plural marriage, or other non traditional sinful practices. The vista ahead is not serene for the conservative, spiritual God fearing soul.

[Hemidakota]

Sideline tidbit from today's news: washingtonpost.com

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

My humble opinion, I noticed a change back 1996/97...and now heading for that day when eventually, the Earth will again convulse.

What if it first gets the willies, a case of lumbago or a brain freeze?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

All the more reason for government to get out of the marriage business entirely.

You seem to miss the point. It is too late for wishful thinking. The government crated this problems by meddling with and later ignoring the will of the people. Now this is going to be shoved down our throats until the Supreme Courts weights on it (hopefully in a pro-family position). In the mean time brace yourselves for the litigation and accusation.

From the article:

A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

1- The doctor referred the woman to another doctor who would do the procedure. Why the fuss? I fear the only reasons are malicious...

2- So, legal justices are advising Christians and other like-minded people to find alternate lines of work?!?!

This makes me physically sick...

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Islander

ANYONE that objects will be found liable in civil court and possibly face criminal charges for discrimination.

Well that's completely false. I object - did you suppose I will be found libel in civil court? Are the rest of your arguments that misleading?

It is the ultimate use of the arm of the government to compel speech and submission even over religious objection and freedom. We are not very far from the end or "religious based services" like schools, counseling, camps, etc.

So, using your (mis)logic, laws allowing male female marriage are also ultimate use of the arm of the government to compel speech and submission even over religious objection and freedom.

Sheeze. Try and not make up random stuff.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Islander

Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory.

The university receives state funding and tax-exempt bonds; therefore is subject to anti-discrimination laws, and rightly so.

Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples.

Catholic Charities received the vast majority (often over 80%) of its monies from state and federal funds.

Therefore, it was subject to applicable anti-discrimination laws, and rightly so.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case,

This was not a free speech case. The practice fired her because she violated its anti-discrimination policy.

and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

The doctors (there was more than one) had been treating the patient for a number of years, and knew she wanted IVF. They even gave her the hormones that go with the procedure. So the doctors had known for a significant amount of time that she wanted children, and would need the required procedure. Yet they did not tell her until it was time to perform the procedure.

Their discrimination put her in an impossible situation, as her insurance would only pay for procedures from these doctors. However, they did recommend a different practice, and did have the procedure, though she had to pay all the expenses herself.

As for the “get another job” comment, what the judge meant is that if the doctor knows she is going to refuse treatments based on religious convictions, then she should not specialize in that practice. Denying treatment to lesbians is a foreseeable consequence of being a gynecologist; therefore, common sense would say she should not choose a specialty that is going to discriminate against a woman because of who she is, i.e., because she is a lesbian.

I agree it should be the doctor's right to specialize in any field she wants. However, if she violates company policy, she risks being fired.

Additionally, she is subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that prohibit her from discriminating against anyone based on race. Therefore, she should consider another specialty to avoid having to refuse her services to someone based on her religious convictions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In general, the following is applicable:

If a company receives federal funds, it is subject to applicable anti-discrimination laws, as it should be.

If a company has a tax-exempt status, it is also subject to anti-discrimination laws, as it should be.

In a few years, the mere mentioning of God in public will be grounds for chastisement. Just watch.

Nonsense.

Elphaba