And how funny is it that Muslims are allowed to get anything they want when it comes to their religious beliefs, but oh no, not the Christians.

Actually, I don’t thinkn the Muslims got what they wanted, either. I could be wrong about what side of the debate they were on, but one of the amicus (“friend of the court”) attorneys represented three rabbis and a muslim association. Strange bedfellows!

I’m not even sure the requested treatment should be referred to as “medical care.” I’m sure these doctors would have been happy to treat this woman for any illness. But this was a 100% elective procedure. Why should it be elective only for the patient and not the doctors?

When this country is taken back from the Liberals and run by people who are rational and objective again (That would be “conservatives”) then I suspect that this nonsense will stop and people will once again start being treated equally.

In the particular case of religious beliefs, I think that American legal tradition and precedent is pretty clear that deference shall be given to religious beliefs. For example, it is possible to get a deferment from military service on religious grounds. People are routinely excused from juries if their religious beliefs might prevent them judging another person or (in extreme cases) recommending the death penalty.

As a personal matter, I think that the doctors’ objection to inseminating the woman is pretty silly, especially since they did everything else to help her have children. However, it seems to me that the basic question here concerns the rights of businesses to determine what customers they will serve. For example, should a business have the right to refuse to serve patrons who aren’t dressed appropriately (no shoes, no shirt, no service)? What about refusing to allow patrons who are armed? Who smoke?

The whole concept of anti-discrimination laws stems from the dark days when a black American could be refused service because of the color of his skin, a practice that is morally outrageous and, more importantly, economically stupid. Was it right to pass laws FORCING businesses to serve black people? Is it right to have laws FORCING businesses to serve anybody? Or to forbid them allowing their customers to smoke?

Again, I think that the doctors were wrong in what they did, but I think that the CA Supreme Court and the CA legislature were also wrong. All parties were foisting their morality on somebody else. As long as nobody is being harmed, I don’t see why anybody should have the right to do that.