Or so the California Supreme Court seems to be saying with their latest ruling. A lesbian went to a fertility specialist to try to get pregnant. The two Christian doctors treated her with fertility drugs, and told her how to artificially inseminate herself at home. They told her that inseminating her themselves would violate their religious beliefs. So, they referred her to another doctor, who inseminated her, and she now has three children. Happy ending, right? Nope. According to the woman, this was discrimination (of course). And the Supreme Court agreed. Shocka.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

The law was originally designed to prevent hotels, restaurants and other public services from refusing to serve patrons because of their race. The Legislature has since expanded it to cover characteristics such as age and sexual orientation.

“It was an awful thing to go through,” Benitez said. “It was very painful - the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family.”

Benitez has given birth to three children through artificial insemination - Gabriel, 6, and twin daughters, Sophia and Shane, who turn 3 this weekend. She is raising them in Oceanside with her longtime partner, Joanne Clark.

Jennifer Pizer, Benitez’s attorney, said that the ruling was “a victory for public health” and that she expected it to have nationwide influence.

“It was clear and emphatic that discrimination has no place in doctors’ offices,” Pizer said.

The ruling was unanimous and a succinct 18 pages, a contrast to the state Supreme Court’s 4-3 schism in May legalizing marriage between same-sex couples.

Jeez. The way these people are carrying on, you’d think that these doctors threw Benitez out screaming, “NO HOMOS ALLOWED!!!” rather than do everything they could to help her without going against their religious beliefs. 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. The lawyer representing the Christian doctors, though, hit the nail on the head with this one:

“The Supreme Court’s desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about,” said Tyler, who leads the nonprofit Advocates for Faith and Freedom in Murrieta, Calif.

So I guess the Supreme Court feels that free citizens should be forced to provide services to anyone, no matter what. At what point is someone allowed to turn someone away based on moral objections? If they’re a crack dealer? A child molestor? A rapist? A murderer? These doctors did all they could to help this woman, and when they had gone as far as they felt they could go, they referred her to another doctor and the woman got the result she wanted: children. It should’ve been the end of the story. But no. The woman still sued, and why? Because her poor little feewings got hurt? This is not a legitimate case of discrimination. The Christian doctors didn’t refuse all treatment, and they didn’t even refuse to help her. They gave her fertility treatments and even instructed the woman on how to artificially inseminate herself at home. The treatment wasn’t even something the doctors needed to do! She could have done it herself! So the doctors referred her elsewhere. But like I said, the way this woman is carrying on you’d think they branded her a dirty queer and told her she didn’t deserve children, not do everything they could to help her achieve her goal.

And no one is required to go to a certain doctor. It isn’t as if her life depended on these two doctors giving her the artificial insemination. She’s free to go to any doctor she likes. If the Christian doctors had refused to treat her at all on the basis of her homosexuality, then I’d be all for a lawsuit. That is discrimination. But the doctors treated her. That’s the big “but”. So how is this even a case? I guess the California Supreme Court feels that this woman’s hurt feelings over being — GASP!! — treated by Christian doctors and referred to another doctor and then getting what she wants takes precedence over religious freedom. Isn’t this all kind of much ado about nothing?

I mean, come on. At what point do we say enough? If we stand for nothing, we’ll fall for anything. And eventually, we need to take a stand.

Hat Tip: Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades

What happens if you don’t agree with the homosexual agenda? They’ll do everything they can to defame you, shut down your business, and make sure you are never heard from in public again. People aren’t allowed to have a difference of opinion when it comes to “gay rights”, see. If you disagree with the gays, then they’re coming after you.

The latest offender is Doug Manchester, owner of the Manchester Hyatt Hotel, is going to be the victim of a gay rights protest. His “crime”? He doesn’t support gay marriage! Therefore, these “gay rights” advocates think he should be boycotted and his business shut down. How open-minded and tolerant of them!

Gay rights supporters and their union allies plan to launch a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt because its owner, Doug Manchester, contributed $125,000 to Proposition 8, an amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the November ballot.

…

Fred Karger, who is helping to organize the boycott and is running an organization opposed to Proposition 8, said he is also urging the public to boycott Manchester’s other hotel, the Grand Del Mar.

“This is someone who is giving an exorbitant amount of money to write discrimination into the constitution for the very first time,” he said.

Karger said he hopes the boycott will send a message to other potential contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign.

“Our goal is to create a business loss for people who contribute,” he said. “We want to make it a little uncomfortable.”

See, if you don’t support gay marriage, then you don’t deserve to make money. You don’t deserve to have a successful business. From these people’s perspective, you aren’t allowed to have a different opinion than the one they hold.

And yet somehow, we’re the ones painted as intolerant and close-minded.

Organizers of the campaign, which is expected to be announced at a news conference Thursday, say they believe it is the first time that gay rights supporters have boycotted a business whose owner seeks to ban same-sex marriage.

Leaders will urge the public to avoid the downtown hotel because they say that support for Proposition 8 amounts to unfair treatment of gays and lesbians.

“Manchester’s contribution to this anti-marriage initiative is discrimination plain and simple,” said Brigette Browning, president of Unite Here Local 30, which represents 4,500 hotel and restaurant workers.

The Manchester Grand Hyatt is not unionized.

Manchester and campaign officials from Proposition 8 did not return phone calls seeking comment.

In an interview earlier this year, Manchester said that he decided to donate to Proposition 8 because he had heard that schools that teach that marriage is between a man and a woman could be sued for discriminating against gays.

In addition, he said, he was motivated by his strong Catholic faith to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But, he said that he welcomes gays and lesbians to his hotels and restaurants.

I’ve written about sex changes before. But this one takes the cake.

A “man”, by the name of Thomas Beatie, has come out with the fact that he is pregnant. He’s expecting a girl in July with his wife, Nancy.

Liberals, of course, are simply swooning. Beatie has appeared on Oprah and is being fawned over by feminists and liberals everywhere. To them, it exemplifies their entire philosophy: if it feels good, do it.

Here’s part of Beatie’s appearance on Oprah:

Is this some fancy new scientific breakthrough? No, it’s just a woman who had a sex change and is now calling herself a man.

I am transgender, legally male, and legally married to Nancy. Unlike those in same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions, Nancy and I are afforded the more than 1,100 federal rights of marriage. Sterilization is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights. Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.

Ten years ago, when Nancy and I became a couple, the idea of us having a child was more dream than plan. I always wanted to have children. However, due to severe endometriosis 20 years ago, Nancy had to undergo a hysterectomy and is unable to carry a child. But after the success of our custom screen-printing business and a move from Hawaii to the Pacific Northwest two years ago, the timing finally seemed right. I stopped taking my bimonthly testosterone injections. It had been roughly eight years since I had my last menstrual cycle, so this wasn’t a decision that I took lightly. My body regulated itself after about four months, and I didn’t have to take any exogenous estrogen, progesterone, or fertility drugs to aid my pregnancy.

…

How does it feel to be a pregnant man? Incredible. Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant. To Nancy, I am her husband carrying our child — I am so lucky to have such a loving, supportive wife. I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.

Social questions aside, I think this only proves the point I made with my last post about sex changes. Being transgender does not actually change your gender. This Thomas Beatie is obviously still a woman! She can choose to dress like a man, have testosterone therapy and chest reconstruction, but she still has her period once a month and is able to get pregnant.

You can mutilate your genitals all you want, but it doesn’t change your gender, no matter how much you tell yourself it does. As I said before:

Now, here’s what really puzzles me about sex changes.

When it comes down to it, is the sex really changed?

I mean, think about it. Just because you castrate some guy and carve a vagina into him and pump him full of hormones, how does that make him female? There is more to a vagina than what you see in Playboy, biologically speaking. Most of it is inside our bodies, not outside. I don’t think doctors can add on a cervix, or a uterus, or ovaries, or fallopian tubes, or any of that kind of thing — just like you can’t add on a prostate or testis to a woman.

Unknowingly, Thomas Beatie has just proved my point. When she decided to carry their child, she said herself that she didn’t have to take any estrogen or any other kind of feminine hormones. She simply stopped her testosterone therapy, and boom, her body regulated itself, she was having periods again, and was able to get pregnant.

I’d say that’s a pretty compelling argument that sex changes don’t actually change your sex. You’re just wearing a permanent costume.

And what will these parents tell their daughter about her conception? Will they disclose to her that “Daddy” is really a mommy? Or will they just whitewash the entire thing?

It must be wonderful to be included as a “minority” liberal — you know, a minority race, gender, sexuality, religion, whatever. You’re free to force all of those “majority” people to bend over backwards to accomodate you in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”, regardless of how they feel or what they think about it. I mean, I’m a woman — that makes me special. Let’s say that a room that I work has too much blue in it, and naturally, rooms that I work in need to fairly represent my womanhood. Therefore, the head of my office should re-decorate the entire building to more accurately represent women and make women feel more comfortable. Even though no one in the office has complained, they’re really just suffering in silence, and if what I want isn’t done, it’s clearly because all of the men in my office are sexist. And because of that, I also think that all of the men in my office should have to go through gender equality and appreciation seminars.

See how much fun it is?? Because I’m a minority, I can make “the man” do whatever I want!! This is so awesome!

Did I saw awesome? I meant to say pathetic — forcing everyone around you to swallow your crap whether they believe in or agree with it or not.

We now have a shining new example of this in San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Garman, an open lesbian who brags to 365gay.com that she lives with her partner and is one of only a handful of openly lesbian fire chiefs in the country. She decided that four firefighters should be forced to participate in the city’s Gay Pride parade, when usually it is on a volunteer basis only.

Now, all four of those firefighters are taking legal action against their superiors, and for good reason (emphasis mine):

Four San Diego firefighters charge their superiors forced them to ride in San Diego’s Gay Pride parade.

“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some kind of sexual gesture. If any crew member were to hang up pictures at the station of what we saw, we would be disciplined.” So said one of four San Diego firefighters who say their superiors forced them, in full uniform and on their city fire truck, to attend the July 21 San Diego “Gay Pride” parade, according to an Aug. 6 press release from the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center.

The Center is representing the firefighters in their legal claims against the city of San Diego.

According to the Center’s press release, the four firefighters’ superiors told them on July 20 that they would have to ride in the parade. In the past, firefighters who attended the parade “generally did so on a volunteer basis,” said the press release. When the four firefighters protested, their superiors told them they must ride in the parade or face disciplinary action.

San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Jarman has said the parade is a “fun event and all employees are encouraged to participate.” San Diego’s Republican mayor, Jerry Sanders, appointed Jarman fire chief in June 2006. According to 365Gay.com, Jarman “lives with her domestic partner” and is “one of only a handful of openly lesbian fire chiefs in the country.”

“What happened to these dedicated public servants was inexcusable,” said Charles LiMandri, the Center’s West Coast director, who is representing the firefighters. “The City should have known from past experience the kind of offensive activities that go on at this event. This was a clear case of sexual harassment in violation of state and federal law as well as the City’s own code of conduct.”

While on parade, the firefighters “were subjected to vile sexual taunts from homosexuals lining the parade route,” said the press release. “Show me your hose,” “you can put out my fire,” “you’re making me hot,” “give me mouth-to-mouth,”“blow my hose,” were some of the comments those along the parade route hurled at the firefighters. When the firefighters did not respond, “some in the crowd turned hostile and started shouting, ‘F—k you firemen’ and others began ‘flipping them off,’” said the press release.

Some bystanders committed lewd acts, directed at the firefighters, such as exposing their genitals, grabbing the crotch, and blowing kisses. The firefighters, however, were not physically assaulted.

Last year, Chief Jarman told Gay and Lesbian Times that she has always kept her personal and private lives separate. She said she told Sanders she wanted to make the department more diverse – but, she said, “it’s not just the Gay community. I think we need to do a better job of recruiting across the board so that we reflect the community.”

Ah, tolerance.

Isn’t it great to live in a country where firefighters are made to become more tolerant of diversity by being forced to attend a Gay Pride parade where they were subjected to this kind of vile behavior?

I mean, man. Chief Jarman must be a shining little beacon of what it means to be accepting of other people’s ideals, morals, and values.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

What would you define as a medically necessary procedure? I’m sure most people would say appendectomies, heart bypasses… things along those lines, right?

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain wants to add sex change to that list.

He/She is suing the IRS when they for denying his/her write-off of $25,000 in medical expenses for a sex change (emphasis mine):

After a tormented existence as a father, a husband, a Coast Guardsman, and a construction worker, a 57-year-old suburban Boston man underwent a sex-change operation. And then she wrote off the $25,000 in medical expenses on her taxes.

But the IRS disallowed the deduction, ruling the procedure was cosmetic, not a medical necessity, in a potentially precedent-setting dispute now before the US Tax Court.

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain is suing the IRS in a case that advocates for the transgendered are hoping will force the tax agency to treat sex-change operations the same as appendectomies, heart bypasses, and other deductible medical procedures. The case is set to go to trial July 24.

An estimated 1,600 to 2,000 people a year undergo sex-change surgery in the United States, according to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

O’Donnabhain, now 63, served in the Coast Guard, got married, helped to raise three children, and worked as a supervisor at various engineering and construction jobs, including the Big Dig highway project. O’Donnabhain said she could have paid back the approximately $5,000 she received in her tax refund, but decided to challenge the IRS because she believes the ruling against her was rooted in politics and prejudice.
“This goes way beyond money,” O’Donnabhain said in an interview with the Associated Press. “If I were to give the money back, it would be saying it’s OK for you to do this to me. It is not OK for them to do this to me or anyone like me.”

The federal Tax Court has never issued an opinion in a similar case, said Jennifer Levi, a lawyer with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal organization representing O’Donnabhain.

But the IRS has ruled against allowing the deduction in at least one other case. In a 2005 case, the IRS ruled the costs of a woman’s gender reassignment surgery and related treatments were not deductible as medical expenses. The IRS cited the section of the tax code that says cosmetic surgery or similar procedures are deductible only when they are needed to improve a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease.

Where to even begin.

If O’Donnabhain wins, then basically, what will happen is that we, the American taxpayer, will be forced to pay for the choice of transgenders everywhere to disfigure themselves (more on that later). You know, when it comes down to it, if some dude wants to make himself a chick, then that’s his/her decision. I don’t want to have anything to do with it, and why should I have to pay for it??

Does O’Donnabhain care about that? Noooo! All he/she can worry about is him/herself. He/she wants a sex change, and he/she doesn’t want to have to pay for it, and because he/she is considered a “minority”, we must all roll over and submit to his/her whims because he/she thinks that otherwise… it isn’t fair!

I feel like I’m listening to a five-year-old when I hear this guy/girl go on about how he shouldn’t have to pay. All he/she has to do is stamp his/her foot and pout, and we’ll be back in kindergarten.

Thing is, a sex change is not a necessary operation. He/she sure may feel like it is, but will he/she die if he/she does not get one? Will his/her heart stop beating? Will he/she cease to breathe? Will brain function desist? I don’t think so; therefore, how can it be considered necessary?

Your choice, your money.

Now, here’s what really puzzles me about sex changes.

When it comes down to it, is the sex really changed?

I mean, think about it. Just because you castrate some guy and carve a vagina into him and pump him full of hormones, how does that make him female? There is more to a vagina than what you see in Playboy, biologically speaking. Most of it is inside our bodies, not outside. I don’t think doctors can add on a cervix, or a uterus, or ovaries, or fallopian tubes, or any of that kind of thing — just like you can’t add on a prostate or testis to a woman.

I guess I could be wrong about that, and I’m sincerely curious as to how that happens if I am wrong, so if anyone is like, an OB/GYN or something reading this and could let me know, e-mail me.

Either way, just because you disfigure yourself down there and take a bunch of hormones, it doesn’t make you the opposite sex.

As my buddy John Hawkins said, “They have male parts surgically altered to look female. I mean, if they sewed you inside a cow suit and stuck two horns on your head, you wouldn’t become a cow!”

All biology questions aside, I still don’t think this is something we, the taxpayers, should be forced to pay for just because some selfish prick doesn’t want to. Hasn’t he/she ever heard the expression “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too”? I mean, well gee, I want the government to give me a million dollars, but I bet I couldn’t sue them for that and win, could I? And wouldn’t it be incredibly selfish for me to do so? But that doesn’t matter to O’Donnabhain, does it? He/she will foist that $25,000 tab on us without thinking twice.

Regardless of how you feel about someone getting a sex change, it shouldn’t be the taxpayers’ responsibility to pick up the tab for them to have a voluntary procedure. That is wrong. And now that O’Donnabhain is suing, he/she’s going to suck up taxpayer money even if the case gets thrown out.

I hope the judge laughs him/her out of court.

That is apparently the new curriculum for German students 14 and up. Controversy is understandably brewing, and this of course is being taught in the name of “tolerance” and, as the WaPo puts it, “by practicing homosexual wooing techniques… break down age-old schoolyard prejudices”.

They say you can’t understand someone until you walk a mile in his shoes. Perhaps with this in mind, Germany’s Regional Institute for School and Media has introduced a series of exercises in which students pick up same-sex partners. Pupils 14 years old and up will participate by practicing homosexual wooing techniques — and in the process, officials hope, break down age-old schoolyard prejudices.

In the United States, conservative groups such as the Citizens for Community Values are on the record against so-called “homosexuality education” programs. In a 2004 report, the group says such programs are “nothing more than a deceptive ploy designed to preach safety while actually encouraging sexual behaviors.” The Cincinnati-based CCV has not commented specifically on this latest German innovation, but it’s a safe bet that it would oppose any programs on the gay pickup scene in American schools.

But is it likely this program will be adopted by any schools here? Not without a little tweaking, of course. I suggest that this program be expanded to include straight students as well. After all, adolescents — especially boys — of every sexual orientation and proclivity need help picking up a mate. If the program is to be true to its mission of teaching understanding and tolerance, it should ensure that no child is left behind.

It is not right to force children to do these things — become a Muslim in an immersion course, learn how to pick up gay men. I don’t understand why parents tolerate this to begin with. If I had children and they came home telling me they were learning how to pick up gay men, I would be livid. I would not rest until whoever pioneered that program was fired.

When it comes down to it, schools have no right to push these kinds of propaganda and agendas. Schools are supposed to be a place where children go to learn, not be brainwashed. The more we inflict this kind of liberal moonbattery on our children, the more worried I become. What kind of adults are we raising?

Hat tip: Moonbattery.