Assault on Religious Freedom

In yet another stellar activist judges ruling today, the California Supreme Court declared that Christian doctors are not allowed to refuse service to gay/lesbian patients based on religious grounds. The case centers around some woman named Guadalupe Benitez ( big surprise, right? ) who went to a fertility clinic seeking to be artificially inseminated so she could have children. The doctors at the clinic provided her with fertility drugs and gave her instructions on how to perform the insemination procedure on herself. They objected to doing so on religious grounds. One of the doctors at the same clinic even referred the patient to another doctor who has no morals or family values to speak of to handle the case.

On the surface, I can already see where a lot of you are going. It's discriminatory. It's immoral. It's racist. How dare you judge. I've heard it all before. So why is it not OK for a Christian doctor to refuse elective treatment to someone they find morally objectionable when Muslim doctors seem to have no such restrictions on their practice? I'll tell you in 4 letters: ACLU. Yes, that's right. Our old anti-Christian friends are back for another attack on the 1st amendment and freedom of religion. They've been unable to do much damage recently but they'll use any back door opportunity to set dangerous precedent in the courts. Even the California Medical Association initially backed the doctors until the ACLU sicked their activists on them with a flood of bogus protests and threats. This is nothing short of an all out assault on free expression and freedom of religion. The more the ACLU is allowed to get away with crap like this, the less likely we are to have these rights in the future at all. Unless you're a non-Christian of course. Or an illegal alien.

Why exactly is it that this woman was perfectly content with the outcome, having given birth to 3 children, but this is suddenly an issue worthy of wasting the court's time with? Proposition 8. For those not in the know, that's a ballot measure up for vote in California to once again ban gay marriage in this state. Why does this keep coming up for vote? Activist judges. We keep voting it in by overwhelming majority. Some judge, or panel of 3-5 judges, keeps coming along and imposing their will over that of the majority. This next time we've been forced to deal with it as a state constitutional amendment which is much more difficult for some judge to simply set aside.

This ruling is nothing short of another step toward fascism in California where Christians are the new Jews. I say this knowing full well what I'm implying. Look around you and tell me with a straight face that the ACLU is not the SS reincarnate.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« Useless Provocations
ATI Radeon 4870X2 »

Posted on Aug 18, 2008 5:12 pm by Samson in: | 7 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
You can still make these posts ranting about everything wrong in America to your own blog on the public internet, yes? And no one's kicked in your door and hauled you away for it?

Then we ain't in a fascist dictatorship yet.

I also will tell you with an extremely straight face that the ACLU is not the SS reincarnate. They take legal action. They do not shoot entire families. When they start shooting, let me know.

       
I said it was another step toward fascism, I didn't say we've arrived there yet. But in California we're working on it and rulings like this bring us one step closer to it. There's already a massive movement underway being spearheaded by the ACLU to covertly cause the adoption of Islam as a state religion in the US. The evidence is undeniable if you start digging into it.

The SS started with taking legal action too. Against people like myself who raised objections and spoke out against policy. When that failed to work they were given the authority to shoot people. Now it may be far fetched to say they ACLU will eventually get that power, but stranger things have happened. The ACLU makes it fairly clear through their actions that they will not help Christians or conservatives fight a legal battle since they perceive us as being evil.

The American Civil Rights Union on the other hand takes the fight to the courts when they deem it right and proper to do so. Like they did in the Christian doctor case here. They filed briefs on behalf of a number of organizations supporting the positions taken by the doctors - including a brief filed on behalf of an Islamic medical group right alongside one for a Christian medical group. The only reason the ACLU got involved is because it furthers their agenda of ramming the gay rights agenda down our throats whether we want to hear about it or not.

And FYI, I have received legal threats before in regard to posts I've made here. I don't discuss or publicize it because it only brings attention to those who spend their lives in pursuit of silencing opinions. Ignorance is a powerful tool when used against the right people.

       
Besides the topic at hand, which I may get to in a moment, we ought to discuss another topic, which is this whole SS business.

The SS started with taking legal action too.


Yeah, no. Insofar as the SS (and its SA predecessor/rival) got started, they were illegal bands of thugs under the control of a bunch of guys who illegally tried to subvert the government, failed, and even when they were legal (after the Nazis, if not illegally then very shadily took over Germany), their tactics and methods were more along the lines of terror and brutality. The Night of the Long Knives, Kristalnacht, any of that ring a bell?

A little less like the ACLU, a little more like bin Laden's bunch or our own brand of right wing fundies that like to bomb abortion clinics and beat up gay people, really. And they didn't magically start doing that - they started that way.

To pile on to what Sarah said, when they start shooting and gassing folks, let me know. Also good luck with that.

Also, seriously. A massive conspiracy to make Islam the state religion in a country that is somewhere around 75% Christian and... half a percent Muslim? In violation of the First Amendment? That was a whole lot more believable when it was the Vast Athiest Conspiracy. You may want to stick to that. Also to figure out the kind of mass movement logistics you'd need to pull something like that off. Again, good luck with that. Or maybe you ought to stick to the Vast Christian Conspiracy thing, t...oh wait, sorry, can't do that as a conservative, I forgot.

And, you know, I could say a lot of stuff here about the little bit I know about this, and about activist judges and all that, talk about what a horrendously stupid idea it is to let doctors decide who they'll treat based on whatever damnfool reason, or about the judiciary's role in protecting minorities from the tyrrany of the majority, and I could bring up the intentions of the Founding Fathers, blather about the Federalist Papers, and what have you.

Or, as I am more inclined to do, I could make brief mention of how noxious, how odious, how flat out un-American I find the Christian right and this whole "family values" BS to be, be perfectly happy at the California Supreme Court's decision, and briefly say "Yay for gay rights" and have done.

       
Wow. Touched a nerve! Good. That's what I'm supposed to be doing, which means I did it right this time :)

Perhaps "taking legal action" should have been worded differently. Their actions were sanctioned, which in essence makes it taking "legal" action. Sue me. Being human I sometimes make mistakes in how I word things. But the comparison is valid just the same. The ACLU is an evil organization with an agenda they've not even tried to hide. They're anti-Christian, which goes directly against the very 1st amendment they claim to cherish and defend. They're all for defending your freedom as long as you're Muslim, an illegal, or gay. Anyone else is shit out of luck including the blacks who they were once the big champions for. It may not be the big massive conspiracy you're trying to make it sound like I described, but it's there, and well documented. I'm not about to do your research for you.

Activist judges have done their best to destroy the moral fabric of this nation. So far we've managed to keep them in check but they're getting worse and worse by the day with rulings going directly against the express will of the people on multiple occasions. In more than just "gay rights" issues too. The entire concept of an independent judiciary was to keep politics out of the courtroom and to make them immune to pressure from Congress or the President. It's had exactly the opposite affect. The courts are overwhelmed with liberal activist judges who rule based on their feelings and not on what the law says. Ask any Vermont resident who keeps up with this sort of thing. Restorative justice? Please.

You might be surprised to learn that I don't much care for the Christian right sticking their noises in my business either. But at the same time, I don't much care for the gay and lesbian movements shoving their shit down my throat and demanding that I accept their behavior either. I especially despise it when they launch into their tirades about oppression and other bullshit when most people are content to leave them alone and not discuss it. It doesn't need to be discussed. Screw whoever you like, wherever you like. I don't need to hear about it on the evening news every night. If I had children I sure as hell wouldn't want them hearing about it in school every day and being told it's perfectly normal when it's plainly not. I'd be home schooling them. But look out, the ACLU has been working diligently to take that right away from me too because control by the system is lost when more parents turn to that.

This case was about a doctor exercising his constitutionally given right to refuse an ELECTIVE medical procedure. The woman was not in imminent danger of death if she was not treated. She wasn't going to suffer long term chronic health issues by being refused. Fertility clinics should be treated like any other business who has the right to refuse service to anyone. Although with the way these judges keep chiselign away our rights that will soon have to read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone* (* as long as you're single, white, and male that is. Blacks, illegals, gays, and women are exempt and we have no choice in the matter )"

       
I'm curious to hear what you think the role of judges should be, if what they're doing now is too far. I suspect also a large part of whether you think judges are overstepping their bounds with these rulings relies on two assessments on which reasonable people can disagree: to what extent an independent judiciary should directly represent the will of the people, and to what extent judges are not actually exercising their own critical facilities and legal experience in interpreting the law, but letting themselves be guided by an "agenda" (which could be of any stripe: liberal, conservative, anarchist...)

Also, where is the right to refuse an elective medical procedure enshrined in the constitution? I missed that one. (Please keep in mind that whether I think a doctor should be able to refuse an elective medical procedure is a different kettle of fish.)

I still don't agree with you that the ACLU is the SS reincarnate. I would like to add that I meant "legal" actions in the sense of "court cases," and NOT in the sense in which you subsequently used it ("sanctioned";). I do think that changes my point from how you addressed it.

You also might be interested in this: ACLU Defenses of Religious Freedom.

       
The role of a judge should be to interpret the law based on how it is written in the statutes or stated in the constitution. The interpretation should be limited to legal opinion only and be backed up specifically by something explicitly stated. They are not doing this. They are instead routinely legislating from the bench based on how they feel it should be done vs what the law says should be done. They were not appointed to become a judicial fiat. They were never even granted much of the authority they've now assumed for themselves. How often do you now hear it said that "I'll go to court to see this changed" rather than "I'll call my Congressman to see this changed"? Stop and think about why that is and tell me it's not setting a dangerous precedent for people to expect the COURTS to decide on new policy rather than the legislature or the voters. Conservatives generally apply the "what does the law say, and is it contradictory to the constitution or other state/federal law" rather than the oft applied liberal version of "gee, this doesn't seem right, I need to find a way to make it right". If it doesn't seem right, lobby Congress and get the law changed. Or in states like California, launch an initiative measure to put it on the ballot and let the people decide. The problem is most liberals never get what they want this way and resort to filing lawsuits because they didn't like the outcomes.

An elective medical procedure is no different than going to the store to buy jeans. You don't need either one. There is no danger of you dying if you don't get either one. Your health is not going to be negatively impacted if you don't get either one. In fact, in some circles, elective surgery is frowned upon by doctors who discourage doing it for the sake of doing it. As happens far too often now in this country and around the world. So in that sense, going to a plastic surgeon or a fertility clinic is more or less akin to shopping for a new set of boobs or a baby. Sorry if being this blunt about it is offensive but that's what these people are REALLY doing. So in that context, the doctor is a retailer and therefore has the right to refuse service to anyone. It's in the California Retail Code and those signs posted all over the place exist because of laws like it.

As far as the ACLU, my response is simple: http://www.theacru.org/aclu-outrages/

       
Agreed. Finally you get one right. ;-)

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31