do gay rights compromise religious rights?

We'll see what happens when it gets decided before the CASC, but I think that you are going to have a hard time squaring forcing someone to provide medical treatment that goes against his religion with the 1st ammendment.

In fact, haven't the courts sided with those wacko fundementalists who think that prayer constitutes medical treatment?

 

I don't. I'll take $20 on the court.

Lesbian woman goes for insemination.
Doctor says no. Claims it's against her religion.
You are going to have to show me exactly which religion says "don't inseminate the homosexuals" to make a religious freedom case.

The non-treatment (or withholding) doesn't stem from the fact that the doctor has some religious obligation that prevents her from delivering the treatment.

The non-treatment stems from the fact that the doctor simply doesn't want to inseminate someone who she disapproves of - a lesbian (i.e. a sinner). In this case the sin is homosexuality and the doctor has decided that she just can't inseminate a homosexual.

If the doc said I'm not inseminating liars or adulterers, I doubt you'd be as snowed by the "religious freedom" bullshit being tossed around. But it's not any different.

 

Which, as the first clearly says, he is free to do.

You'd be wrong on that.

Egg Zachary.

 

If this were a religious case - but it's not. In this case, we're just talking about some douchebag that's decided to withhold their services from one specific portion of the population. Religion is the sorry excuse - not the reason.

 

Possibly in that case. The fact of the matter is though that this guy is being sued because he felt he was being asked to do something that he believes is against his religion, which makes it kind of hard to square with not infringing on his freedom to worship how he wants.

I'm guessing that you would have a problem with the doc witholding the treatments from a serial child abuser or molestor, would you?

The bottom line is that it is pretty inevitable some couple is going to sue a church for not marrying them in that church.

 

yes, but only in cases where the only person affected is the person refusing treatment. The Courts have been pretty clear that in cases when another person(in this case usually a child of the person refusing treatment) is involved, the fundimentalist's rights are limited.

 

And they'll lose. The courts cant make churches perform a ceremony that is not ordained by The Bible. Also, it's against the beliefs of that church. Its just like a company can't refuse a person for a job all on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Maybe they should consult a Metropolitan Community "Church" (who publicly endorses the sins of homosexuality, and staffs pastors and deacons who are flaming homosexuals/lesbians) to perform the ceremony. I do have to ask.....What are the vows like? I bet they're butchered to no end.

 

The vows for the "commitment" ceremonies I've been to have been pretty much the same as those in "traditional" weddings.

 

I don't think you're correct on that. The people I've talked to seem to think that a church would almost certainly lose. Essentially, if you're providing a public service then you can reserve the right to deny individuals, but not groups of people based on prejudice, even if that's part of what your group is. Churches will be forced to marry gays or stop marrying anyone, whether they like it or not.

 

I know of churches that refuse to marry people if both aren't members, people who have been divorced and people who have been living in "sin." I guess those folks should have sued.