Updated Info: Docs Can't Withold Care to Gays

Discussion
1

Dear All;
Updated info on the case.
Yesterday the California State Supreme Court broke more ground for gay rights. But what about the rights of business owners in the first place?
Somehow or other the rights of a business owner to in effect put up a sign saying: No shoes - No Shirt - No Service has been further and severely restricted. The same has also applied to rental unit landlords as well and anyone providing a public service or selling to the public.
In the opinion this was said: 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."

FYI: 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.
BTW: Where in the state constitution does it specifically state the legislature has the right to by fiat to impose certain antidiscrimination obligations? This would also apply to drug laws and sex laws and to wearing a helmet while motorcycling and so on.
It's a capitulation by the residents of this state to the Slimy Slugs Of Sacramento. By rights the underlying law should have been ruled un-constitutional when originally enacetd and never should have been signed inmto law.
The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide variety of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.
The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.
The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from gay rights activists, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.
The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.
The Supreme Court did order a trial court to consider whether the Christian doctors were allowed to refuse inseminating Benitez because she was unmarried. The Legislature in 2006 amended the law to bar discrimination based on marital status, but it's unclear whether the doctors could legally withhold treatment in 2000.
Fortunately due to the budget deadlock Sacramento won't have the time to write a new law in the form of a bill of attainder to address the issue of the non-rights of the doctors to withhold services because the couple weren't married which weren't in effect in 2000.
The full article with the updated info is at:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1542853~Calif_top_court__Docs_can_t_withhold_care_to_gays.html
http://tinyurl.com/5a6k94
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni

2

Dear Ron,

I remember helping my daughter proofread a lengthy homework paper she
wrote at Hastings on cases going back to 2002 involving "withholding
of care," mainly by physicians refusing to perform abortions and
pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives, on religious grounds.

As I recall, the courts sided with the patients suing the care
providers, citing obligation to perform services without
discrimination. The "private property" angle, as I remember, was
summarily dismissed because 1) anti-discrimination laws are already on
the books, 2) folks who perform surgeries do it in hospitals, which in
99% of cases receive government funds one way or another, 3)
physicians and pharmacists are licensed by the state, who therefore
has the obligation of determining how that license is used.

Needless to say, my daughter and I had a lively discussion over this
paper.

Marcy

Dear All;
Updated info on the case.
Yesterday the California State Supreme Court broke more ground for

gay rights. But what about the rights of business owners in the first
place?

Somehow or other the rights of a business owner to in effect put up

a sign saying: No shoes - No Shirt - No Service has been further and
severely restricted. The same has also applied to rental unit
landlords as well and anyone providing a public service or selling to
the public.

In the opinion this was said: 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."

FYI: 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.

BTW: Where in the state constitution does it specifically state the

legislature has the right to by fiat to impose certain
antidiscrimination obligations? This would also apply to drug laws
and sex laws and to wearing a helmet while motorcycling and so on.

It's a capitulation by the residents of this state to the Slimy

Slugs Of Sacramento. By rights the underlying law should have been
ruled un-constitutional when originally enacetd and never should have
been signed inmto law.

The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide

variety of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil
rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors,

siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the
Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the

Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from gay
rights activists, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.

The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General

Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian
Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.

The Supreme Court did order a trial court to consider whether the

Christian doctors were allowed to refuse inseminating Benitez because
she was unmarried. The Legislature in 2006 amended the law to bar
discrimination based on marital status, but it's unclear whether the
doctors could legally withhold treatment in 2000.

Fortunately due to the budget deadlock Sacramento won't have the

time to write a new law in the form of a bill of attainder to address
the issue of the non-rights of the doctors to withhold services
because the couple weren't married which weren't in effect in 2000.

The full article with the updated info is at:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1542853~Calif_top_court__Docs_can_t_withhold_care_to_gays.html

3

This is one of those cases where there's really just no good
Libertarian answer that can actually happen in our lifetimes. I don't
think we're ever going to see a day when it is legal for a doctor in
California to refuse to treat a patient because of the patient's
ethnicity. So the operative question is: In a state where the
medical profession is highly regulated, and one of those regulations
is that providers are not allowed to discriminate against people,
should there be a special exemption to allow for discrimination
against gays and lesbians?

This sort of puts us in the same position we have been in on the
debate regarding whether Congress should include transgender people in
the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or just include gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals. The way we tackled that one in Outright was to say
that it was wrong for Barney Frank et. al. to exclude transgender
people from ENDA, even though we at Outright oppose ENDA altogether.
It was a weird position, but at least it's respectable. People have a
hard time attacking us for it, because it's so clearly principled.

So, in this particular case, I guess what I'd say is that it's wrong
to exclude only gays and lesbians from the antidiscrimination rules
for medical providers, but that we of course oppose all such
regulations in the first place. That position makes clear that we're
only defending private property and individual liberty, but are not
bigots.

Make sense?

Rob

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Dear Ron,

I remember helping my daughter proofread a lengthy homework paper she
wrote at Hastings on cases going back to 2002 involving "withholding
of care," mainly by physicians refusing to perform abortions and
pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives, on religious grounds.

As I recall, the courts sided with the patients suing the care
providers, citing obligation to perform services without
discrimination. The "private property" angle, as I remember, was
summarily dismissed because 1) anti-discrimination laws are already on
the books, 2) folks who perform surgeries do it in hospitals, which in
99% of cases receive government funds one way or another, 3)
physicians and pharmacists are licensed by the state, who therefore
has the obligation of determining how that license is used.

Needless to say, my daughter and I had a lively discussion over this
paper.

Marcy
>
> Dear All;
> Updated info on the case.
> Yesterday the California State Supreme Court broke more ground for
gay rights. But what about the rights of business owners in the first
place?
> Somehow or other the rights of a business owner to in effect put up
a sign saying: No shoes - No Shirt - No Service has been further and
severely restricted. The same has also applied to rental unit
landlords as well and anyone providing a public service or selling to
the public.
> In the opinion this was said: 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."
>
> FYI: 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.
> BTW: Where in the state constitution does it specifically state the
legislature has the right to by fiat to impose certain
antidiscrimination obligations? This would also apply to drug laws
and sex laws and to wearing a helmet while motorcycling and so on.
> It's a capitulation by the residents of this state to the Slimy
Slugs Of Sacramento. By rights the underlying law should have been
ruled un-constitutional when originally enacetd and never should have
been signed inmto law.
> The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide
variety of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil
rights organizations.
> The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors,
siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the
Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.
> The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the
Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from gay
rights activists, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.
> The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General
Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian
Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.
> The Supreme Court did order a trial court to consider whether the
Christian doctors were allowed to refuse inseminating Benitez because
she was unmarried. The Legislature in 2006 amended the law to bar
discrimination based on marital status, but it's unclear whether the
doctors could legally withhold treatment in 2000.
> Fortunately due to the budget deadlock Sacramento won't have the
time to write a new law in the form of a bill of attainder to address
the issue of the non-rights of the doctors to withhold services
because the couple weren't married which weren't in effect in 2000.
> The full article with the updated info is at:
>

http://www.examiner.com/a-1542853~Calif_top_court__Docs_can_t_withhold_care_to_gays.html

4

ALSO THE LAWS REGARDING PUBLIC ACCOMIDATIONS ARE DEEPLY ROOTED IN PHYSICAL NECESSITY AND IN HISTORY, AND IN COMMON LAW. PEOPLE, BOTH CITIZENS, HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED TO TRAVEL. THE PUBLIC ACCOMADATION LAWS EVOLVED TO PROTECT THE TRAVELLLER, ESPECAILLY THE KING, AND CO EVOLVED WITH THE PROPERTY LAWS AROUND PROVIDING EASEMENTS TO ISOLATED PROPERTY.

BEause public accomadation laws have such a deep history rooted in necessity, I put then near the bottom of the list when it comes to offending libertarian ideals.

This does not that they have been abused terribly, just that there some basis in legitimacy, especailly when they are used in real issues of public accomadation during travel, such as restaurants on an isolated roadside, small town hotels, and airport rest rooms.