I am from the chain of thought that the word shouldn’t be the focus, equality under the law should. If a religion doesn’t recognize the union between two people of the same sex, why in the world would anyone want to be “married” which denotes a religious union?

I feel that whether you gay or straight- being “married” outside of a church setting or having a non-clergy member presiding such as a city official that has the authority, shouldn’t call it a marriage. It is a Union between two people who love each other. Isn’t is better to fight for the rights of a union, which isn’t a dirty word, than to try to beat down those who hold the concept of “marriage” dear and try to change the meaning?

Maybe sometime in the future the religious community will consider changing the meaning, but I highly doubt it. Everybody would get along much better if tolerance was shown on both sides and I love the way you explain all the issues that the gay/lesbian community care about here on your website.

There are issues that we all can agree on and I thank you for the stand you take. I believe the left, the liberals use all kinds of people, gay, poor, black, young against the straight, rich, white and the old for political gain and appreciate it that you recognize that also.

Thank you, I really enjoy reading the posts and the articles you provide. I have very close friends who are gay (yeah, sounds like a cliché, “some of my best friends are.. I know..) who believe in a strong defense, a free market and shake their heads at the direction the leftists want to take this country, their Socialist agenda..

if you’re going to offer a service to the public, you offer a service to all the public, or don’t offer the service at all.

Nope.

Example one – A matchmaker who restricts her practice to a certain type of client (say, wealthy executives), despite others also being able to pay. A Beverly Hills beautician who only serves, say, famous actors. A psychic astrologer who only serves, say, people who believe in psychics and astrology.

Example two – If you, sonicfrog, knew that a certain consumer was an unreformed pedophile and that your work would have the effect of making their lives easier – ultimately making it easier for him to prey on kids – would you still work for him? I hope not.

So conscience can, should and does play an important limiting role on whom you serve. I am not saying the AI lesbian is like the pedophile. No, no, no. I am saying that *the doctor in question* apparently understands it that way… and since *she* is providing the work, not you or me, it is *her* decision (not yours or mine). Her decision about her work. Yes, she’s wrong, in my view. And she has every right to be wrong. I call it, individual freedom.

I hope not, and (as a compliment to you) I expect not. Because it would mean you aren’t exercising your personal conscience. So, yes it’s your personal conscience entering into it (I hope) and playing a decisive role. “I won’t do work with a probability of physical injury” is a stand of personal conscience. Strike zero.

Once again, it’s not just my personal conscience, we’re talking about, it’s the probability of physical injury to the consumer, and the fact that I could be held liable for that injury. So again. Strike One.

it was a matter of the safety of the customer

…violating which would go against your personal conscience. Strike zero.

HERE is more info on the case. Interesting. And libertarian leaning law prof. Eugene Volokh seems to side with the courts too, though his comments are more procedural:

“Up until the 1960’s, the court’s general view was that the Free Exercise (of religion) clause (in the U.Sf. Constitution) does not give anybody the right to exemption,” Volokh told CNSNews.com.

“From 1963 to 1990, they took the view that, at least in theory, it does give somebody the right to exemption,” he said. “And in 1990, in the Employment Division vs. Smith decision, the court returned to its earlier model and said, ‘No, the Free Exercise Clause only involves law that singles out religion for special burdens.’”

Once again, if you’re going to offer a service to the public, you offer a service to all the public, or don’t offer the service at all. Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

PS. After reading the case, I do have more empathy for the Doctors in the case. And I wonder. Did the plaintiff in the case chose this clinic knowing full well that they would not get that specific treatment, thus opening the door for the lawsuit? It’s been done before!

No, it wasn’t just against my personal conscience, it was a matter of the safety of the customer. So strike one.

Uh Oh, the Sonic-Mate is demanding I stop. I have a moral obligation to do so… or get my ars kicked!!!

ILC, you demanded a response

Not quite. I only pointed out that you hadn’t yet given one.

It’s a superb question

Thank you

in the fifties and sixties… [blacks] having to ride on the back of a bus… not be[ing] able to use the same restrooms as whites… positive changes occurred in large part because of our governments interference… the government does sometimes make the right choice

Yes… and what is the relevance? (to what I said, or to whether a doctor has the right to refuse to perform acts that would go against her conscience?)

Note that buses and restrooms subsidized by public funds necessarily belong to all the public, and all should have the same general type of access.

And note that government has legitimate functions such as police, courts and military – all of which necessarily “interfere” with the actions of wrongdoers and which I am most heartily in favor of. Enslaving the populace – i.e., compelling private citizens to do work against their conscience – simply isn’t among government’s legitimate functions.

As a business owner I do have the right to refuse service to anyone

Exactly.

I’d better be sure the reason is just

Practically, yes. And morally, yes. But legally, no, you shouldn’t have to worry. If there is some arm of government second-guessing your choices, well, there shouldn’t be. Freedom, of necessity, must include the freedom to make mistakes and/or to be a dick. Otherwise, it isn’t freedom. Note that others (should) have the freedom to boycott you, spread the word about you, etc., if you are a dick.

This is a very good reason to refuse service.

In other words: Performing the work would have gone against your personal conscience. So, you refused. Excellent. Now, please grant others the same right to refuse their own, personal service efforts on the basis of their own conscience.

I would not refuse the job because they were fat and smelled. There would be no real justification for it.

That’s all very interesting, but I am afraid you still haven’t addressed my earlier question: How do you justify granting some reasons for refusing to provide service and not other reasons? How do you justify picking and choosing among the reasons? You did say:

if [the doctor] is offering the service to one group of people, and denying it from another, that doctor should have a reasonable basis for doing so

OK… “Reasonable”, according to whom? “Reasonable”, by what standard?

My position is simpler and more consistent: No private actor should be compelled to do positive work against their own conscience or desire. Compulsion of private actors is slavery.

I don’t consider religious beliefs to be proper justification for denying [insemination] service to lesbians

There it is. Thank you for your honesty. You believe that you and the State have the right to compel private actors to work against their own religious conscience. Again, I’m not sure what your justification is, other than whim. And I don’t agree.

Regards,
Peter H.

??????????????

Oh, this blog now advocates playing make-believe? Seriously, this blog is nothing but complaints about LCR, Andrew Sullivan, and airlines. It is derivative and whiny.

Instead of writing about what you want other people to write about, why don’t you just write it yourself?

After reading the case, I do have more empathy for the Doctors in the case. On a side note, I wonder. Did the plaintiff in the case chose this clinic knowing full well that they would not get that specific treatment, thus opening the door for the lawsuit? It’s been done before!

ILC, you demanded a response:

Anyway, you still haven’t answered my question:

[ILC] Why those exceptions? On what basis can you argue for them or any exceptions, *IF*, as you say, the doctor “has no right”?

It’s a superb question, and in retrospect, I would not have used toe term “right” in this fashion. Never the less. I will address this on two levels.

When I was student teaching at a predominately minority high school last spring, I was amazed at how little the students knew about discrimination experienced by their forefathers. Oh, sure, the kids all felt they had been discriminated against at one time or another in their lives, and some felt they were being discriminated against today. I cannot judge that either way. But then I showed them some video of the treatment of blacks in the fifties and sixties, and they had no idea it was like that. They had no concept of having to ride on the back of a bus. They had no concept of what it was like to not be able to use the same restrooms as whites. They had no concept of not being able to go to the school around the corner because it is a whites only school. That made me very happy. But I also took pause, because I recognize that these positive changes occurred in large part because of our governments interference in the status quo of the time. Like it or not, the government does sometimes make the right choice, even if if goes against the will of the majority at times.

I own my own business “Frog’s Pool Service and Spa Repair”. As a business owner I do have the right to refuse service to anyone, but I’d better be sure the reason is just. For instance, a number if years ago, a customer called me to fix their spa. I go to the house, check the spa equipment, and find that the electric heater has burned out. But I also find that the spa is connected to the house electrical in an unsafe manner. The customer wanted the heater fixed, but would not (for what ever reason) also fix the unsafe electric connection, I did not take the job because (A) the customer could shock themselves if they used the spa, which they would have happened if I’d have fixed only the heater, and (B) I will not put myself in a position to be liable if they later shock themselves and claim that I was responsible because I did not fix the electrical problem. This is a very good reason to refuse service.

I Hate Slobs.

They were severe fat slobs, and had twenty or so cats; I almost gagged as I walked through their house. It smelled in the backyard too – cat poo. But I would not refuse the job because they were fat and smelled. There would be no real justification for it. Now I could say that, in my experience, more often than not, customers who are fat slobs tend not to take proper care of their spa water, which, if left untreated, can lead to some nasty bacteria growing in the spa, which, in turn, can result in a trip to the emergency room. I’ve had a couple of friends experience it. Not fun. Given this, I still couldn’t refuse the job because I have no way of knowing if these people are going to take care of their water. But I DO know that the likelihood of the customer getting shocked from the improper connection is high.

Are you saying that, by virtue of having a medical degree or possessing medical knowledge, a person is obligated to do work when you (or society) demand it?

No, but if he or she is offering the service to one group of people, and denying it from another, that doctor should have a reasonable basis for doing so. And I guess this is the elephant in the room, and ultimately where we differ – I don’t consider religious beliefs to be proper justification for denying the service to lesbians. I side with the court on this one.

Pathetic.

Anyway, the difference is even if we’re hard wired to stray, humans are more than a conglomeration of chemical impulses. We can say no.

To say “Men are built to stray, so we must” is to deny we’re different than a simple animal.