Doctors Lose Case in Medical Care Vs Religious Beliefs

The California Supreme Court threatens religious beliefs in a case between the medical profession and religious conviction. Is this fair? The case involved a gay woman who wanted to be artificially inseminated. These same doctors would have refused a single woman because of marital status and it was the marital status in which they made their refusal. Bear in mind, these doctors not only referred the woman to a doctor who would perform the treatment but also paid her additional costs in the issue. They also gave her fertility drugs and instructed her on how to inseminate herself at home.

Had this been a case where an individual needed a cast or stitches and the doctors refused because they were gay or whatever, that would have been an issue where the courts in my opinion, would have the right to say, you took an oath to heal and help the sick, injured, and dying, but this was not the case. The court in my opnion has over stepped it's domain and entered into the realm of restricting another individuals religious rights and freedoms. If a person has moral or religious convictions about a non essential treatment, then that person should have the right and duty to himself or herself to stand behind that moral conviction and have the right and freedom to make that decision.

Where could this decision lead to? Can employers now demand you do something against your moral or religious convictions? After all, in this case was not the woman employing the doctor to violate his convictions yet the court said they must provide the service or give up their license. No, no one should be given the power and authority to overthrow your religious or moral beliefs and the California Supreme Court Judges don't seem to understand this fibre of religious freedom and the constitutional rights.

According to one news article apparently they considered this a case of discrimination, but I say this is discrimination against the doctors BY the California Supreme Court in that because they are doctors they do not have the right to perform their duties within their religious and moral beliefs as any employee of any other business would have the right to do.

I'm sure this is an issue that could be debated at length, but the bottom line is this particular doctor had a conviction that held the sanctity of life to a married woman and has the moral conviction of the importance and psychological necessity of a mother and a father for a child to be and could not in good conscience impregnate an unmarried woman because of his beliefs and convictions. The woman can still get what she wants, but the doctor must, in order to maintain his license, deny his own backbone? That I don't believe is right.