Ask not for Whom the Bell Tolls...

August 18, 2008 will go down in history as a milestone for the ethical crumbling of this once great nation of ours. On this date, the California Supreme Court stated that a doctor cannot elect not to perform an elective procedure on purely moral or religious grounds!!!!!

A lesbian woman asked to be artificially inseminated. A doctors' office (two doctors involved) refused on moral and religious grounds but referred the woman to a different doctor who would perform the procedure. The woman sued the doctors claiming that they had discriminated against her on the basis of her orientation.

on August 18, 2008, the California Supreme Court made a ruling in Benitez extending a rule which essentially states that if a statute is not discriminatory on its face, the fact that it causes discrimination is irrelevant. For example, a statute which says hats can not be worn in public does not on its face discriminate against any group. Therefore, the fact that it discriminates against religious Jews is irrelevant and the statute stands.

First we took the language of the First Amendment and said that it created a "Wall of Separation" between state and religion. Of course no such language is in there. Now we learn that "Congress shall make no law" respecting the free exercise of religion doesn't really mean no law. It means no law that doesn't offend the gay lobbiest. It means no law that doesn't specifically state, "This law is being passed to infringe on the rights of ______ religion." So long as it doesn't in so many words spell out that it applies only to a particular religion, it passes muster. In fact, we can extend the concept to state that if the law discriminates against multiple religions, then it does not single out a particular religion and is thus a non-discriminatory law. (By the way, please don't correct me by stating that the First Amendment is Federal and this was a state case. Per the fourteenth amendment and the cases interpreting it, the Bill of Rights applies to the state governments as well.)

Now take this scenario. A woman "finds out/decides" she is lesbian and leaves her husband, then fights for custody. Am I, as an attorney, now required to take this case because I am not allowed to decide which cases not to take on a religious or moral objection. Now let's take the man that beats his wife and threatens her with a weapon. Am I required to take his custody case, because my objection is based on moral or religious grounds. How far does our degradation of society have to go before we call out to Heaven and cry, "How much longer, Oh Lord, before you do justice to this world?"

Praise Him daily (although the day approaches when this too will become illegal) and He will bless you abundantly. G-D Bless.