I simply cannot imagine how gay marriage might force a doctor to choose between her faith and her job.

Wouldn't it be blasphemous to save any gay person, then? Why would it matter if he/she is married to a member of the same sex?

did a little research. The doctor is against artificial insemination for lesbian couples because of her religion.

It was basically a propaganda reel. The examples they used the video have were based on events that don't really connect gay marriage to anything evil. Just gays in general.

"The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad"

The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn't just about rights for same-sex couples, it's about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:

(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job

(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can't support same-sex marriage

(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay

The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.

All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don't want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.

The real facts of each case are:

· The California doctor entered a profession that promises to "first, do no harm" and the law requires her to treat a patient in need - gay or straight, Christian or Muslim - regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith - it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.

· The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization's beliefs about homosexuality - it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.

· The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son's public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family's religious traditions.

There are valid gripes with discrimination laws. I think private property, commercial or not, should be allowed to turn back anyone it wants. I just would never, ever goto a store or restaurant that did not allow gay patrons.

Yes, these religious bigots are just trying to capitalize on a more reasonable sect of the "Right wing". "Well, gay marriage is wrong because it doesn't allow us to discriminate as we please.". That would be true either way.
The same goes with the issue about birth control and abortions. Your job title requires you sell pills or perform abortion. You should be fired if you aren't willing to do your job. Go find another ****ing job.

Jason wrote:

---

I'd rather go to a socially responsible pharmacist/doctor. I wish they would allow these kinds of discrimination so I could be better informed about the ideology of those whom I patronize. I don't want to be supporting mindless, overzealous bigots without even knowing it. I'd rather give my money to a more morally upright business.

---

I would be in favor of this. I know it would crush my spirits if I knew of all the closed minded businesses I've help stay open over the years.

If given the choice between a pharmacist who is a moronic ideologue and one who is not, I will always prefer the latter.

Even if it's not advertised, you know these people throw some serious money into the collection plate each Sunday. Wealthy Christians tend to donate heavily to bigoted Christian causes.