Religious Rights and Gay Rights Incompatible?

In an LA Times article I was reading today, this example was given:

A doctor refused to articially inseminate a lesbian woman as it was against his religious beliefs (I don't know what religion, but probably one that opposes homosexuality). He referred her to another doctor, no extra charge, and offered to care for her during her pregnancy. His lesbian patient rejected his offer and is now suing him.

Also, many orphanages are run by Christian organizations. Now that gay marriage is legal in California, it is against the law for orphanages to grant gay couples custody of an orphan because of anti-discriminatory laws. But if the orphanage runners believe it is wrong to give up a child to be brought up by gay parents, they cannot allow the child to be given to same-sex parents.

So are religious and gay rights incompatible? If they are, what is to be done?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

umm your comments make no sence.

How can anti-discrimination laws forbid gay adoption.

discrimintory laws could but i doubt it would be under the anti-discrimination act, in fact it would under the familys act (or whatever its called) or under the adoption act (same again)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what i mean is, christian orphanage owners would not be allowed to refuse adoption by gay parents because that would be "discrimination against gays."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

good, as they are acting as proxies to the state (i didnt actually realise that any orphanages existed any more, thought that all wards of the state were placed in foster care now) they shouldnt alow there religious views to overrule the rights granted by the state. Anymore than doctors, nurses should be alowed to refuse an abortion based on there religious views if they work in a public hospital. If they disagree then they should find another doctor (or nurse) but should NOT delibratly stop the procidure.

The same goes for pharmacies and the morning after pill (or condoms for that matter).

If there proffessional obligations go contry to there religious belifes then they shouldnt be involved AT ALL in that industry

 

If an orphanage is run by a Christian organisation, they can set up their rules. If the state wants to enforce their rules, they should run the orphanages.

 

Take Biblical Knowledge.

God created all things. God understands all things. God knows why all things operate. God made things all operate. God made the notion of homosexuality, and therefore God made ''this so-called'' evil.

Is there not a place in the Bible where God admits to creating ''evil...''?? I do believe there is.

Now is being gay evil? There as some gay individuals, if not the larger part of the humanic race that are gay are much more nice or good natured than some straight.

 

actually thats not nessarly true SAM. If a church group acts as a proxy to the state then they act under the rules of the state.

For instance a catholic group got a contract to handle printing material for the pregancy help line. As part of this contract though they are NOT alowed to push an anti abortion message in this lituriture. They have to give all options in an unbiased way.

 

Are the Christian organisations running the orphanages subcontracting to the state? Anyway, why would a lesbian go to a Christian organisation to adopt a child? Sounds like a bid for publicity.

 

depends SAM, if they are all run by christan churches where else would they go?
Personally i find this a silly senario because as far as i know adoptions are handled by DOCS (or equivlant)

 

"Hate the sin, love the sinner." - the Bible

Christianity holds that homosexuality is evil, but that homosexuals are not.

 

Right, so homosexuals do have a place in heaven, hence the paradox. I suppose the real question is, is it the removal of sexual desire that allows a homosexual to have a place with God?

 

Entry into heaven is accomplished by faith in God and regret for one's sins. If someone prays to God and sincerely asks for him to forgive them, their sins are erased and forgotten.

So I guess if they have some sort of epiphany? :shrug:

 

Or maybe we need to become wise on what kind of God we are dealing with? Do we know God personally? Do we have a friend in Jesus?

Tell me, if i sat to meditate, which i normally do through Yogic Practices, when i feel at one with the universe, and not myself alone, have i known an experience with God? Or let me put it another way...

... Is the God we know really the way God intended us to know?

The Bible has already caused a universal complexity with our understanding of each other as a human race... perhaps God never intended for his Word to be so [[MISUNDERSTOOD]].

 

I noticed you abandoned my questions, tim.

 

Sorry I thought they were rhetorical. Hmm... Different branches of Christianity view God differently. Catholics think of him as a distant, kingly figure, while Protestants (me, for instane) view God as a friendly father figure. The way the Bible talks about God, I think the Protestants have it right. (I'll try looking up some quotes in the Bible and post them as an example).

 

Just follow the law. The welfare of an orphan takes precedence over one's personal feelings on the matter. In other words, no one has the right to impose their own religious beliefs on others.

 

The State oversees all orphanages in which children are legally , by the power of the State, placed. These orphanages should be run in accordance with State rules - education, discipline, placement criteria, etc, all within the bounds of State guidelines.

I don't see the incompatibility here. How are a religious person's rights violated by the State establishing that homosexuality is not a grounds for denying a legal adoption ?

 

i agree and thank god child wealfare IS a matter of the state, look how the churchs have handled it before (coverups, payoffs). Yes there have been state workers implicated as there have in all walks of life but the state has a much better track record for bringing charges against these people

 

I have to agree, somewhat. In the case of the orphanage, Ice is right. In the case of medical procedures, I think that it's wrong to force a physician to act against their will. Just got to a doctor who is secular.

 

super thats great if your talking about a GP in a metro area.

Take an extreem case of a country emergency doc. Girl is brought in by ambulance after being raped, the standed treatment for rape is to treat the injuries, collect any evidence, give a profalactic for any STD's (and the acopaning tests) and THE MORNING AFTER PILL.

How DARE a doctor refuse to give that last because "it goes against there morals". They swore and oath to DO NO HARM and they are breaching it by not putting there pt first.

whats next, doctors who refuse to treat people acused of certain crimes?

Thank god that in australia these sort of actions are grounds for dismissal and delistment