I believe anti-gay discrimination is ridiculous. I'm pro-gay marriage. But this ruling is very troublesome. Offensive shouldn't always mean illegal, and I think the court made the wrong decision. As misguided as they are, the doctors had a right to decline due to their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be allowed to decline life-saving treatment based on those beliefs, but this certainly wasn't life-saving treatment.

I'm glad that Ms. Benitez won her court case. Her sexual orientation and marital state are none of the doctor's business -- last time I checked, it was legal for an unmarried, non-heterosexual woman to get an artificial insemination.

Hopefully this ruling also applies to pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescriptions for birth control.

Doctors aren't even allowed to ask you what your orientation, diet, personal habits are. Because that would be offensive. Sure people will die as a result, but ideology trumps all.

I'm an atheist but I believe religious freedom is important. If some religious fanatic doesn't want to help lesbians have children he shouldn't have to. There are more than enough doctors in California who will happily do the job. I think that hospitals and practices who hire doctors should be allowed to demand in their contract that they not discriminate based on sexual orientation, and should in fact do so, but if someone wants to set up a practice that caters only to heterosexuals that is within their rights. We license doctors to avoid putting patients at risk, not so we can control who they treat (otherwise we wouldn't let the best plastic surgeons focus so much of their work on facelifts and nose jobs when they could be doing reconstructive surgery.) I would be fine with a law saying that doctors cannot deny emergency care to anyone for reasons of discrimination, but such a law is unnecessary since I can't imagine there are even 100 doctors in the country who would not provide emergency care to gays and lesbians, even if they don't approve of the 'lifestyle.'

Government services should not be allowed to discriminate, private services should be. It's called freedom of association and its important. Plus, would you really want a doctor who didn't approve of you and didn't want to be working on you doing so when there are plenty of equally qualified physicians who suffer from no such internal conflict? This is unnecessary and unjust government meddling, and I say that as someone who thinks both religion and homophobia are ignorant bunkum.

Sickening. While I agree that a doctor should not for instance, deny emergency care to a patient due to their religion, that is not the case here.

The patient was seeking voluntary treatment, not of medical necessity. In that instance, a doctor should have the right to refuse service to anybody. Isn’t that better than the government forcing him to work against his will? Would you want to see a doctor that was being forced to work against his will?

The solution to this problem was mentioned in the story. “Benitez, by the way, took her business elsewhere long ago.” Sounds like a good solution. The doctor didn’t want her and she didn’t want the doctor. They both got what they wanted. Why must the court force them together?

...to be a doc who can't refuse service?

Fine, don't go to college. Open a bar.

Hang a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Then, if a lesbian enters your bar, you can say, "Can' you read?"

If a doc refuses treatment, voluntary or not, because the sky fairy allegedly told him to do so, don't you think he's psychologically and socially harming that patient?

People who hear all other voices are mentally ill, but people who hear God's "voice" are religious.

These might not be the best facts, but make no mistake, using the availability of other doctors as an excuse for why these doctors did no wrong is seriously misguided. If the court had reached the opposite result, those who want to cram morals-based medical care down the throats of the rest of us would have no difficulty taking the decision and using it to pressure hospitals and other care providers not to provide select health care services to gays and unmarried women, and to punish non-conforming providers. This is indeed what has happened with abortion and why it's impossible for many doctors and hospitals to provide abortion services. The fact that this virus is spreading to the provision of contraception and fertility services should trouble all of us, and I am extremely grateful that the California Supreme Court finally recognized that access to health care services is important, and that practicing a profession requires some commitment to honoring that ideal.

OK, I know I'm going to get some terminology mixed up here and I apologize for that in advance.

But recently, there was a big hoo-ha about a bill that was (I think) rejected by Congress but signed in by the president that states, basically, that a medical professional cannot lose his/her job because of refusing to perform certain medical duties that conflict with his/her religion. In other words, if the doctor's religion says "no birth control," the doctor doesn't have to prescribe birth control and there will be no consequences for that doctor.

That seems to be in direct opposition to this ruling by the California State Supreme Court.

Is there a conflict? Will these two legal matters go head to head in the SCOTUS? How will that play out?

A Doctor has as much right to stick to their convictions as anyone does. Having to choose between ethics and employment is a horrible thing; EXCEPT when you need a state license to practice, a license that forbids discrimination.

A doctor (like any professional experiencing a conflict of interest) has two options: They can change to an area of practice that doesn't compromise their religious beliefs, or they can resign.

The lesbian gains a "right" to a test tube baby, and the doctor loses her right to practice her religion.

I guess those "rights" have to come from somewhere...