Interesting story, but it seems to me that the headline is quite misleading. Here are the most relevant excerpts from the case:
Benitez filed the instant action in August 2001. In the first cause of action of her first amended complaint she alleges defendants violated the Unruh Act (Civ.Code, § 51.) by discriminating against her on the basis of her sexual orientation. Defendants answered the first amended complaint and asserted in their 32d affirmative defense that Benitez is barred from recovery because their alleged misconduct was "justified and protected by [their] rights of free speech and freedom of religion" under the federal and state Constitutions. Benitez moved for summary adjudication of the 32d affirmative defense and the court granted the motion, precluding defendants from raising the defense at trial. . . .
For purposes of this case, we construe the Unruh Act as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation but not prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. . . . Accordingly, if a jury were to find that Dr. Brody's and Dr. Fenton's refusal to perform IUI for Benitez was based solely on the fact she was unmarried without regard to her sexual orientation, Benitez's Unruh Act cause of action would be defeated. . . .
Dr. Brody and Dr. Fenton Are Entitled to Assert Their Constitutional Right to Free Exercise of Religion and Introduce Evidence of Their Religious Beliefs As Part of Their Proof that Their Refusal to Perform IUI for Benitez was Based on Her Marital Status . . . .
As I read this, the court did not hold that doctors' religious beliefs give them the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Rather, the court holds that the doctors have a legal right to discriminate based on marital status, rather than sexual orientation -- and thus to refuse to inseminate a woman because she's unmarried, without regard to her sexual orientation, though not to refuse to inseminate a woman because she's a lesbian -- and that their religious beliefs are *relevant evidence to show that they were indeed discriminating based on marital status*, presumably because they help show their motive.
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 1:51 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Swedish Pastor Beats "Hate Crime" Rap
try again; US article:
ktla-news-1
----- Original Message -----
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Swedish Pastor Beats "Hate Crime" Rap
US article.
Lesbian Fertility Patient Loses To "Religious Beliefs" ...
_______________________________________________
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date:
02/12/2005
_______________________________________________
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
