Recent Articles
Home » All posts

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Foster Families Foster God

Sunday, March 1, 2015 - 0 Comments

Forrest Knox, republican senator of Kansas, proposed a newbill that will change the setup of some foster families.  Senate Bill 158 has standards that, if met, qualify foster families to be considered CARE families. The foster family must have heterosexual married guardians, nonsmokers and nondrinkers, and must attend some type of social gathering weekly. As well, if the couple decides to have other jobs, one parent must stay home while the other works. “The home will provide a comfortable, informal, stable and secure setting – a traditional home with a loving father and mother,” Knox said. Knox even admitted that he hopes to see those who go to church applying for this foster program. CARE families are different than regular foster families because CARE granted more control over their foster kid’s lives. They are granted permission to homeschool train them and be funded for this training by the government. According to the article, each homeschooled foster child would be granted roughly $3,838 that is intended to service their academic needs. However there are few regulations and limitations with this money. The money does not have to go towards a secular curriculum. The parents have the freedom to teach them however they please. This bill has other loop holes that are being challenged amongst senators, such as excluding biological parents from making decisions about the foster children.

The bill is undeniably controversial, especially with the standards set in place.  Some may argue this is a violation of separation of church and state because it promotes certain moral values upheld by Senator Knox. It discriminates homosexual couples from participating in this public program, for no other reason than a ‘stable and secure setting’ for the children. The requirement to attend a weekly social group larger than a family does not have any clear unconstitutional flaws. However, it is arguable that this standard advantages candidates who go to religious groups to be eligible for the CARE program more than others. The nonsmoking and nonalcoholic environment most definitely has benefits in keeping the foster kids safe. However, the intent behind these rules are questionable. If this is a public program for those in Kansas, it should have secular standards and secular reasoning behind these standards.
The education factor is another controversial portion of the bill. In class we have discusses several cases where the state is compelled to fund the education of religious schools in order to better the child and allow them the same educational opportunity through academic materials, field trips, and even teaching.  We have discovered that there is a narrow line between what is acceptable and unacceptable via standards like the Lemon Test in determining whether public funding for private schools is unconstitutional. With this bill, the choice of education for the child will not be the decided by the biological parent, but by foster guardians. With the requirement of “weekly social gathering attendance” the households of these families will very likely be religious. These values can become entangled in their homeschool curriculum. It would be impossible to regulate what and how the foster parents decide to teach their kids. Therefore funding these academics would be unconstitutional.
I think this bill shouldn’t be passed because of its several inconsistent standards. Public programs such as foster care, are supposed to provide a safe and positive environment for children who are parentless or come from abused backgrounds. The CARE families embody only one type of ‘betterment’ and I believe it is based from Knox’s moral views on a “healthy family”. Same sex marriage is illegal in Kansas but disqualifying their household from applying to this program, when they cannot be a ‘stable and married’ household by law makes no sense. They are considered unfit because they are not married, but they are prohibited by the law. Also, the money grant for homeschool education is debatable. I don’t think it is constitutional that the government needs to fund a public program to potentially sponsor religious education. These kids should be able to receive public education, being that it is a stable and monitored facility for their growth. I think this bill will and can lead to several slippery slopes. For example, I’m sure Knox did not intend for the families weekly meetings to be at nontraditional or radical religious groups. With 41% of Kansas being Christian or Catholic and 50% identifying as religious, it is quite clear who is advantaged in this bill. I think the foster care system should instead be improved to seek the betterment of the child, rather than implementing a new program that is biased to religious households.

Limits of the Free Exercise Clause: Religion in the Workplace

- 0 Comments

            A case brought forward to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals sought to overrule a court martial conviction against a Marine Corps member who disobeyed a lawful order. According to facts of the case, the appellant printed copies of “the biblical quote ‘no weapon formed against me shall prosper’ on paper.” Once these were created, the appellant would cut the quotes into different sizes and post them on her desk in three different places. The reasoning behind this placement was that she was a Christian and this was a way of exercising her faith. The arrangement the quotes were aligned in signified the holy trinity of the Christian faith.
        
     After being given a court martial conviction for defying an order to remove the biblical quotes, the appellant sought out charges claiming that her freedom of exercise had been violated. Under this protection, the appellant felt she had the right to express her beliefs through this religious motivated action. However, the court rejected this appeal. According to the court, “the definition of a ‘religious exercise’ requires the practice be ‘part of a system of religious belief”.” Since the appellants practice of placing cut out biblical quotes isn't a wide held practice of the Christian faith, and then it isn't protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the 1stAmendment.  The courts stated that “for these reasons, we reject the appellant’s invitation to define ‘religious exercise’ as any action subjectively believed by the appellant to be ‘religious in nature’.”
           
The question that emerges from this case is whether all religiously motivated activities, such as the pasting of biblical quotes on one’s office desk, are protected under the Free Exercise Clause. It can be taken further to include whether any action that has personal religious meaning should be covered under the Free Exercise Clause.

            Looking at it from the perspective of the courts, it could be understood that practicing one’s beliefs in any manner can be seen as a slippery slope.  Someone can say that human sacrifice is an expression of their personal faith, and as such, cannot be attacked as illegal due to 1st Amendment protections. On the point of this instance leading to a slippery slope, I agree with the court’s ruling. The issue that emerges for me is that many people express their beliefs in various different ways that are held as constitutional even though it isn't considered “part of a system of religious belief”. For example, on street corners in almost any major city, protesters can be seen seeking to gain attention on the behalf of a certain issues. These issues can range anywhere from religious to social beliefs. Protesting isn't considered part of the religious system of any religion. However, these people are expressing their beliefs that are deemed as religious through this option that isn't covered by an established religious body. Thus, my opinion tends to side more with protecting the individual’s religious freedom.

            I believe that the court ruled incorrectly in determining what is protected under the Free Exercise Clause. People should be allowed to express themselves religiously in whatever means that are appropriate for themselves. However, the slippery slope dynamic must be noted and certain stipulations to my opinion should be created in order to avoid the potential issues of having unlimited freedom to express oneself religiously. The means in which someone expresses themselves religiously should be protected as long as they are not harming society or any other individual. For this case, we can see that no harm was being committed to society or another individual. The actions of the appellant also do not harm a compelling state interest, and there are no social restrictions (such as a law or common social norm) which would restrict the appellant. While the appellant’s religious activities in this case can be seen as not harmful, others could try to evoke more violent or hurtful measures as personal religious practices. These activities should not be covered under the Free Exercise Clause. Since the appellant was only placing Bible quotes throughout her desk and it wasn't infringing on anyone else’s rights, she should have been granted protection under the Free Exercise Clause.

What are your own opinions of this case? Should unlimited personal religious exercise be seen as covered under the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment as long as it doesn't harm another’s basic rights? Has the court ruled appropriately in the decision for this case?

The case can be found at: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2015/03/court-martial-conviction-for-refusal-to.html

Alabama and Same-Sex Marriage: The Authority of the Constitution and God

- 0 Comments

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore strongly opposes same-sex marriage. His opposition is so great, in fact, that he has stated that he would not recognize same-sex marriage in his court room. Justice Moore’s public outcry to same-sex marriage emerged on the heels of two District Court rulings that declared that Alabama’s anti-marriage laws were unconstitutional. On February 9, 2015 District Judge Granade legally recognized same-sex marriage in Alabama in two cases: Searcyv. Strange and Strawser v. Strange. Moore, however, is attempting to defy this ruling by ordering state judges to continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Moore and other state officials appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay—or an application for review of a case by the Supreme Court—but were denied. In an interview, Moore asserted that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on same-sex marriage going as far as to say that “When a word’s not in the Constitution clearly, the powers of the Supreme Court do not allow them to re-define words and seize power” (quoted in Doug 2015, 2). In Alabama, today, 11 counties still refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and 9 have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether.
Defying his oath to uphold federal and state law by appealing to God constitutes excessive entanglement between religion and the government. Furthermore, it violates the First Amendment prohibition of establishment of religion. Moore, however, believes that he is not bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling and has said that if a same-sex marriage case came before him he would dissent. Moore even compared same-sex marriage to slavery, citing the Dred Scott Case in 1857, in which a Supreme Court Justice dissented against the ruling that free blacks could not be recognized as citizens. Moore appealed to Dred Scott to defend his stance on same-sex marriage, stating “They ruled black people were property. Should a court today obey such a ruling that is completely contradictory to the Constitution?” (quoted in Doug 2015, 1). In my opinion, this comparison is ridiculous and if a comparison is to be made between the two cases it would seem more viable as an appeal in favor of marriage equality.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—passed in 1996—was unconstitutional, as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. DOMA was a federal law which holds that states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were licensed under the laws of other states. This denied important financial benefits to same-sex couples which are allotted to heterosexual couples. DOMA shows that there is precedent for the federal government to define what marriage is and this recent ruling displays the authority of the Constitution.
Many, including Moore, believe that the decision of same-sex marriage should be decided by each individual state and not involve the federal government. While I think that each state should make its own choice, I believe that all states are subject to the Constitution—most importantly the equal protection clause. Furthermore, while I believe that everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, it is inappropriate for a State Supreme Chief Justice to invoke religious law over the laws of our nation, as he did when he claimed that “This power over marriage, which came from God under our organic law, is not to be redefined by the United States Supreme Court or any federal court” (quoted in Doug 2015, 3).  When it comes down to it, the laws of the United States are governed by the Constitution and not God. Madison and Jefferson were adamant concerning the necessity of the separation of church and state and they were two of the most pivotal framers of the Constitution.   
            What do you think about the Supreme Court’s authority to rule on same-sex marriage? Do you think that Chief Justice Moore’s appeal to God necessitates excessive entanglement? Or does he have the First Amendment Right of Free Exercise to justify his actions?    

Can a Facebook Post Get a Teacher Fired?

- 0 Comments

A public-school teacher, and the plaintiff in the case Knox v. Union Township Board of Education, was suspended after expressing her religious views on her personal Facebook page.  On a private computer and outside of school hours Jenyé Viki Knox expressed her disapproval in a school billboard that contained homosexual content and engaged in a series of comments explaining her religious beliefs on this topic.  Knox argued that homosexuality is a sin and is disobedient to God, and therefore inconsistent with her religious views.

Knox was employed at the Union Township High School as a special education teacher, and also served as the adviser for a Christian Bible Study club and the school's Gospel Choir.  The school knew of her religious beliefs and that Knox was also an ordained minister, yet following the school administration's discovery of her post, Knox was pressured to "say that her religious beliefs were wrong."

Without notice and in front of students and teachers Knox was removed from her classroom and taken to a room to be questioned by the Board's attorney, the Assistant Superintendent, and the Vice President of the teachers' union.  It was during this series of questioning that Knox was pressured to abandon her religious views and was criticized for her beliefs and her expression of them.

Knox was permitted to return to her classroom, but only two days later was again removed from her classroom to be told by the Board Superintendent that she would be suspended with pay for the content of her Facebook posts and comments.  Following her suspension, Knox's health deteriorated which led her to resign as a result of "the stress of the intimidation, harassment, and emotional distress that resulted from the investigation and the Defendants' actions."  Four months following Knox's resignation a settlement agreement was reached in which Knox agreed to resign and pay back the salary earned during her suspension.

Knox is now filing complaint on ten accounts ranging from violation of Due Process and Equal Protection to breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  For the purposes of this argument, however, I will focus on her complaints of violation of Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses.

The Board of Education filed a motion to dismiss Knox's complaints, and a District Court has granted the motion on some of Knox's complaints, yet denied the motion on all complaints regarding her constitutional religious rights.  I agree with the Court's decision to deny the Board's motion.

In Tinker v. Des Moines School District it is held that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," but the Court also established that teachers are agents of the state and therefore must not establish a religion with their actions in the classroom.

I would object to a teacher expressing views in a classroom consistent with those that Knox posted on Facebook because, as Tinker established, a teacher represents the state and such comments could be perceived as an establishment of religion.  Knox's Facebook post and comments, however, are her private expression of religion; a teacher's religious beliefs that are expressed outside of school hours and in one's private life should not be regulated or even monitored by the state.

The state needs to take an accommodationist stance on this issue by permitting teachers to express whatever religious views they please outside of school so long as the teacher's views are not expressed in their teaching.  To regulate a teacher's religious beliefs and actions in her private life would be extremely detrimental to her exercise of religious freedom, and with little benefit to the state.  As long as it can be proven that a teacher does not impose her religious views on non-consenting students (those outside of religious clubs of which a teacher might be the adviser) the state has no business monitoring the religious expression of teachers as there is no fear of establishment.

Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Athlete

- 0 Comments


Mohamed Fall is a 28 year old immigrant from Senegal. Fall was a basketball star at Ohio Christian University, earning Ohio Collegiate Athletic Conference Player of the Year and Second Team NCCAA All-American honors. Fall was raised in a Muslim home and considers himself to be Islamic. Fall has been attending LA Fitness in the Cincinnati, Ohio since October, 2013. After his workout at the gym Fall would often, "retreat to an empty, obscure corner of the men's locker room, next to an empty coat rack, face the wall and conduct Salat or prayer, quietly to himself for approximately 5-10 minutes." This ritual had never been a problem for Fall or anyone at LA Fitness until January 19, 2015. During the middle of Mr. Fall's prayer he was "surrounded by three men, who were managers and/or employees at LA Fitness."  These men demanded that Fall cease his prayer immediately and ordered that he no longer pray at the gym. In an interview with local channel 12 news Fall claimed, "I'm not gonna lie to you, I felt afraid for my life." Fall gathered his things and departed. Fall has filed a lawsuit against LA Fitness and the employees and/or managers. Fall filed a "verified complaint for temporary restraining and declaratory and injunctive relief."  

Fall was "confused and concerned" after the incident. Fall feels as though he is very conscientious of others when he performs Salat in the locker room and has never directly or indirectly heard a complaint. While playing basketball at Ohio Christian University, Fall was allowed to pray in the locker room before or after competition. The three men were allegedly ordered by someone in the LA Fitness corporate office to tell Fall he couldn't pray anywhere in the gym. If Fall refused he wouldn't be allowed to attend the gym any longer. 

Fall believes this event was an act of religious hostility and that, "he was singled out because he is a Muslim." Fall claims he has witnessed other men at the gym engage in religious prayer or religious activities such as making the sign of the cross, but those men were never threatened with expulsion from the gym.  

The salient issue here is that Mr. Fall feels he as been deprived of his religious freedom, other civil rights, and even, "the deprivation of living a peaceful existence." Fall claims the defendants violated his Civil rights and discriminated against him due to his religion and prohibited him from practicing his faith in a place of "public accommodation." LA fitness is considered a place of public accommodation, according to 42 USC 200a, "All persons be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the good services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." Fall claims this experience has caused him financial and emotional harm. The complaint goes so far as to say that the harassment from the defendants has, "made him [Mr. Fall] feel that he has done something wrong by praying." 

This case brings forth the issues of hostility towards religion, religious discrimination, and violation of the free exercise clause.  

I think Mohamed Fall should be permitted to conduct Salat in the way he has done in the past at LA Fitness. Firstly the fact that men of different faiths are being permitted to engage in religious prayer and activities such as the signal of the cross mean that the LA Fitness policy on religious expression is not one that is religion neutral. If Fall is going to be approached by management in an aggressive manner for conducting his faith's form of prayer, so should everyone that preforms religious acts of any faith. This signaling out of the Muslim faith at the Ohio, LA fitness is an example of a policy and action that lacks religious neutrality, and instead discriminates based on race or religion. Secondly, by definition of 42 USC 200a, LA Fitness is a place of "public accommodation." This means that all people will be given equal opportunity to all the club has to offer and will not be discriminated against in any manner. Mohamed Fall pays for membership just like any other member of the club, and should not be discriminated against for silently and peacefully expressing his religion in that setting. Fall should be able to express his faith without fear of discrimination. I don't believe there is a realistic argument for the threat of a slippery slope. Given the facts of the case, Fall is conducting his prayer in a location and manner that doesn't directly or indirectly impact anyone other than himself. The case would be different if someone were to claim a right to cause inappropriate distraction or interruption that negatively impacted other paying members of the gym. Also I believe there is a lack of compelling state interest in regulating Fall's action. As highlighted in the complaint, "The harm plaintiff will sustain if this preliminary injunction is not granted is far greater than any potential harm the defendants may sustain," and "the issuance of a preliminary injunction is in the public's interest." There is no compelling state interest in preventing Mohamed Fall from practicing his faith in an obscure corner of the gym, but there is clear potential for further issue if he is prevented from doing so. 

The LA Fitness website claims, "When you enter a LA Fitness you know what to expect…what we are most proud of is the people who are there to serve you. The people who warmly greet you, expertly train you, enthusiastically teach you. It is our entire team, our best resource, who is dedicated to making your fitness experience an exceptional one." Perhaps this is true, unless you are a muslim trying to "reasonably and respectfully" exercise your faith without fear of religious discrimination, in which case you will be treated with hostility and disapproval. The same people who were supposed to "warmly greet" and make Mohamed Fall's fitness experience "exceptional,' were the ones who discriminated against a paying member based on his religion, and made him feel uncomfortable and emotionally distressed.  

What do you think? Should Mohamed Fall be allowed to pray in the locker room of LA Fitness? 

See the news article and complaint here.

Monday, February 23, 2015

The Paradox of "Fairness for All"

Monday, February 23, 2015 - 0 Comments

In a recent press conference, several of the Mormon Church's leaders announced that they support legal efforts to protect gays and lesbians against housing and job discrimination. Due to the nature of the church's views, it has historically been against things such as same sex marriage and forced actions, like making a Mormon doctor perform an abortion. This statement did not come without strings, however. The Mormon Church would like to see more protection for the LGBTQ community, but also more protection for themselves in the form of religious exemptions.

Many have called this announcement an attempt to alter the perception of bigotry the general public may have of the church. This raises an interesting point that is sometimes overlooked; public views can often influence the official stances of churches. While they clearly did not retract their statements, it still seems as though the Mormon Church recognizes that it is losing the battle against its views. This appeal may even apply to some of its members, as the article states that this may also be a concession to its moderate followers.

In regards to other cases, I am usually for religious exemptions because I generally do believe that people such have the right to practice their beliefs while still having the opportunity to engage with other things. For example, when someone wrote a post on whether or not the Sheikh man should be allowed to join the military, I argued for a religious exemption that would allow him to join and wear his turban. But this case seems to bring up an interesting point about fairness to everyone. By protecting the LGBTQ community and the Mormons' right to not abide by that, the government would be making it fair for someone else to not be fair. Anti-discrimination legislation is, by default, supposed to be fair to everyone. But in a situation like this, it can seem like creating a no-discrimination rule is actually discrimination (against those who do not believe their actions are discriminatory). It’s a paradox that seems to come with the territory of the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and the right to freely exercise your religion, which may include values that goes against the first.

Much of how you feel about this situation may stem from your own personal belief system. For example, at one time, it was socially acceptable to discriminate based on race/ethnicity, even though people have no control over that. If you believe that LGBTQ people were born the way they are, then allowing a religious exemption to discriminate is wrong. But if you believe that LGBTQ people chose to be the way they are, then this religious exemption makes perfect sense for you to further practice your religion. As someone in the first camp, I think that exempting Mormons and other conservatives from treating people fairly is unconstitutional.

Some may argue that people have the right to serve whoever they want, but at the same time, this would most likely not be one or two cases asking for a religious exemption. With such a large Mormon population, Utah could very well find itself in a position where the government is faced with many requests for religious exemptions. So while it may improve the situation for the LGBTQ community in some cases, it may also just allow the state to say that it has done its job by passing anti-discrimination legislation. Because of a largely conservative population, it does not seem likely such legislation will pass soon without the provision for religious exemptions, so depending on state action, the LGBTQ community may remain unprotected for now.

One of the most fascinating things I find about this example is that it seems as though historically, Mormons have been looked down upon. Thus, they have faced court-justified discrimination in cases such as Reynolds v. United States (1879). Even though the church no longer supports polygamy as apart of its religion, it was once considered a necessary practice. And yet, even with this past of unfair treatment, their official views on other issues are discriminatory in nature just like rules have been towards them.


This case involves two competing principles in terms of who gets treated more fair. While the Mormon Church may publicly wish for "fairness for all," it is still asking for the right to be unfair. Determining whether or not this is right requires a prioritization of what I would consider basic human rights (to equal opportunity) and the constitutionally given right to freely exercise your religion. However difficult it may be to choose between the two, I think the choice is necessary to have a properly and fairly functioning law.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Pediatrician Denies Care To Child of Same-Sex Couple

Sunday, February 22, 2015 - 0 Comments

On February 18th, it was reported that a Detroit couple's child was declined to be seen by her pediatrician. The reason for the pediatrician's refusal was the fact that the child had two mothers. Krista, the baby's biological mother, and Jami Contreras were the mothers who took their child to see Dr. Vesna Roi. Like most caring parents, Jami and Krista took the time to research and talk to the best pediatricians in the are for their newborn daughter, Bay.  They came across and decided upon Dr. Roi. Dr. Roi had been practicing pediatric medicine for 19 years. She was a doctor who took a holistic approach to treating children, which Jamie and Krista found to be an important criteria and one of the main reasons they chose Dr. Roi. Jami and Krista went into the doctor's office for a prenatal visit and explained that they were married and were very interested in having Dr. Roi as Bay's pediatrician. At the time, Dr. Roi showed no issues with the couple's sexual orientation and even told them to schedule an appointment when the child was born. The couple were optimistic about their baby's new pediatrician and scheduled the appointment.

Krista Contreras, 31, left, and her wife, Jami Contreras,The couple showed up to their scheduled appointment and were seated in the waiting room when much to their dismay another pediatrician who worked in the office came out to great them. The other pediatrician broke the news that Dr. Roi had changed her mind. Dr. Roi was quoted as saying that after "much prayer" she would be unable to act as Bay's Pediatrician because the Krista and Jami were lesbians. The couple was blindsided. Dr. Roi sent the couple an apology letter and claimed that she would be unable to form the bond with them that she does with the rest of her patients. She went on to say that they were welcome in the office anytime and could see another pediatrician if they would like. Dr. Roi was very apologetic, but firm in her beliefs and refuses to see Jami and Krista's child.

Even though Dr. Roi never explicitly stated that it was her religious beliefs that is preventing her from treating the child, it can be inferred from her statements in the letter such as "After much prayer..." and "Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice..." The question is whether or not Dr. Roi has the right to discriminate against patients based on her religious beliefs.

The state of Michigan currently holds no law against discrimination against the LGBTQ community. In fact, only 22 states in the US do. Due to the lack of a law, there is no criminal or civil suit filed in this case. However, had there been statutes in place should Dr. Roi have been allowed an exception for her religious beliefs?

I believe that in this case, Dr. Roi should be compelled to see and treat the child. I believe that her religious exemption is trumped by the code and policies of the American Medical Association (AMA). "Respecting the diversity of patients is a fundamental value of the medical profession and reflected in long-standing AMA ethical policy opposing any refusal to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination," the AMA said in a statement. These guidelines are only advisory, however I contend that they should be the guiding principles for all doctors. All doctors are also held to the ethical standards of the Hippocratic Oath, which I believe supersedes the religious convictions of Dr. Roi. This oath is often cited when doctors during war time treat enemy soldiers. Obviously they differ in belief, but these doctors are able to overlook this difference and treat any human to the best of their ability.

The most pertinent precedent to this case established by the US Supreme Court was in Reynolds v. United States. The court established in this case that there is a distinction between religious belief and the actions that stem from that belief. The state cannot establish law that mitigates belief. As a result, the Court believed the First Amendment forbade the state from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action. In this case, there is a secular state interest in providing the best healthcare possible for the citizens of the state. There is substantial reasoning and precedent as to why Dr. Roi should be compelled to treat baby Bay.

I believe that this case has some similarities to the Phillips case, where the court compelled the Colorado baker to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple despite the baker's religious objection. In this case the good is medical care, which is a necessary good. In that case the good was a cake. The vitality of medical care along with the precedent set in Phillips further affirms my belief that courts would compel Dr. Roi to treat Jami and Krista's child despite her religious objection. I believe that Dr. Roi's religious objection holds no bearing here as the importance for proper medical care trumps her ability to discriminate. Jami and Krista sought out Dr. Roi and made an educated decision as to the doctor they wanted for their child and should not be denied proper care. The question I would raise is had the child been in critical condition, would Dr. Roi still object to treating her? I believe that she would put her beliefs aside.

Do you believe that Dr. Roi should be allowed to discriminate as to which patients she takes because of her religious beliefs?

Subscribe

Donec sed odio dui. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio. Duis mollis

© 2013 Religion & American Law. All rights reserved.
Designed by SpicyTricks