|
“All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands
firm to the end will be saved.” –
Matthew 10:22
In 1999, Lupita Benitez met with Dr. Christine Brody in
the San Diego suburb of Vista, California, to discuss artificial
insemination. All went well until Benitez mentioned she was a
lesbian.
The obstetrician offered to help with fertility
treatments and to treat Benitez during her pregnancy, but declined
to do the insemination. Brody, a Christian, explained it would
violate her faith to inseminate a homosexual. By all accounts the
conversation was civil and Brody referred her patient to another
physician. After originally paying more for an out-of-network
doctor, Benitez’s health plan eventually reimbursed her costs and
she gave birth to a son who is now a year old.
So Benitez has her baby and her money, Brody has clean
hands and conscience, and everyone got what they wanted. A happy
ending, right?
Don’t be silly. This being America, Brody sued for the
right to force a physician to perform medical procedures against his
or her will will. She lost, so this still being America she
appealed. The matter is now before the 4th District California
Court of Appeal in San Diego.
Attorney Jennifer Pizer, assisting Benitez on behalf of
the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, frames this as a civil
rights issue with a marginally coherent comparison to African
Americans, lunch counters, and the old south. I won’t waste a
nanosecond on that gibberish, though I would be interested in
knowing why anyone would wish to be treated by a doctor who has to
be bullied into it by force of law.
This type of case is popping up with increasing
frequency. Moral stands aren’t popular, particularly if there’s a
whiff of religion to it. And, to be fair, it is tough to come up
with a secular standard that fits every case.
A few years ago a suit was brought against a landlord in
my town for refusing to rent to an unmarried couple on religious
grounds. The plaintiffs sought to compel her to do so come hell or,
well, hell. The landlord lost and was forced to choose between her
faith and her livelihood.
I’d say the landlord was wronged, but let’s make it
tougher. Religious Sikh men do not cut their hair, concealing it in
a turban. Some refuse to remove their headgear for airport security
and have occasionally been denied boarding. I understand the
concern, but wouldn’t a metal detector suffice? Can a turban really
hide more than the average teenage boy’s baggy pants?
Many Sikh’s also carry a kirpan, a small knife that has
religious significance. Most are about as lethal as a toothpick,
though if you want a hands-on experience with the clash of public
policy and religious freedom, try walking through an airport with
innocent intentions, a turban, and even a tiny knife.
About a year ago a Florida Moslem refused to remove her
veil for a driver’s license photo, which pretty much defeats the
purpose. Others have declined to remove their veils at airports and
been denied boarding. This may seem petty on the surface, though
not being able to identify someone is probably more dangerous than a
kirpan.
Not everything that may be part of someone’s religion
can be permitted; for instance, I’ll go out on a limb and take a
stand against human sacrifice. Limits must be set, though only for
compelling reasons.
Wherever society draws its lines, each of us must decide
whether to cross. As Jesus notes in Matthew, faith has a cost. He
didn’t mean flying planes into buildings or striking against others
but a quiet readiness to pay a personal price, to bear the scorn of
others, humbly and willingly. It will always be so, and it will
always be worth it. |
