It is one thing for Gov, to tell a person what they cannot do, but another thing to tell a person what they must do. It seems to trample one persons rights to protect anothers. The article does not say what the penalty is for refusal.

In a non-life threatening situation, a Dr. should have the right to refuse to do a procedure.

When the State decides that a professional person can not follow his religion and forces him to violate his beliefs then the State has taken upon itself athiesm as the State religion. A State sponsored religion - like athiesm - is against the principles of the Constitution.

Would you feel the same way if the person being denied service was black instead of gay?

These kinds of unconstitutional rulings by state courts will, I hope, soon require a trip to the U.S. Supreme by someone fighting to retain their own rights. That court will eventually, I hope, restore the fundamental rights assured by the Constitution such as those enumerated in the first amendment.

Forcing someone to do something that they object to on religious grounds is a violation, in both directions, of the rights outlined in that amendment.

This must be fought.

As a gay man, I don't think I would care to patronize a physician who doesn't want to treat me. I feel that he/she has the right to refuse service in a non-life threatening situation, for whatever reason they choose. I'm sure tehre are other fertility doctors in California who would love to make $$$ off of the gay and lesbian community, just go to someone else and move on.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned or something, but I think in a non-lifethreatening situation, any doctor should be able to choose who he treats, just as I think a businessman should be able to choose who he serves. The ultimate freedom has to be the right to choose what you do with your life--and your economic life is a huge part of that.

If the government can force you to serve someone, then you become a slave or a serf to the government.
The person you are forced to serve may have his or her freedom, but you have lost yours.

The simple solution, which this woman found, was to find someone who WAS willing to serve her and pay them for their services. As a consequence, the person needing the service was served. The person who didn't want to provide the service wasn't deprived of their freedom. And the person who DID provide the service got the (financial) reward. Who was harmed in this situation?

Only lovers of individual freedom. Thanks, California!

You can't even make that argument. It is against their religious beliefs to treat the lesbians. In the Christian religion homosexuality is a sin. Compare apples to apples.

For all of you who think that a doctor should be able to discriminate against patients based upon his own religious beliefs. How would you feel about a white supremist doctor refusing to treat blacks, asians, or Jews? Or, a little more personally, how would you feel about say an Christian evangelical doctor who refuses to treat MORMONS because he doesn't consider them Christians?

Be very, very, very careful of what you ask for....because the U.S. Supreme Court could very well give it to you. As in, whether or not you like gays, etc., if you don't care about other people's "rights", don't come crying when there is no one left to care about your's!