Lesbian Needs a Good F***

I was thinking that articles like this post might be inflammatory to some people, and they think I'm just nuts. That I am somehow for oppressing women and for violence against them.

Nothing could be further from the truth; however, I am opposed to the SELECTIVE EMPHASIS the LYING, Zionist-controlled, agenda-pushing AmeriKan MSM shovel, and I no longer believe a word they say.

Is it not interesting that WOMEN come to the forefront when the Zionist press wishes to demonize an "enemy?"

I'm thinking Afghanistan (those Taliban, you know), while Saudi goes unremarked upon; of Iraq (Saddam's rape rooms, remember?); of Muslims in general (Iran, right?); of Burma; and, if you noticed, Zimbabwe from yesterday's piece.

Now if the linked post above hadn't convinced you yet, wait until you see this:

"Religious, gay rights clash in Calif. case" by Ashley Surdin, The Washington Post | June 20, 2008

LOS ANGELES - On the heels of its ruling on same-sex marriage, California's highest court will decide another potentially landmark civil rights case: whether doctors can refuse to treat certain patients for religious reasons.

The case reaches back nearly 10 years, to when Guadalupe "Lupita" Benitez of Oceanside was trying to conceive. Benitez, who is gay, says doctors violated her civil rights because they refused her a fertility treatment, saying it was against their religion to perform insemination on a lesbian.

There is an EASIER WAY, you know?!!!! Just GRAB a MAN!!!!

This should be TOSSED OUT OF COURT!!!!

The two doctors and their employer, North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, say they denied Benitez treatment because it is against their Christian beliefs to perform insemination on unwed women, whether heterosexual or lesbian. Their refusal, they argue, is protected by their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

And thus, the AGENDA-PUSH!!!

Going after Muslims, Christians (except Christian Zionists like Hagee), Catholics, Mormons and whoever else stands in the way of the Zionist agenda.

Seriously, readers, is it not odd that the Jews are the only ones not confronting these types of cases?

Unlike instances in which doctors refuse to perform abortions, this case is unusual in that doctors are seemingly denying services to a select group of patients, said Joan Hollinger, a professor of family law at the University of California at Berkeley. And it is unclear whether the Constitution's religious freedom clause protects such selectiveness.

Either way, the California Supreme Court's ruling could have far-reaching consequences for doctors and businesses, and for unwed women, particularly lesbians, trying to conceive.

Try a MAN in the BEDROOM, not a COURT, 'kay?!?!

"The case raises a whole series of questions about the basis for which people can be denied medical treatment, particularly the extent to which gays or lesbians could be denied access to reproductive technology," she said.

Didn't GOD already take care of that?!

It's NOT a LIFESTYLE CHOICE?!

According to the lawsuit, after two years of trying to conceive using an at-home insemination kit, Benitez sought fertility treatment in 1999 at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, a clinic with an exclusive contract with her medical insurance plan.

During their first meeting, Benitez told Dr. Christine Brody that she is a lesbian. Brody replied that, should Benitez require intrauterine insemination, she could not perform it for religious reasons. The two dispute exactly what Brody said would violate her beliefs. Benitez says it was her sexual orientation; Brody says it was Benitez's marital status.

Still, Benitez began treatment, according to court documents, with the understanding - from Brody - that a different doctor would perform the procedure, if needed. Eventually, Benitez was referred by another North Coast doctor, Douglas Fenton, to a physician outside the medical group.

A lawyer for Brody and Fenton says the referral was prompted by a mix-up in Benitez's chart, which indicated she wanted a procedure requiring live, not frozen, sperm. Benitez, however, said she was referred elsewhere because of her sexual orientation.

Kenneth Pedroza, the lawyer for the two doctors, said they clearly informed Benitez that their religious beliefs applied to unmarried women.

Jennifer Pizer, a who is representing Benitez, said that while the law protects doctors who refuse certain treatments on religious grounds, it does not allow them to do so on a discriminatory or selective basis.

A trial court sided with Benitez in 2004, ruling that doctors in a for-profit medical group must comply with California's antidiscrimination laws, regardless of religion. An appeals court overturned the decision a year later."

Talk about trying to DESTROY the FAMILY UNIT and EMASCULATE MEN!!!!!

But there isn't a divisive agenda being pushed using gayness as a club, huh?

Whatever.