Another Tough Topic

As a Libertarian, most topics are easily to decide on. Most topics have a perfect answer as to how it should be when one looks at what the constitution would say about it.

However there are a few that the Constitution contradicts itself. Not because the Constitution is faulty. Because that is not the truth. The Constitution is not faulty. It is an amazing document that gives a direct answer for just about everything.

But i have one such topic that fits this rare scenario in my formally nicotine stained hands (ok, i'm not Rush Limbaugh, but his line fits in this instance).

There is a report that Doctors are with holding Healthcare (artificial insemination) from Lesbians. These doctor's, as it seems, are refusing to give artificial inseminations to Lebians, due mainly to how the doctors feel about Gays & Lesbians.

Well this has been taken to court. The court has rules that it is illegal for doctors to refuse artificial inseminations from people with alternative lifestyles because it is infringing on their rights.

I have to say that i agree with the courts. I have stated before that i, personally, do not agree with these lifestyles. However the Constitution applies to all equally. It doesn't apply differently for straight people than gays, Christians than Athiests, Men than Women. It's rights and freedoms apply to all citizens. So if it is a right of heterosexual couples to have the ability to have artificial inseminations for the purpose of procreating, it is a right that must also be pplied to those of homosexual couples.

To me the Constitution applies perfectly to this topic.

However, like i said, this is one that has contradictions about it. It has contradictions since everyone under the Constitution proclaims the right for a person to basically do as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm or oppress the rights of others.

Well a doctor has a right, as does any private business, to refuse service to others. This is the way that the free market society works. Simply because the owner gains or loses based on the decision it makes. If a business refuses service to someone, the business could stand to lose its business by lose of service depending on how other patrons feel. But they could alos gain because of it. But it is the private owners right to refuse. As long as the private business is not on public property. If this was a doctor whose office was located in a public hospital, which are bankrolled by the government, then it would be different. Since that would be deemed public instead of private property.

But which way would the Constitution apply on this topic?

My take is that the courts ruled correctly. Mainly because, in a situtation such as this, the rights of a people (straight, single, or alternative lifestyled people) would be a right of all of the people and would outweigh those of a few doctors.

Thats my take a least.

Viva Liberty!