What has the world come to? Misunderstanding the Constitution

Well it seems to me that the California supreme court wants to act as a separate court of a foreign country, because they seem to want to get rid of a few civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Not only is this disturbing but this is also a direct jab at the 1st amendment right, freedom of religion. Religion goes into the public life but does not force others to do things they'd rather not do, whereas this bill is forcing the liberal left's idealism down Christian throats. The left needs and wants gays and lesbians to be fully inculcated into society and to be seen as normal, when their very act of "sexuality" is not normal and is contrary to their makers ideas when designed and formed in the womb. With this case, the liberals of California now are moving towards total radicialism, first, freedom of forcing others to do stuff liberals want, then animals are now humans, I'm still waiting for that Amendment or declaration to be added by some judge legislating from the bench. Lastly, we will have global warming coking our economy like it is now so that if we do not buy hippie cars and bike or walk to work we will be paying dearly for it.

This case is so anti-US constitution that it is absurd, doctors who have "private" practice, notice that word in quotes California, should and cannot be made to do something against their religious beliefs . Freedom of religion is a basic right. Our constitutional rights need to be understood in a way that they were meant to be held. The judicial system was not supposed to be that big and was not at all supposed to legislate from the bench, it was a check on constitutionality, not a creator of policy but a check on the legitimacy of it, in accord with the constitution. The constitution is what the justices were supposed to go on, not the change of it to take away rights, so the CA supreme court has faulted, just on that principle.

The biggest mistake of this whole matter is the fact that they define invetro fertilization as medical CARE, it is not care if someone is not hurt. The mother is not hurt and therefore is not in need of CARE but rather they want something done to them, like a tattoo. Do tattoo artists, although perhaps not the most scrupulous, refuse to ink someone because of what or where they want it. This is a service and a private service has the right to refuse anyone service, because it is not a right to being "served" it's a right to live in freedom. The right asserted by the supreme court of this particular case was to recieve medical care, which is well known that is it not care. I'm waiting for the doctor to be sued for not giving a girl plastic surgery for whatever reason. Doctors are not state appointed emmisaries but medical care facilitators. You want someone to do something for you that is against their belief then how about the person who wants the procedure get baptized and go to church for the rest of their life and pray 1 hour every day, because the supreme court said you needed to go.

Simply put, this is a sad case that takes away Constitutional rights, in a way which the Constitution does not approve, and ignores the fact that this is not a medicial care, or ememergency care, but a service, which can be denied.