At least, that's what these doctors said. They later amended their position that they wouldn't perform the artificial insemination because the Guadalupe Benitez was unmarried, even though she had been living with her 'partner' for 7 years. The doctors used religious freedom as their defense in the suit brought by the woman. The judge ruled that religious freedom could not be used as a defense. That, to me, raises an interesting point. If a business owner is not getting any government money, are they legally obligated to give their services to anyone willing to pay? Is their own personal morality allowed to come into play here? Personally, I don't think it was right for them to refuse to do an IVF on this woman. Fortunately, she was able to find another doctor to help. The only thing I can see going for her side, though, is the slippery slope argument. If we allow one practice to discriminate based on a protected class, there is nothing to stop all of them. And then, we could reach a point where services aren't available to Guadalupe, because everyone has some 'valid' reason why they cannot help her. So, I suppose I'm opposed to their attitude, but wondering what sort of relief exists for someone who is morally opposed to performing an action for some people, but not others. For example, would anyone be up in arms if doctors refused to artificially inseminate an 18 year old, unmarried woman?