A woman in a committed relationship was denied infertility treatment by her Southern California healthcare providers because she is a lesbian.

The doctors' claim that they should be exempt from California's anti-discrimination statute because they have religious objections to serving lesbian patients was rejected at the trial level. The Court of Appeal reversed, stating that the doctors must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that their refusal was not based on her sexual orientation. That decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court.

In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, and upheld the trial court's original decision. The Supreme Court held that non-discrimination laws regulate discriminatory conduct, not speech or beliefs, and that medical providers cannot assert religious objections to deny medical services to specific patients.

What is interesting is that the medical practice at the center of this hurricane has more than one doctor. The so-called "get out of jail card" for the practice is that the objecting physician can transfer the case to another practitioner in that office.  But is that the end of the story?

What happens if the non-objecting practitioners are employees of that practice and their employment contract contains a morals clause. California Law requires treating the patient, but they will probably lose their job. Alternatively, what if this was a solo practice where there are no other practitioners to turn the case over to.

How would these new issues be addressed by a discrimination analysis? The plain answer is that we don't know.