The California Supreme Court is scheduled to rule Monday in a North County case that pits religious freedoms against protection from discrimination.

The question before the court is whether doctors can cite religious beliefs in refusing to provide a nonemergency treatment to gays and lesbians. The case, a clash of civil rights, has landmark potential that could reverberate throughout the state.

In 2001, Guadalupe "Lupita" Benitez of Oceanside sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care group and Dr. Christine Brody and Dr. Douglas Fenton after the doctors treated her for infertility for a year, but refused to inseminate her.

Benitez alleged the doctors would not inseminate her because she is homosexual. She claimed they violated California's anti-discrimination laws.

Attorneys for the doctors say the physicians would not perform the procedure because Benitez was unmarried. At the time of their refusal, state laws did not offer special protections based on marital status.

The question before the court is whether a doctor has a constitutional right to cite religious grounds in refusing to perform a medical procedure because of the patient's sexual orientation, or whether state law precludes such discrimination.

To this point, there has not been a trial. No jury has heard testimony. The battle erupted just before trial as both sides fought over whether the doctors could present religion as a defense.

The trial judge turned down the doctors' bid to use religion as a defense. An appellate court, however, sided with the doctors.

Now it's up to the state's highest court.

The California Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides in May, just two weeks after the same court split 4-3 in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Robert Tyler, a Murrieta-based attorney representing the doctors who declined to inseminate Benitez, told the North County Times in May that his clients simply want to practice their profession and their faith free from a crisis of conscience.

"The doctors are being asked to create life," Tyler said. "Why shouldn't they be allowed to have their faith and conscience guide them?"

Jennifer Pizer, the attorney for Benitez, said in May that the case tackles a larger question of discrimination against all people, not just those who are gay or lesbian. What if the female patient were, say, in a second marriage after a divorce, Pizer said, and a doctor's religious beliefs don't support divorce?

"This case, potentially, it affects everybody who might experience discrimination if somebody has a religious discrimination against who they are," Pizer said.

After the court rules, the case is expected to head back eventually to a trial court in San Diego.

Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 740-5442 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com.