Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Jim - question for you.
If someone was in a very rural area with only 1 doctor available who was a Jehovah's Witness and a member of their family needed a blood tranfusion to save their life. Would you have a problem with the Dr. refusing to perform it?
|
Yes, I would. Because the standard, as Obama put it in the case of the truckers, is that if the religious person can get an accommodation
without undue hardship, then he must be granted the accommodation.
In your example, it would likely cause undue hardship on the patient, for the only available doctor to refuse treatment.
That's not remotely the same thing as what happened with the clerk - the happy couple can get from the license from the employee in the next window. That's not an undue hardship.
Your example is not remptely what happened in the case of the Christian baker. Assuming there are other bakers in the community who would happily participate in the wedding, the happy couple can go with another baker. That's not undue hardship.
Your example, therefore, doesn't seem pertinent.
We all have to be willing to endure a little bit of nuisance of discomfort sometimes, to allow others to enjoy their constitutional protections. An artist can get public tax dollars to paint a picture of Holy Mary covered in feces - I find it deeply offensive, but I wouldn't want a law prohibiting it, because the Bill Of Rights gives the artist that right. The Bill Of Rights even applies to Christians.