(October 18, 2011 at 8:31 am)lucent Wrote: That isn't the point. You agree to court mandated freedoms for a chosen lifestyle by transgenders, but dispute that a religious person with a moral objection based on their chosen religion should also be protected by law. She has every right under the law to object to a duty which compromises her moral standards, and the state is required to accomodate her. Just as employers in California are required to accomodate their employees to dress up as the opposite gender because they choose to live that way. Basically, what you're saying is, no one should legally be accomodated for their religious beliefs, yet you have no trouble mandating that legal protection for other beliefs and lifestyles. In short, hypocripsy. Your position is simply one of your own deep seated bias.
It's entirely the point, you silly prick. We're talking about someone refusing to do part of the job that they are under contract to do. What if you needed a blood transfusion and the doctor said he wouldn't perform it because his religion was opposed to them? Would you still be hopping around telling us all about his religious freedom then? No, because you'd be fucking dead.
