(June 30, 2014 at 3:13 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: [quote='blackout94' pid='699150' dateline='1404155275']
Well it is clearly objection of conscience. The decision of the american court (supreme or whatever, I don't know the name) was the right one according to legality, I'm 100% sure of this. It sucks, it may be unethical and stupid, but this is the way the law works, even though I have my doubts against objection of conscience for religious reasons being taken so far. Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith? Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay? Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)? It seems to me this is going to far and it collides with national health and family planning. As someone who wishes to be a judge, and since my atheism will have 0 relevance to my decisions (principle of impartiality) I can't tell you what my decision would be in this case, considering the current laws and principles of the constitution.
Quote:Taking your points in order (to the best of my knowledge anyway)
1)Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith?
No. There are federal non-discrimination laws on the books that prevent employment judgment based on gender, sexuality, race, religion...and a couple other protected statuses (can't remember them all off the top of my head). Certain states have proposed laws that would allow business owners to refuse service to gay people or atheists based on relgious grounds, such as in Arizona (but that vetoed by their governor), and I think Oklahoma is trying another one of those bills. I doubt any of those would get anywhere though, since that would mean people could deny service to Christians too.
2)Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay?
As far as I'm aware, no. The Hippocratic oath makes doctors beholden to provide treatment to everyone. As far as a hospital goes however, they can decline to use certain treatments or drugs based on religious objections, but as far as I'm aware an individual doctor cannot.
3)Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)?
No, that's just silly.
The negative answers you gave were the obvious ones any sane person would support and any first world state would provide. I was merely putting emphasis to show how religious freedom cannot be absolute, no right is absolute and a lot of rights can be restricted, this should apply to freedom of religion. I am not an american to talk about your laws, but I'm positive any good doctors ethics code forbids them to refuse treatment, at least in case of life and death, because the patient is an atheist or a member of a different religion, or even if the patient is a personal enemy of the doctor. Just like you can't refuse to hire people, workplaces are not religion oriented, as far as I know, you can't even ask in an interview about someone's religion or sexual orientation, this shouldn't have any effect whatsoever, you are not committing a sin by hiring gays or atheists, but merely being impartial.
Like I said, we allow religious freedom in any civilized state, but all rights (except maybe the right to live) can be restricted at some point to avoid collision with other rights. In this case there is damage done to national health right and family planning right because of a few religious people. I don't think I'd decide in favor of the corporation if I was a judge.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
