No one is saying that. What we're saying is, if you refuse to perform an important aspect of your job for whatever reason (within reason), you should either make reasonable accommodations (e.g., ensure there are others at the office who will perform the duties) or not take the job in the first place.
That sounds nice
in abstracto (in the abstract or in general). Which is probably, of course, why you liberals insist on speaking about the matter in abstracto and using nice and vague language like "she didn't do her job," and so forth and so on.
What does that mean
in concreto? And what do you mean by "important aspect of the job"? The liberal will insist that,
in concreto, performing an abortion constitutes an "important aspect of the job" for a Catholic doctor or nurse. The liberal will insist that,
in concreto, signing over a child to homosexual foster parents is "an important aspect of the job" for workers at a Catholic adoption agency.
So, you have one of the following options:
1. Either these things are not "important aspects of the job."
2. They are important aspects of the job, and faithful Catholics, Jews and Muslims cannot hold these positions.
You cannot simultaneously deny 1 and affirm 2. If murdering unborn children is "an important aspect of the job," then a Catholic cannot be a nurse or a doctor. End of story. Regardless of your personal misinterpretations of reality and of morality. If signing over a child to homosexul parents is "an important aspect of the job," then there cannot be Catholic adoption agencies. End of story.
And if signing marriage licenses for homosexuals is "an important part of the job," then Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews (or anyone, in fact, who has not been so utterly corrupted that the Natural Law still speaks to him in the inward depths of his conscience, whether he believe in an (allegedly) revealed religion or not) cannot hold the position.
That is what it comes down to. You cannot expect a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim (or anyone of right reason, for that matter) to have his convictions in the confines of his home and his church, but completely forget these things when he enters into the public sphere.
"I was just following orders" just rings hollow and you know it.
Sorry, but Jehovah's Witnesses doctors aren't giving blood transfusions to dying patients. Sorry, but Muslim bus drivers aren't transporting Jews to Synagogue. Sorry, but Satanic 911 operators aren't sending aid to churches.
This is the second time today, on two different media, that I've had an atheist liberal talk to me about JW and blood transfusions. You guys are supposed to be "free thinkers," huh? :nono:
These are silly objections for very obvious reasons.
Blood transfusions aren't
intrinsice malum (intrinsically evil), nor have philosophers (as far as I'm aware) ever claimed such things. Jehovah's witnesses are exceptional in insisting that blood transfusions are morally prohibited. This is why you insist on talking about that particular cult, and not "Christians in general."
Blood transfusions are not a controversial moral topic. People do not generally have a difficulty with it. It has not historically been condemned in the western tradition.
Likewise with these utterly stupid comparisons to segregationist racism and the so called "religious objections" people had back then. Again, that was, historically speaking, exceptional. It was an anomology of those people in that society in that historical period.
Not so in the case of homosexual "marriage" and sodomy.
No, the standard "if you can't do your job, or aren't willing to make reasonable accommodations, you shouldn't be in that job" applies to everyone, not just members of particular faiths.
Supra. Your reply is purely rhetorical and you know it. :idunno:
If a gay person refused to issue marriage licenses to straight couples, he should also not be a county clerk. Understand?
Again, disanalogous. There's no comparison between heterosexual marriage and homosexual "marriage." Historically speaking, this is just true.
