That's not the right they want. They *claim* to want the right to profess their beliefs. They've got that and have been using it. Extensively.
They also want the right to refuse to do things that are against their beliefs. They've got that too *subject to the laws of the land*.
But what they don't have, and nobody else does either, is the right to refuse to carry out the duties they were hired for because of their beliefs.
The hypocrisy is thick, given that the right wing press is making a big deal out of a muslim flight attendant who wanted to not have to serve alcohol on flights.
Both she and Ms. Davis are "recent" converets. Both are very sincere.
But there's one *huge* difference. The flight attendant was asking for a "reasonable accommodation". She wasn't asking that they not serve alcohol on the flights she was on, just that she *personally* not have to do so.
That's reasonable, and while it might have been a minor inconvenience, the airline *could* have accommodated her. Be interesting to see what happens if she appeals her suspension.
Ms. Davis, on the other hand, not only didn't want to issue licenses herself, she wouldn't allow her deputies to do so either. That's no way reasonable.
Neither are the pharmacists and doctors who refusing treatment or to fill prescriptions because of their beliefs. If there's not somebody else around to do the job they won't do (and I don't mean in another town!) then they aren't doing their job.
Your right to exercise your religion ends at the point where you are trying to make other people live by your rules.
Of course, they claim that having to do their job is "forcing" them to live by our rules. Nope. Especially in Davis's case. she took an oath. And is breaking it. That's bearing false witness, which is a rather larger sin than what she's protesting.
She just likes the money and the ability to impose her views on others. Well, she doesn't get to do that under the law.
She wants to follow her conscience, but not be inconvienced by the consequences. Well, she's finding out how well that (didn't) work now.
no subject
They also want the right to refuse to do things that are against their beliefs. They've got that too *subject to the laws of the land*.
But what they don't have, and nobody else does either, is the right to refuse to carry out the duties they were hired for because of their beliefs.
The hypocrisy is thick, given that the right wing press is making a big deal out of a muslim flight attendant who wanted to not have to serve alcohol on flights.
Both she and Ms. Davis are "recent" converets. Both are very sincere.
But there's one *huge* difference. The flight attendant was asking for a "reasonable accommodation". She wasn't asking that they not serve alcohol on the flights she was on, just that she *personally* not have to do so.
That's reasonable, and while it might have been a minor inconvenience, the airline *could* have accommodated her. Be interesting to see what happens if she appeals her suspension.
Ms. Davis, on the other hand, not only didn't want to issue licenses herself, she wouldn't allow her deputies to do so either. That's no way reasonable.
Neither are the pharmacists and doctors who refusing treatment or to fill prescriptions because of their beliefs. If there's not somebody else around to do the job they won't do (and I don't mean in another town!) then they aren't doing their job.
Your right to exercise your religion ends at the point where you are trying to make other people live by your rules.
Of course, they claim that having to do their job is "forcing" them to live by our rules. Nope. Especially in Davis's case. she took an oath. And is breaking it. That's bearing false witness, which is a rather larger sin than what she's protesting.
She just likes the money and the ability to impose her views on others. Well, she doesn't get to do that under the law.
She wants to follow her conscience, but not be inconvienced by the consequences. Well, she's finding out how well that (didn't) work now.