Is it conducive to society to grant people outs from equality legislation? If society grows to consider homophobia or sexism or racism as morally repugnant, why enact laws to grant people an exemption from that understanding based on religious faith alone? I do not doubt the sincerity of the convictions of people who don’t wish to serve me based on their religious objections to me as a person, but nor do I doubt the sincerity of the convictions held by someone who doesn’t wish to serve me based on the fact that I am a Tory, or to assist a friend of mine because he is black. Some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that black people are simply inferior regardless of what the law says or how society has moved on and find it a day to day struggle in their jobs, lives and in their community to act upon their own deeply held conscience. No one proposes legislation to assist them. Because of the curios of the Constitution perhaps if they formed a religion in which they could express their sincere convictions then they may be allowed that element of protection. Indeed, society should just simply form more religions based on everything from sexuality, to hair colour. Really morbidly obese people can form an Obese Church and get some tax exempt cheek room..
You know, it's posts like this that make me think you are not merely an atheist, but that you have an absolute contempt for religion.
But back to the topic: to reverse your original question, is it conducive to society to grant people ins via equality legislation? Except in the most egregious situations, I think not. Having a photographer refuse to do your wedding for whatever reason does not to me appear to be egregious enough to use the force of law to compel him to do that which he does not want to do. Besides, why anyone would want their wedding photos done by someone who would have no reason to do his best is something I don't understand.
Its posts like this that make me think you don’t understand the use of humour (or perhaps even read what was written) to make a serious point
The ‘serious hat’ version of what I said is this. Why is
religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption? For example, in Britain, Quakers could generally successfully argue for being exempt from the draft during the Great War, Quaker Socialists could argue on account of their Quakerism, but Socialists couldn’t on account of their socialism. Secondly why are these objections entirely subjective? If the vast majority of Christians and people of other faiths can operate in society without needing to utilise any faith based objection even if granted to them, why do other people of faith need them? Is it really their faith that motivates them or is it perhaps simply a personal objection that would have no legal traction
unless it was wrapped up in religious rhetoric?
In short should homophobic, sexist or racist reactions ‘claimed’ by the person who espouses them as a facet of their manifestation of religious belief (even though other people who manifest that belief do not espouse those views) be classifiable in law as a ‘credible’ homophobic, sexist or racist act because the espouser appeals to religion?
There is a difference between a religious ritualistic requirement and a social response. There is no ritualistic requirement for a Christian to prohibit a gay person from utilising their services (or by permitting them, ceases to be able to ‘act Christian’ as a result)
