[Godstud]

My liberty is actually being hurt if I am forced to do anything, Godstud.

Well, unfortunately, in the real world, there is no such thing as 100% liberty. We have laws and rules to limit that for the safety of the public. We also do not have it so that people can be treated fairly.

Liberty is the act of being unhindered in what you do. So how would my liberty not be hurt if I was forced to provide labor for something that I think is immoral?

Morality is subjective. If society does not deem it immoral, it is not. Homosexuality is not considered immoral in most societies. That some people don't find it such, is irrelevant.

Godstud's very position is:

- If you do not do what the minority wants, you are harming him. Correct?

In this case, because you didn't bake him a cake... You harmed him.

Do not assume to know my position. You are making a stupid assumption about my position without considering the ramifications of unregulated discrimination.

Here is another question: if discrimination is 100% illegal, then you would agree that the only grounds for which a Hotel can refuse service to an Alt Right seminar or Alt Right gathering would be if it literally was already booked and already in business, right? They have to otherwise host an Alt Right event.

I never said discrimination is 100% illegal. That's absurd, and I never said as such. Discrimination on certain grounds, is illegal. Please... do not assume to know my position, and mock it, if you clearly have no clue as to what it is.

Wouldn't it be upsetting for Jewish or Indina-American or black American people who own hotels to be subjected to hosting an event for an organization against their interests?

You can do so. You would, however, likely have to defend that position in court, and if the law didn't agree with you, pay restitution for that discrimination.

Likewise, imagine a private clothier who specializes in making vestaments for Catholic clergymen. If he was forced to knowingly make custom made clothing mimicking Catholic monastic clothing and other official vestaments to be used in the production of film or photography mocking Catholicism through adult entertainemtn and some such, would that not violate his conscience?

Only if he could prove that by doing so he would be hurting his business. You're worried about his conscience/feelings, again.

I do not understand how allowing the rights of people to choose to withhold their labor protects Liberty: it violates the liberty of the people involved.

Yes, but at the same time it ensures that others retain their liberty and are treated fairly, and without discrimination, or bias. What of their liberty to live without people discriminating against them based on religion, race, etc.?

[Godstud]

Another example is that a Christian doctor or nurse refuses to cooperate in carrying out abortions on demand. Would that be allowed or sanctioned in Godstudland ?

It's a lot more rational than Terville or Vervton.

A Christian doctor or nurse(who averse to performing abortions) would not get a job at an abortion clinic, so your stupid premise is just that. If they were employed by the government and it was part of their job, however, then YES, they would be required to do so without allowing their personal beliefs or feelings to interfere with their medical duty.

[colliric]

If they were employed by the government and it was part of their job, however, then YES, they would be required to do so without allowing their personal beliefs or feelings to interfere with their medical duty.

No.

This is not true. This doesn't account for things being made "part of the job" subsequent to hiring.

If it isn't part of their Job but some asshole above them callously decides to make it part of their job, that asshole should be fired for being a Religious bigot.

No one should be forced to lose their job because some asshole above them decided to pull a bullshit "making it part of the job to do something against your religion" move.

Better being protected generally. Only prior to hiring should such things be allowed to happen. If an employer significantly changes things to "pressure to get rid of the Religious guy by changing his job and not telling him" that employer is a peice of human excrement.

[Godstud]

Better being protected generally. Only prior to hiring should such things be allowed to happen.

Yes, but unfortunately few things are static, in any workplace. Policies change constantly. I accept this as a reality.

[Ter]

It's a lot more rational than Terville or Vervton.

A Christian doctor or nurse(who averse to performing abortions) would not get a job at an abortion clinic, so your stupid premise is just that. If they were employed by the government and it was part of their job, however, then YES, they would be required to do so without allowing their personal beliefs or feelings to interfere with their medical duty.

You are awful quick to use denigrating language.
I meant doctors/nurses who work in a private hospital or university teaching hospital.
Yet they are supposed to carry out abortions because it is legal in the countries where they live in Western Europe.
I believe they have the right to refuse it.

[Godstud]

You are awful quick to use denigrating language.

I simply return what was given.

I meant doctors/nurses who work in a private hospital or university teaching hospital.
Yet they are supposed to carry out abortions because it is legal in the countries where they live in Western Europe.
I believe they have the right to refuse it.

They still do. I, however, do not feel it would be justified, as their purpose is to give medical treatment, and not inflict their religion on others.

[Zamuel]

They still do. I, however, do not feel it would be justified, as their purpose is to give medical treatment, and not inflict their religion on others.

That's a step to far. Personal morality, as such, is certainly not a coercive factor.

Zam