This is taken from the same vein as the the previous question. I take it to be a relatively uncontroversial view that if an employee has a religious reason for refusing to perform a given task that the employer can, if they see fit, terminate that person's employment. Most people seemed to feel that reasonable accommodation for religious exercise was a good thing, but that it could go too far, and that it should be left to individual employers/employees to work out the proper balance.
This leads to two questions:
1. Are there any reasonable accommodations that we should mandate? Should employees be protected from termination if their exercise of religion means they're taking off religious holidays (but are otherwise performing their tasks)? Or should the employer be allowed to fire them regardless of the form of religious exercise?
2. How do people feel about the government mandating that employees with certain (non-state) jobs restrict their free exercise of religion to perform the job? If the employer is fine employing pharmacists who don't prescribe Plan B, or doctors who don't provide abortions, or cabbies who won't pick up people with alcohol, would that be ok? Or do you think we should have laws that say cabbies must pick up all fares/doctors provide all services/pharmacists fill all prescriptions?
Personally, I'm inclined to say that when the state steps into these situations it's going too far; a law that forces people to choose between their jobs and their religion is extremely coercive and not at all in the spirit of First Amendment. When private employers do it... not nearly so offensive. That's just my take. I want to know what others think.
Oh yeah I wait tables too