A couple of things have already occurred to me:
In the ordinary course of affairs, discrimination suits arise due to complaints. Suppose, then, that Mojo had been plying his trade, according to his lights, unmolested<g>, for a dozen years, and it was his only source of income. Then someone complains, and he is hauled into court. Now, I acknowledge that the ruling may go against him, but let us look at the factors to be taken into account. If the ruling is against him, he will either have to violate his conscience or have to give up his livelihood. This is not answerable by a "tough tata" approach.
Suppose that Mojo is a personal trainer, and takes on all comers in that capacity, but will only perform massage services for those clients he is comfortable with, without his specifying qualifications any more explicitly. Suppose someone discerns a pattern. In response, Mojo heads off a discrimination suit by refusing to massage any client. Suppose that he loses a substantial number of clients on that account, since most of his business counted on the massages. Is it a sufficient answer to say "You should have thought of that", when it arose in a manner that seemed no one's business?
Suppose that Mojo started out working for a sports team, and therefore the issue of sexuality never arose. But he is forced to move to the desert for his health, and the Arizona teams do not need his services. The only trade he has is massage, but he would be forced to violate conscience if he could not restrict himself. Again, I do not think "tough stuff" is a sufficient answer.
If a Muslim prisoner objects to having to eat pork in prison, no one says "tough, you shouldn't have been a criminal", they provide an alternative menu.
I am afraid that point 6 is too weak, but it may be relevant as a consideration, if not as a trump......... |
