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.
Actually, that is a perfectly valid answer. Suppose a small business owner has been operating for years illegally failing to hire any black employees, and finally gets caught by a sting operation carried out by the NAACP. (Not a hypothetical, but an actual situation.) He says I have a conscientious opposition to hiring blacks. But this is my livelihood, so I should be allowed to keep operating this way. Your response??
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.
Yes, because the government creates the menu and has total control over the situation. But if the guy walked into Tony's Ribs where the only item on the menu was pork ribs and claimed he had a right to be served there but to be served a non-pork dish, sorry, buddy, find somewhere else to eat. |
