>>As a fellow baseball fan only a year younger than me I'm sure you remember Sandy Koufax refusing to pitch a World Series game because it was on Yom Kippur. It was kind of controversial at the time.
>>
>>Recently I posed two scenarios to someone.
>>
>>Scenario 1: A Jewish doctor in an isolated area is the only one who can treat someone gravely wounded. (Yes, I realize this would be extremely rare, if it ever happened at all). The doctor refuses to do so because it occurs on Yom Kippur, and the person dies.
>>
>>Scenario 2: A Christian photographer refuses to provide wedding photography services to a same-gender wedding couple, on the grounds that it violates religious principles.
>>
>>While admitting I'm using a bit of the Socratic method here - in either case, can/should the state intervene and force either person into an action? (or permit the seeking of damages afterwards?)
>>
>>Kevin
>
>The state should never intervene unless the doctor or the photographer is being paid with tax dollars or there are terms of a state license agreed to.
>
>In the first case, I think unless the doctor belonged to an extremely ultra-orthodox sect of some kind treating the injured would be exempted from any religious prohibition.
>
>I don't imagine the AMA - or virtually all Orthodox Jews - would see letting a patient die under those circumstances favorably. And I'm sure litigation would follow. ( would probably also depend on Good Samaritan laws in the state and what the terms are of being licensed to practice medicine in that state.
>

As I said upthread, wouldn't matter what branch of Judaism. All would require the doctor to treat the patient if the injury was truly life-threatening.

Tamar

>In the second case a private individual should able to refuse any business he or she chooses - doesn't even need state a reason.
>
>As to other taxpayer paid employees I think the policies of reasonable accommodation generally work pretty well unless individuals are choosing to be idiots or to be deliberately obtuse to score some kind political point.
>
>I think and I would agree the state should intervene in private affairs as little as possible.