>>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.
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only