"some rights are better than others" is simply the rhetorical pose used these days to defend the traditionally privileged and protected against people who seem to threaten that privilege.
Or so say I.
Practically speaking, though, I think it's rather silly for the law to protect the people in your examples (or some of them) -- If one is against killing, one should not pursue a career in the SAS -- it's part of the job description. A vegan should not seek employment in an abbatoir, because, well, the purpose of the place is entirely incongruent with being a vegan on moral grounds.
In the case of doctors refusing to perform abortions, I have more sympathy. I do see that as a matter of conscience, and I would not require a plastic surgeon who believes that plastic surgery should be used only for reconstruction and repairs to do boob jobs and face lifts. Doctors are allowed to specialize, after all.
The case of Lilian Ladele, on the other hand, I find much more problematic: she was employed in a position, and the laws changed so that her job would require her to do something she found morally reprehensible. She refused to do that job, and was sacked. I think that's entirely fair, BUT, I think that it would also have been prudent to offer her a transfer to a position where she did not have to make a choice. If she had then chosen to remain in her position with its newly-expanded duties, she would then be obliged to do them or lose her job.
But ultimately, I think that there is a difference between choosing a job that one already knows is incompatible with one's beliefs (no protection) and having one's job changed so that one must make a choice (should probably be some sort of protection).
Having said all that, I have in the back of my head that there was a time when the laws changed to allow non-whites and women to work in certain jobs, and I'd fight tooth and nail against any such protections for existing white maile workers. It's always more complicated, isn't it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 06:27 pm (UTC)Or so say I.
Practically speaking, though, I think it's rather silly for the law to protect the people in your examples (or some of them) -- If one is against killing, one should not pursue a career in the SAS -- it's part of the job description. A vegan should not seek employment in an abbatoir, because, well, the purpose of the place is entirely incongruent with being a vegan on moral grounds.
In the case of doctors refusing to perform abortions, I have more sympathy. I do see that as a matter of conscience, and I would not require a plastic surgeon who believes that plastic surgery should be used only for reconstruction and repairs to do boob jobs and face lifts. Doctors are allowed to specialize, after all.
The case of Lilian Ladele, on the other hand, I find much more problematic: she was employed in a position, and the laws changed so that her job would require her to do something she found morally reprehensible. She refused to do that job, and was sacked. I think that's entirely fair, BUT, I think that it would also have been prudent to offer her a transfer to a position where she did not have to make a choice. If she had then chosen to remain in her position with its newly-expanded duties, she would then be obliged to do them or lose her job.
But ultimately, I think that there is a difference between choosing a job that one already knows is incompatible with one's beliefs (no protection) and having one's job changed so that one must make a choice (should probably be some sort of protection).
Having said all that, I have in the back of my head that there was a time when the laws changed to allow non-whites and women to work in certain jobs, and I'd fight tooth and nail against any such protections for existing white maile workers. It's always more complicated, isn't it?