Mark Whitten inquires by e-mail re: Alcohol, Dogs, and Muslim Cab Drivers:
What is the difference between a Muslim cab driver who does not wish to transport a person with a dog or [an unopened container of] alcohol, and a fundamentalist Christian pharmacist who does not want to dispense birth control?
Is there not a similar issue of social (dis)harmony / ‘‘assimilation’’ here?
I will assume arguendo that the arguments against the moral permissibility of birth control (i.e., techniques that prevent conception as opposed to terminating a conceptus) are no better than the arguments against the moral permissibility of imbibing alcoholic beverages in moderation and keeping (well-behaved) dogs as pets and transporting them in public. On this assumption what the Christian pharmacist and the Muslim cab driver are doing is very similar.
If I were the owner of the pharmacy, I would fire the fundamentalist and give him this little speech: "We live in a tolerant pluralistic society in which people disagree about many things including the morality of contraception. I grant you that, objectively, the practice is either morally acceptable or it is not. But we don't know which it is. While I respect your deep conviction, it is cuts no ice. So we tolerate those who differ. If in good conscience you cannot dispense birth control pills and devices, then you should resign. But if you refuse to do your job, then you are fired."
If I were the owner of the cab company, I would fire the Muslim and give him this little speech: "We live in a tolerant pluralistic society in which people disagree about many things including the morality of drinking. I grant you that, objectively, the practice is either morally acceptable or it is not. But we don't know which it is. While I respect your deep conviction, it cuts no ice. So we tolerate those who differ. If in good conscience you cannot pick up uninebriated and otherwise well-behaved fares who are transporting unopened containers of hooch, then you should resign. But if you refuse to do your job, you are fired.
And similarly for the Muslim supermarket checkout girl who refuses to touch a package of bacon. She ought to be fired. Ditto for the Muslim Disneyland hostess who insisted on wearing a hijab. She should be fired and told to look for a job at ShariaLand.
Suppose a flat-chested lass tries to get a waitress job at Hooters. Hooters is an establishment wherein adolescent males of all ages assemble to gawk at the front-end endowments — the 'hooters' — of nubile young ladies. (Some eating and drinking takes place as well.) Suppose the applicant is refused on the ground of cup size. I would say that that is a legitimate form of discrimination given the puerile purposes of that private enterprise. It is similar to the Disneyland case. The average American goes to Disneyland for a dose of pure Americana. That's what Disneyland sells. The rubes from fly-over country don't want to see no Muslims. Disneyland, as a private enterprise, has the right to demand that its employees project the right image.
And political correctness be damned.