Ill Considered Policies in Action

[ShadowHM]

Oh dear, Shadow, is it can of worms time? 

What is the difference between "that job is too icky/risky for me" and "I cannot do that job on moral grounds/for personal reasons."  Who gets to draw the line? 

...

The "moral" and "it's against my religion to . . ." arguments in re employment represent significant difficulties in applying a fair labor law, or fair labor regulations, where benefits accrue for not working.  Before the law, aren't all citizens equal?  Or, as Orwell observes, are some more equal than others?



[right][snapback]66955[/snapback][/right]

Oh dear Occhi :) That was why I included the question about the secretary at the abortion clinic. :P

There may well be a can of worms there. * My view is that I, as a tax-paying citizen, should not have to subsidize your moral choices in employment. You, of course, are perfectly free to make those choices in the first place. If you find certain areas of work abhorrent, whether for moral or any other reasons, you do not have to do them. You draw the line, not me.

I would have a concern if certain types of employment that in fact were abhorrent to you were your only choices, but that is another topic altogether, and involves issues like freedom of movement, freedom of education opportunities, freedom from coersion, etc.




*Aren't there always cans of worms sprinkled liberally around all issues of social policy? ;)