Quote:
Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich
this statement can be applied to everything you are against...gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the representation of cultural diversity in America...
|
Not really in the way you think. The objection is with the use of force to override the individual conscience.
So if a bakery or church has an objection of conscience to providing services for a gay marriage, then the government should not force them to.
Cultural diversity should be represented in America, and I am in no way against that. I would be against forcing private parties to accommodate representation against their own wishes.
There are key differences in forcing private citizens to perform acts which violate their conscience and restricting them from certain acts through due process of Constitutional law. The boundaries of due process of Constitutional law to place behavioral restrictions are well established and explicitly enumerated.
And yes, there is a long history of feigning objections of conscience to avoid submitting to reasonable exercise of governmental authority. Lots of purported "conscientious objectors" to various wars were merely cowards trying to avoid military service. The movie, Sgt. York, had a good portrayal of a reasonable approach to accommodating a true conscientious objector and helping one work through the issues within the boundaries of his faith and conscience.
The question of malingering regarding school assignments is easily addressed by allowing alternate assignments in cases where the original assignment offends the conscience. I'm sure there are many good pieces of similar length and difficulty that can be learned and recited in spanish if reciting the Pledge of Allegiance offends an individual's conscience.
The proof of an authority's lust for power is when they refuse to allow an alternate assignment and insist on forcing a student to violate their conscience.