Originally Posted by dfunkie1
that's not the point i was getting at. the law doesn't matter since the person is practicing their recognized religious rights. that makes it not illegal.
if a muslim doctor opened a muslim hospital, he could practice those rights as often as he wanted since it would be privatized. if a muslim doctor went to a public hospital and those beliefs were part of his terms and conditions, he wouldn't be hired.
As you may have seen earlier, I disagree with the sense in which I think you're using privatized. No man is an island, and I'm not sure that the type of business transactions we're talking about are either. This is partly why Smith's allegory of the "Invisible Hand" (which is something he didn't make a big deal out of, but which has been amplified in economics today) makes sense.
You'll also have seen that I don't think it is enough to say "This is my religious belief" or "This is a matter of personal conscience." We don't permit blatant discrimination no matter how backed by religion or personal conscience that discrimination may be. As I argued earlier, the justification should be provided by either pointing to a fact which cannot be disputed, or to competing values. If the latter, we should agree to the values which are least counter-productive to our practical goals (like building a co-operative society with a high degree of justified trust in market transactions). If it does not follow one of these two forks, then it is arbitrary and shouldn't, and possibly can't, be defended.
Note that I am focusing on a more abstract conception of what makes something right, or justifiable. If your perspective is that the law as already crafted describes what is right and is the ultimate grounds to justify any action, then I will not be able to sway you, but we should perhaps discuss this further if you think that is the case.