Isn’t this exactly the same thing as the Christian county clerk Kim Davies who refused to issue same sex marriage licences as it is against her religious beliefs?
Both situations involve employees of secular organizations who refused to carry out paid work duties because it is against their own religious beliefs.
If Christians want to have the right to refuse services if it goes against their religious beliefs then surely the same right must apply to all religions and therefore shouldn’t these same Christians be supporting a Muslim’s right to refuse to handle pork?
I’m also confused as to why this is a sign of Muslims trying to impose sharia law, couldn’t it then be argued that Kim Davies is trying to impose Christian law on non believers? Or if Kim Davies is not trying to impose Christian law but merely trying uphold God’s law and trying to avoid sinning herself then isn’t the same thing true of these Muslims?
I’m not trying to be argumentative or anything, it’s just Kim Davies got support / sympathy on this forum & I don’t see what the difference is.
I’m new here & am having a crisis of faith at the moment and it’s been pointed out to me that some Christians demand freedom for their own religious expression but don’t seem to want to extend that freedom to other religions so I just wanted to see if maybe I’m missing something between these two scenarios?
Go easy on me
Edited for clarification