“This argument doesn’t work for me, because my first reaction to it is to picture a devout Muslim doctor presented with the case of a gay or Jew or Muslim apostate who’s on the verge of death and whose life he, the doctor, is in a position to save. Let’s say the doctor, aware that Islam commands him to kill such people, not save them, allows the patient to die. Does he have First Amendment religious protections on his side?”
He would in non life threatening cases have that right but I doubt any hospital would hire him or even be forbidden from firing him. Since it is certainly not a reasonable accommodation of religious belief to allow the physician to reject doing what is essentially his job. A cake is not a life or death situation. Talk about your straw man arguments.
Perhaps it’s a straw man argument, but since the author is correct on things like cakes, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt and say he’s overreacting to the example of Muslim doctors. It’s the first amendment right to scream fire in a theatre, doesn’t exist. Any more than it would for a Muslim doctor. I guess it is a straw man. I can imagine a Muslim doctor making that decision in many parts of the world.
If self employed, perhaps, in a work environment, I doubt it. Which is why hospitals would be reluctant to hire or accredit him. Thanks to the NFL, the difference between our right to non governmental interference and employer enforcement of work rules is being lost.