Having said that, what I am not sure I understand is the reaction of those denied a license. My impression is as though they are acting like a license is not able to be obtained - at all.
While I recognize that they want to be recognized, there just seems to be a disconnect for me around what is happening, and their reaction, considering a license is obtainable - just not there.
I recognize there are all kinds of issues here. A woman was hired to do a job. A facet of the job she was hired for changed.
I saw an image that said a Christian Scientist pharmacist refused to give drugs. It isn't quite the same as this woman's scenario - and not likely a "fair" comparison. A Christian Scientist wouldn't likely become a pharmacist in the first place.
I almost hesitate in writing about this, given how controversial the topic is. I am, however, writing more from a place of questioning, rather than from anywhere else.
As a person removed from the situation, I realize my perspective is going to be different. What am I missing?
I think things like this greatly challenge our ability to get along. This woman says she is standing up for her beliefs, and promptly gets attacked for her history.
While it isn't quite the same as the relatively mundane things that happen in our lives, it seems this is the way "we" operate. If we do not like what another person says, or stands for, and can't seem to budge the resulting situation, we seek to find ways to discredit the person/take them down in some way.
People may not say anything about my dealing with cancer itself, but seem more than willing to jump all over how I do things, or what I do, or how I seem to spend my money. They will judge me, find me lacking, and ignore the very thing that created much of my circumstances and dilemmas. The cancer is not "attackable," but *I* am.
It is still not the same, not exactly, but there are shades of our lives in many areas of our lives. We just think because we can't label everything, and match labels, it isn't the same. Other times we will make matches where there aren't any, or where they barely exist. The difference, I think, is what suits us best/is most convenient at the time (although I don't know how many would recognize it and/or acknowledge that possibility).
In hot bed emotional situations I think there is a big mess of issues. Simultaneously there are those who know how "simple" the fix is.
It may be all too easy for some to say this woman's beliefs are "too out there" to respect, and yet, if we ever wind up in the "out there" position, we'd want to be respected.
I am talking about much more about this situation than I wanted to/intended to. I am not sure that my getting into the fray about this is helpful in any way. It is why I often stay away from stuff like this.
I do, however, still have my original question. I also have the part of me that sees how we are so much more alike than we ever seem to realize/claim.
I tend to think if we saw more similarities than differences/conflicts we might just act differently. I certainly don't know what the answers are to things like this, but if they were truly that "simple," there are a lot of things we wouldn't be talking about because there would be no issue.
I wonder if any of this comes down to who/what we choose to give our respect? And if we pick and choose who and what we respect, there will be variances, unless we all agree to respect the same people/things.
I don't know about you, but as I think about this, I cannot think of one UNIVERSAL thing/belief/idea/person that ALL humans would agree upon. Not one. It really is amazing to me that we can manage together to do as much as we do.
I think that says something...but I am not sure what. Those moments of coming together, though, they can be pretty darn amazing, can't they?