Should the NFL use something besides "pigskin" to make footballs because one or two players have a religious objection to pork?
Is Blackwater obligated to hire a mercenary who claims to be a "conscientious objector" and refuses to kill people?
Should Playboy publish a photo pictorial of a middle aged male to avoid discriminating against people based on age and gender?
Is Abercrombie and Fitch obligated to hire Samantha Elauf as one of their sales girls even though she wears a hijab for religious reasons?
MY answers are no, no, HELL no!, and absolutely not.
According to Wikipedia,
"The first [foot]balls were made of natural materials, such as an inflated pig bladder, later put inside a leather cover, which has given rise to the United States slang-term 'pigskin'. Modern balls are designed by teams of engineers to exacting specifications, with rubber or plastic bladders, and often with plastic covers"
In this instance, "pigskin" is a euphemism, and there is nothing pork related to the ball used to play the game. However, even if there was, players with religious objections are never forced to play the game. They always have the option of giving up their multi-million dollar salaries because they want to improve their chances of getting into heaven.
I have often pointed out that you cannot be "a little bit pregnant". Either you are or you aren't. As far as Blackwater is concerned, you are either a killer - or you're not. Why do people assume they will get paid for being unwilling or incapable of doing the job in question? I have no idea why a conscientious objector would even apply for a job with Blackwater, but I would strongly recommend against filing a discrimination lawsuit against the company. Given their reputation, you may not live long enough to have your day in court. (Just sayin'.)
Allow me to apologize for the visual image of a naked, potbellied male as next month's foldout. (Playboy magazine has articles?! Really?!) I still can't get the image of Burt Reynolds in Cosmopolitan magazine out of my mind, but it appears that Playgirl magazine is still in business. Evidently my tastes are not shared by everyone. (Go figure!) None the less, Playboy magazine is - by definition - all about young, nubile, naked women. Buy the magazine or don't buy the magazine. Those are your choices. Forcing the magazine to conform to your thoughts about sexuality is not a morally justifiable pursuit.
The first three social conflicts are hypothetical, however the last one is very real. Samantha Elauf is an attractive Muslim woman who applied for a job with Abercrombie and Fitch. During her job interview she wore a hijab, which I would characterize as an fashionable scarf wrapped across the top of her head and around her neck. I have no clue what religious significance this apparel has for Ms. Elauf, however it doesn't really matter. Like it or not, the clothing store in question has rigorously created its own niche in the fashion world. I don't think I've ever been in one of their stores, but that is certainly my choice. Ms. Elauf may choose to apply for jobs anywhere she wants... assuming she is able and willing to do the job she is seeking. No one is suggesting (yet) that she be hired as a pilot if she doesn't know how to fly, and she's not going to find a job at Playboy given her strong attraction to certain articles of clothing. Abercrombie and Fitch wants employees with a "certain look". If Samantha Elauf isn't willing to conform to that look, she's free to search elsewhere for employment.
Bullying is a problem that is getting lots of public attention these days. Usually it focuses on middle or high school students being ridiculed and harrassed by groups of their peers who refuse to accept them for who or what they are. Bullying in the adult world seems to involve asking the Supreme Court to force large groups of people to conform to the alleged religious beliefs of a single person. Both types of bullying are wrong.
Lighting the Fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!