cover this covers moral conscience and and religious freedom how are they the same they're the same in the sense when they are why claims of workplace requirement is coming from and i think what's doing a lot of work in this statute is that the word discriminate if in the in the employment setting which is where this case is wh limited to licensing hiring or promotion transfer transfer so that's the question does the mere fact that somebody is transferred that fall within the ambit a statute you say you see necessary must go something beyond again we we get guidance from from the work that the courts have done in discrimination claims and in other contexts where the you know the parenting magic example of  know not necessarily a not necessarily you know a demotion from you know manager to non managerial but you know in in essence there point was that you know all the nurses were going to be able to provide all the health care services that the economy that's because it is frustrating program right that's employer takes steps to reasonably accommodate up to a time just consciously hopefully that that's not discrimination  the intent of this and could not have their take hamstrung hamstring employers in this way it's to allow employees to have a veto over the types of health care services that are provided i think you will be in the delicate balance of this station is walking is honoring someone's consciously h whilst still recognizing that the reality of the workplace well the root reality of the workplace and the reality that health care providers have the right to provide the health care services to individuals that may offend some people say conscience if it's still a fact that those are legal health care services that  know what i totally lost my job so that's why did you ask you this question when it came up because i didn't want to lose your traitor well let me ask this question aren't you doing sort of a balancing if there's a compelling government interest to provide this particular service correct this particular radical service craft and there is also a compelling interest to respect the conscious of the consciousness and the conscience rather moral conscience of the employee so isn't it more a balancing test then an adverse employment reasonable accommodation  like that a constitutional claim than it would be a title seven because title seven is just this happened it was adverse if it can be proven but we've accommodated we've made a reasonable accommodation those are the that is how you want this to proceed this seems to be a bit more complicated than that doesn't it well i would say that title seven so in other words we would have to show that even if you fall back on our position based on the plain language we can still show that the transfer was discriminatory and there's no reason to have to type this up a matter of getting it you're saying is your position and the reason why they keep going back to the school standard for discrimination it's title seven is frankly a gold standard for employers because there are very strong protection for the employers and it defines discrimination in much the same way that human at human human legislature was clear if the intent is to protect the right of conscience i don't know that anybody is going to be there but in the recent amended the statute also recognizes the public policy of illinois to ensure that patients receive timely access to persons who can't maybe otherwise provide go to private physicians or whatever the case may be and so there that the employer here has not only a responsibility but you can't force a nurse or a doctor or pharmacist to do this against percussions you can find other nurses you can find other doctors and other pharmacists if a nurse doctor pharmacist or health care professional refuse