Here's a story I ran across on the ultra right-wing religious wing-nut "news" website "WorldNetDaily"...
Summarizing here: a nurse was demoted at her job in a hospital because she refused to dispense the "morning after" pill to patients. She claimed it was a violation of her religious beliefs.
I'll admit my first knee-jerk reaction was that she was being ridiculous. Perhaps even "religulous" (with apologies to Bill Maher). But then I started thinking about it a little differently, I asked myself how would I react if she said that it was a violation of her ethical beliefs concerning the sanctity of human life?
While I suspect a great many atheists are pro-choice, there are a few of us who consider abortion to be, at best, a moral grey area. A fertilized egg, if left to its own devices and allowed to develop naturally, does indeed become a human being. The actual point where it acquires whatever it is that makes us "human" is a moral and philosophical question, not really a scientific one. Given that, I can at least feel some sympathy for a medical professional (a nurse in this case) who believes the right ethical decision is to err fully on the side of caution.
What I can fault her for is her position not being a reasoned argument based on rational principles but instead a blindly-held faith-principle held under the watchful gaze of an invisible sky-god of its own dubious moral qualities. So while I do disagree with her *reasons* for holding a moral objection, I cannot particularly fault the actual moral objection and find myself grateful that the Supreme Court has elected to defend our right to concientiously object to particpating in activities that violate our personal ethical standards.