I wasn't equating religious superstitions with phobias and sexuality, I was asking you if you would accommodate those differently than religious superstitions. You could say, "yes, I would, completely different". You could say "no, people should keep these things out of the public square".
I was equating bigotry against religion with bigotry against sexuality or gender identity. That is because, bigotry is, by definition, intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. I find the question of tolerance and accommodation at the heart of this discussion and the kind of society we want to live in.
Moving from phobias and sexuality and back to the more analogous region of ideas and beliefs, what about situations like my friend and his wifi nuttiness?
I appreciate your pointing out the specific part of my post you were disagreeing with. Bad wording on my part. I meant, no one should be required, on pain of losing employment, to do something which is against their conscience when reasonable accommodation can be made.
The history of Quakers in WWI and WWII and the issues around alternative service and munitions manufacturing are well documented. Apparently an atheist airman in Nevada was going to lose his job unless he said the oath "so help me God". Nevertheless, it is tedious to dig up examples for a thought experiment.
You do say that people aren't forced to take these jobs, and that is a fair point. What about forcing someone who has a job, on pain of job loss, to do something that can otherwise be reasonably accommodated?