 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
There is nothing wrong, IMO, with religious people wearing apparel, or any accessory that expresses their religious belief in non-demeaning ways at workplaces.
|
Not in France. Such 'non-demeaning ways' now extends to all such accessories worn in a classroom by a student.
[quote
But when someone decides to play God and take such arrogant, inane, grossly insensitive, ignorant, hateful, sexist, extremely unfair action such as this dope did, he is LOOKING to get fired.
[/quote]
1. Arrogant? All religous folks are arrogant?
2. Inane? It's the teachings of his religion.
3. Insensitive? True, he could have handled the situation in a more tactful manner.
4. Ignorant? Again, he knows how the pill works, but rejects the rationale.
5. hateful? The man has no beef with the customer, but rather the pill.
6. Sexist? Again, the gender of the complainant had nothing to do with his reasons fro not prescribing the pill.
7. Extremely unfair? How so? Did he let one woman have the pill, and not another?
It's getting so I could almost dismiss your post as mere rhetoric, Mr. Fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mordoch:
True, but it still fails for the same reason as the claim that one's religion only allows them to work a 4 day week. Religious freedom does not need to accomodate the hypothetical, but rather the actual beliefs. |
And private employers don't have to accomodate it if such expression would put on them undue burden.
My company only recognizes the official government holidays. Jewish employees must take vacation time for Jewish holidays, as Catholics must for Good Friday. If there were any Muslims, the story would be the same, I'm sure, for their holy days.
Likewise, Eckert has no legal compunction to allow a man to exercise his religious beliefs while representing them as a company. By refusing this woman service, the man was effectively enshrining his belief as the company policy. That's wrong, and he deserved to be reprimanded for it. If he does it again, he should be fired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Reference the earlier note on a conscientious objector - due to his beliefs, he MAY NOT serve as an armed soldier. However, the military can make a reasonable accomodation, it's called a Corpman (frontline medical personnel - think EMS).
(hijack warning) It's why I have nothing but contempt for draft dodgers, either those with the guts to do it directly, or indirectly (I am including the last two presidents of the US, by the way). In Vietnam conscientious objectors serving as corpman had, from my understanding (source read years ago, cannot document) the hightest ratio of Medal of Honor among serving personnel. They also had hideously high fatality rates, the Viet Cong considered them a primary target. I wouldn't have the guts to go into a combat zone without the ability to shoot back. I call that a strongly held conviction - they are willing to die for it while saving others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mordoch:
True, but it still fails for the same reason as the claim that one's religion only allows them to work a 4 day week. Religious freedom does not need to accomodate the hypothetical, but rather the actual beliefs. |
Ok, here's a rather good real life example. The Church of Scientology has an extremely negative view of Psyhiatric Drugs. Here's site that definately appears to have been set up by a Scientologist in which it list among other drugs, Prozac and Xanax as being " all dangerous and should not be used by anybody under any circumstances".
http://www.sntp.net/drugs/drugs.htm
It actually is quite possible that a Scientologist would believe that he has a moral duty to refuse to provide a patient with Prozac or Xanax when the patient comes in with prescription. However, when not talking about psychiatric drugs, I believe that Scientology does not a have a problem with them. Therefore its quite possible to have Scientologist pharmacist who is perfectly willing to provide most drugs, but refuses to give any psychiatric drugs to any customers. Concievably this could lead to someone running out of Prozac, falling into a deep depression and killing himself. How would you handle a situation like this which could actually occur if it hasn't already?
Update: Here's some more evidence of Scientology's views on Prozac.
quote:
The latest wonder drug, Prozac, which is linked with violence, permanent mental instability and death, has been consistently exposed by CCHR. The Food and Drug Administration has received more adverse reaction reports on this drug since it was introduced in 1987 than any drug in history. Yet it is still being prescribed to millions of people around the world. CCHR has conducted a massive public awareness campaign to make the facts known, demanding its removal from the market. |
http://www.scientology.org/reform/new/8psych.htm
Last edited by Mordoch on 07-02-2004 at 13:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If someone has a "moral opposition" to filling a legally valid prescription, he or she shouldn't be a pharmacist. |
I disagree. Although I am not 'pro-life', I don't think anyone should be forced by their employers to do anything immoral. He should have just passed her on to one of his colleagues though. Also, presumably she didn't tell him she was a rape victim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fianlly, if we follow your logic, no Catholics should become pharmacists, a situation that seems absurd. |
Again, the company has no legal obligation to change its legal business practices to appease a religious group, no matter how big or small. Pharmacists are required by their employers to dispense all medications they have as the company policy dictates, not the pharmacist.
Any employee might object to serving a customer on any grounds gussied up under religious beliefs. What if he had refused to dispense medications to a black woman because his religion taught that black people were immoral and didn't deserve medication? Why would that be acceptable for the company?
As I said before: when a pharmacist is working for a company like Eckert, in the performance of his duties he is acting as their official representative. If he takes a moral stance such as this in his job, he is presenting his own philosophy as that of the company's. No company is obligated to tolerate that so long as the business practice in question is legal. So they had every right to discipline him. If the man has a moral qualm with doing ANY part of the job required of him, then he should find new employment. He does not have "squatters rights" to the job, so even if the introduction of the pill came long after he was a pharmacist, his professional duty is to conform to the new standards or to resign if he is unable to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I disagree. Although I am not 'pro-life', I don't think anyone should be forced by their employers to do anything immoral. |
The only thing that determines what is "moral" and "immoral" in a business context is what is legal and illegal. Dispensing the medication is legal, so the company has every right do so AND to expect all of its employees to do so.
My company, years ago, did some work for a major company that proved itself to be incredibly homophobic in its hiring practices. I asked to be recused from the work, and it was granted (not out of any obligation, but because they were generous). However, 2 years later we got a bunch more business from them. It was made clear to me that, while the company understood my position, I could not recuse myself this time, because the amount of work involved required everyone play a part. I simply had to swallow my pride and do the work, because in the end I knew I was being paid to act as an agent of my company, not to soothe my own moral conscience. Had my moral objection been stronger, I simply would have had to quit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not in France. Such 'non-demeaning ways' now extends to all such accessories worn in a classroom by a student.
|
Whats really interesting is,
that it´s not just the western christian countries which regulate which clothes students are allowed to wear and which not.
Also Turkey, as an islamic Country has some strict Clothing regulations in Universities and administrative Buildings.
Students and People who work für the Administration are not allowed to wear a Fez or a veil.
Kemal Atatürk introduced them at the Beginning of 20th century as an effort to diminish the power of islamistic movements within Turkey and to turn Turkey into a modern western State.
And I think he was somehow successful, because, despite Turky having some Flaws (such as the Struggle with the Kurds) it is still a more secular country where also Women possess a lot of freedoms they don´t have in other islamic countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
So you would be happy to do any immoral things that your employers demand without objection?
Interesting work ethic....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So you would be happy to do any immoral things that your employers demand without objection?
Interesting work ethic.... |
You always can throw in Objections.
But, if you just refuse to do your Job and it is not an authorized strike, your employer hs the right to fire you.
As for the Pharmacist:
I assume he knew long ago that there were Stockpiles of the Morning After Pill in the Pharmacy where he was employed.
But did he ever object to his company selling them? Obviously not and of course he must have known, that he also would some day have to sell those pills.
Obviously he never ever showed any indication, that in his opinion selling those Pills is immoral.
It wasn´t as if he he openly told his Bosses: "O.K., I wo0rk in the Pharmacy, but if anyone wants the Morning After Pill I´ll refuse to sell them"
If he had done so and his Employer willingly accepted the risk he shouldn´t suffer any consequences.
But as it wasn´t the case, his Employer obviously has every right to punish him for not doing his job properly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
Ben, are you going to address my real life example since it eliminates the problem you had with my previous one?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by curtsibling
Some religionists think that a women deserves to suffer birthing the child of a rapist monster.
|
Surely this is not an isuue about rape. It makes no difference whether or not she was raped since the child-to-be is innocent (or do you ascribe the sins of the father to the child?). If very early abortion is wrong, then such abortions in rape cases is wrong too. It is an issue of abortion, and in this case worker's rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
So what? Neither will you. It's not just male catholics who have a problem, my pharmacist friend is female and she has a problem with the morning after pill. So does my girlfriend. So why is gender an issue? |
I could care less if a pharmacist — male or female — has moral objections to dispensing certain types of medications. If we're going to have allowances for religious concerns to supercede the law, imagine what other sort of allowances society is going to have to allow.
Gender is an issue only in the fact that you and I will never be raped and impregnated. We will never experience that type of horror, at least not in this lifetime. The key word is experience. We can debate it all we want, but in the end, a person who has experienced it will have more weight on the matter than either of us ever will.
So, with that in mind, I find it hard to condemn the rape victim for attempting to prevent an unwanted pregnancy ... which is why it sort of set me off to see a *male* pharmacist inserting himself into her life in that crude manner. My reaction would have been the same if it'd been a female pharmacist.
Now, if we had a female pharmacist who'd been raped herself and given birth to a beautiful bouncing baby and cared for it and was loved and supported by her family (and the rapist's) along with the outside world who did this to to the rape victim in question, it would've raised my eyebrows more than anything else.
quote:
Where do I advocate not helping women who are raped? I would rather give them proper counselling and support rather than giving them a pill and saying, there you go. All is well. |
Any integral part of rape aftercare is, if the woman wishes, having the fundamental right to not bear the rapist's child. Your support for counseling and support is rather admirable, but hollow if it means the woman will be forced to bear an unwanted child nonetheless.
quote:
Where do I call these women whores? I don't blame them for beign raped. |
I was speaking based on my experience with local conservatives and hoighty-toity types that populate my immediate area of the world. A number of them do view such women as whores.
The direct reference to you was meant in the sense that, as a male, you can never experience what it's like to be presumed a whore, *not* that you necessarily considered such women to be whores or that you blamed them for getting pregnant. Others who subscribe to your views do view them that way, however, and an unfortunate number of them live in my area, which colors my view of religious types negatively.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:33
|
|
I think the bottom line here is, that religious beliefs and other beliefs as well are not an excuse to override the laws and the regulations. If so, then it's a free ticket for everyone to interpret religion and personal beliefs and implement that in action against people who do not share the same beliefs, PLUS I might add that the woman was in trouble and was a victim of a rape. In this situation, there is no room for this kind of action and behaviour. Like many have said, if this pharmacist didn't want to give the drugs that the DOCTOR had prescribed (which is his job), then he shouldn't be working there in the first place.
It's like slipping sleep pills into your troops coffee cups, so they can't wake up to the early ambush, to prevent from killing the enemy soldiers. If you can't handle it, then you shoudln't be there in the first place, and if its against your morals, it should be your ass that is in the line of fire, not the other ones. You can't do that to other people who are not likely thinking the same way.
It's like force aborting rape victims, because you believe in that they are evil spawns of the rapist sperm, and give morning pills instead of aspirin for the head ache. You just can't do that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2004 08:22
|