Because it's their job. If they have some kind of moral objection to selling a book, they need to either find someone else to handle the transaction, or find another job.Originally Posted by Squirrel Killer
Because it's their job. If they have some kind of moral objection to selling a book, they need to either find someone else to handle the transaction, or find another job.
I don't give a flying fuck what your job is, if you're morally opposed to something, no one should force you to do it. If your employer decides to fire you over it, that's a consequence you have to face. But the government, coming in with the force of law requiring you do it? That just strikes me as very wrong. Weren't we just falling over ourselves denouncing those morons who blindly did whatever they were told to do on their job? Maybe it would have turned out better if the manager had said, "It's morally wrong to allow my boyfriend to strip seach my young female employee."
I don't think anyone either mentioned or implied the government stepping in in this case.
They took the fucking job. THE END.
Sorry if they have to lower their pretty morals for the dirty dirty money.
Squirrel, you're quite the commie today.
If defending a person's right to refuse to perform an act they feel is unethical is communist, I'm damned proud to be so.
I think that was more in reference to the previous thread on this same topic. FWIW.
It's certainly naive to assume that people don't have to do things they don't want to for money.If defending a person's right to refuse to perform an act they feel is unethical is communist, I'm damned proud to be so.
Yes, even ethically.
I'm amused, because usually I'm arguing the moral outrage position...
What if a Jew wanted to work in a pig slaughterhouse? What if they were hired to slaughter pigs? Could they object on religious grounds to doing that job, and thus get paid to do nothing?
In my opinion, it's like this: The government, and employers by extention are required to make reasonable accomodations for religions. This includes things like religious holidays/observances off, lack of discrimation for beliefs, perhaps adequate space for a prayer mat or things like that. But, this does not include not doing a specific part of your job all the time. If you take a job, you take the entire job. If you have a problem with the job, you leave it and do something else.
What these pharmacists are doing is not expressing their own religious beliefs, but imposing those beliefs not only on their employers but on the customers. How far can we take this? Can they choose not to sell an anti-histamine because their religious beliefs think seasonal allergies are holy? What if they choose to not sell protease inhibitors because they believe people with HIV deserve to have it?
I don't see ANY refusal to sell ANY prescription as reasonable. You either sell all of them that are legal to do so, or you quit your job so that your ethics are satisfied.
It's like a SNL skit:
"Christian Scientist Pharmacist!"
The great thing is how we've had, oh, three of these threads and Euri still doesn't have the slightest fucking idea what people are talking about.
Raife-I don't think anyone either mentioned or implied the government stepping in in this case.Who, exactly, is going to punish those booksellers who do refuse? Maybe you haven't been following along, but the government ALREADY DID step in. You don't even need to click on the link, it's in the freaking quoted portion. [/quote]I also don't think booksellers should be able to refuse to sell copies of books they don't like, either.
Did you read the second half of his post, or were you too eager to throw your dick around?
The government stepped in in this case by establishing a law in the State of Illinois that requires pharmacists to fill emergency contraceptive prescriptions if the pharmacy normally sells them. If you think that this spectre of governmental control is somehow going to apply to businesses where the time factor is not so critical and life-changing, you're an idiot.
If a bookstore employee refuses to sell a book based on moral objections, for one, he or she needs to get someone else to handle the sale, and two, try out an actual demanding job for awhile because they are a whining fucking pansy.
Look, the problem is if some clerk at Barnes and Nobles decides not to sell you a copy of the new Stephen King novel, he gets his ass fired (as he should).
But the pharmacies think it's fine and dandy for their wackos to pick and choose what they sell to their customers. It is Walmart's right not to carry a product, but any clerk who refuses to sell a product Walmart carries should be fired.
BTW, here are some outlets who allow their pharmacists to pick and choose their prescriptions. Me and the wife are taking our business elsewhere:
Walmart
Target
Walgreens
Winn-Dixie
Rite-Aid
I always wonder if the pro-death folks who spew this realize that the anti-choice crowd doesn't care what women do to their own bodies so much as what they do to the fetus' body.
The zygote isn't a part of the woman's body any more than the goo that fertilized the egg is. It is, like the bacteria in my stomach that enable me to drink milk without getting the runs, a friendly foreigner.
So does the state get a say in what happens to your bacteria?
Wackos? Your tolerance for people who have opinions different from your own is remarkable. Truly an example for us all. :roll:But the pharmacies think it's fine and dandy for their wackos to pick and choose what they sell to their customers.
Raife-
If you don't want the government to force booksellers to sell books they don't want to then agreeing with "I also don't think booksellers should be able to refuse to sell copies of books they don't like, either." doesn't make any sense.
Sure it does. There's a difference between having an opinion and believing that the government should step in to enforce that opinion.
And if their employer is fine with the employees acting based on their morality, who is the government to say otherwise?
This analogy was no more correct when you brought it up in the last thread. Somone who is anti-X is not going to take a job doing expressly that. If I think airplanes are immoral, I'm not going to take a job as a pilot. Even if I did, it's the employer's perogative whether or not to retain me despite my unwillingness to perform the work I was hired to do. Should I keep my job in that case? The case where I basically refuse to do any work? Of course not. Should I keep my job in a case where I dutifully perform 95% of the job description and discuss my reasons for not doing the remaining 5%? That's a question best left to my employer, not the government.
Also, there are other branches of pharmacy where someone opposed to birth control/contraception could have reasonably expected to not encounter such moral questions, but perhaps fell into retail pharmacy.
But what if the employer doesn't have a problem with the pharmacist not doing 5% of their job? Why isn't, "APPLICANT: Hey, I'd like to take this job, but I've got to let you know, I'm morally opposed to birth control, and I won't fill those types of prescriptions. STORE: Well, as long as you either give the prescription to another pharmacist who will fill it or give it back to the patient, I guess we can live with that." reasonable?
If you can still get the drugs from the pharmacy across the street, how is this the pharmacist imposing their beliefs on you? No. It's you imposing your belief that you should get anything from anyone, regardless of how they feel about it. Thin about it. You, as the patient, if the pharamacist refuses to fill your prescription, you ask the other pharmacist on duty, you go to the pharmacy across the street, an online pharmacy, the pharmacy in your grocery store, you go to Planned Parenthood, you go back to the prescribing doctor and ask for a reliable source. You have many options. The misguided pharmacist only has two, refuse to fill you prescription or violate their morals.
Look, I agree wholeheartly that these drugs should be available, I just don't think you should mandate access by requiring people to ignore their morals.
So, someone reeking of a meth lab comes into Euri's pharmacy and drops a cartful of Sudafed on the counter. Yeah, that's a smart sell. Maybe someone comes in with a few too many OxyContin prescriptions, it's ok, Euri Drug Shoppe is open for business.
No one is saying that an employer shouldn't fire an employee who refuses to perform a portion of their job. But, when an employer doesn't fire such an employee, the only enforcement agency that can compel compliance is the federal government.
If Walmart thinks so too, I have no problem with that. It's when the government steps in and takes the discretion to make that decision away from the employers that I have a problem.
Bingo, this is the proper response.
---------------------------
Ultimately, I think we're never going to see eye to eye on this because we're talking about different things. Most of you are talking about access to these drugs. I agree with you that these drugs should be available, readily even. But what I'm discussing is what role the government should have in the private employer/employee relationship. I just don't think that the government has a right to butt in when a employer is accepting of an employee's job limitations due to morality. Are we such a moral society that we should encourage people to not be moral? This ties into the obedience at work thread, do we want people to be blindly obedient?
I can't believe this is even being argued. You don't want to dispense legal drugs, don't become a fucking pharmacist. Period. You're paid to dish out meds, not make moral decisions about your customers.
And you can't allow selective sales of books because it can easily lead to censorship. In Canada, we've got one privately owned company in control of something like 90% of our bookstores. The owner, Heather Reisman, decided a few years ago she didn't want to sell certain books, so she took hateful books like Mein Kampf off the shelves. Apparently she changed her mind, at least in regard to online sales as I see it does come up at the website now, but as far as I know you can't buy it in a store in Canada, pretty much everywhere.
Yes, I know, Hitler, evil, hate literature, etc. But as repulsive as Mein Kampf is, it is also studied by thousands of of Canadian history students in both universities and high schools. Like it or not, it is part of history, and people should be able to read it to gain further understanding of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the insanity of racism. Banning the book just gives more encouragement to the idiots who think Hitler was misunderstood and that the Holocaust didn't take place. Even Jewish groups were against Reisman's ban, incidentally.
Believe whatever religion you want to believe, but the wackiness begins when you drag me and my family into it. The people who choose to impose their views on others are the intolerant ones.
It reminds me of the story of the vegetarian waiter at the steakhouse...
Agreed. The market should resolve this, not the government. I'm gonna miss those great Sunday 37.77 game discounts at target, boy, but there are more important things in life.
:roll:
I agree with you for *private sphere jobs*, which is what pretty much every other example someone has come up with is.If defending a person's right to refuse to perform an act they feel is unethical is communist, I'm damned proud to be so.
I think most people disagree with you on this area because either implicitly or explicitly, we think pharmacists and doctors are providing a public sphere function, which makes it subject to "all comers, keep your personal beliefs out of it, no discrimination, cannot refuse constitutional rights," and so on. There's obviously wiggle room, but this seems quite over the line, basically.
I think Bill Maher put it something like this:
"Memo to the pharmacists... You're not a doctor. On the medical scale of importance, you rate somewhere between chiropractor and tree surgeon."
I don't care what ball you personally put a job into, especially when you seem to put booksellers into the same ball. I'll just be over here, defending a person's right to refuse to perform an act they feel is unethical.
Why? They refuse to perform a service that does not in any way directly effect them. They are not being forced to take drugs, or even touch them directly.This analogy was no more correct when you brought it up in the last thread.
And yet here we are, with people taking a job doing X and not doing X.Somone who is anti-X is not going to take a job doing expressly that.
Because sometimes the government has to step in when people are being unreasonable.But what if the employer doesn't have a problem with the pharmacist not doing 5% of their job?
But these pharmacists have already shown their unwillingness to do this. They say "no" and do not offer assistance, do not get a coworker. They say no. They say no and do nothing else.STORE: Well, as long as you either give the prescription to another pharmacist who will fill it or give it back to the patient, I guess we can live with that." reasonable?
And if that pharmacy says the same thing?If you can still get the drugs from the pharmacy across the street, how is this the pharmacist imposing their beliefs on you?
Wrong. I am asking a person to do their job.No. It's you imposing your belief that you should get anything from anyone, regardless of how they feel about it.
And Betty Sue who lives in Nowhere Kansas where there is only one pharmacy and she doesn't own a computer and planned parenthood was closed due to bomb threats. Shit, now Betty Sue is out of luck. We kowtow to religious garbage constantly, but when it comes to legal, prescribed medicine enough is fucking enough.Thin about it. You, as the patient, if the pharamacist refuses to fill your prescription, you ask the other pharmacist on duty, you go to the pharmacy across the street, an online pharmacy, the pharmacy in your grocery store, you go to Planned Parenthood, you go back to the prescribing doctor and ask for a reliable source. You have many options. The misguided pharmacist only has two, refuse to fill you prescription or violate their morals.
Then you give carte blanche for anyone to refuse to do any service on any grounds. Once you open this door, it's open forever.Look, I agree wholeheartly that these drugs should be available, I just don't think you should mandate access by requiring people to ignore their morals.
Oh please, lets break down this silly analogy.So, someone reeking of a meth lab comes into Euri's pharmacy and drops a cartful of Sudafed on the counter. Yeah, that's a smart sell. Maybe someone comes in with a few too many OxyContin prescriptions, it's ok, Euri Drug Shoppe is open for business.
First, things like sudafed in most states are controlled to some degree due to their contents, so is Kerosene for the same reason, and lithium batteries. In this case, you would have good reason to believe they would be using these items to committ a crime. It is reasonable to deny such a request, just as if somebody had come into my sporting goods store with a bloody nose and asked to purchase a bat to go and kill somebody with.
As for OxyContin, this is controlled. You get what the doctor prescribes.
You are comparing a criminal act, and something patently unhealthy (and quite impossible in most states) to filling a legal prescription. Please.
What a quality response to a very well stated post.:roll:
Oh, here's another question for you Squirrel:
Let's say I work for a private hospital as a paramedic. Can I refuse to treat a black person as long as I call for another ambulance to come and do it? Keep in mind this is identical to the pharmacist refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. Please support your answer, and show your work.
Oh, and black people are approximately 3% of the population in my local county.
Because the pharmacist is acting unethically if they won't fill the prescription. Their professional society should have them thrown out, and if they won't do it, the government should. The pharmacist is a sophisticated vending machine, nothing more.
They still have a moral obligation to provide services to the patient.Also, there are other branches of pharmacy where someone opposed to birth control/contraception could have reasonably expected to not encounter such moral questions, but perhaps fell into retail pharmacy.
It's not reasonable simply because that's not the pharmacists decision to make. It's not their job to decide what medicine a patient gets, and if they have a problem with dispensing certain medications then they should go find some other line of work.But what if the employer doesn't have a problem with the pharmacist not doing 5% of their job? Why isn't, "APPLICANT: Hey, I'd like to take this job, but I've got to let you know, I'm morally opposed to birth control, and I won't fill those types of prescriptions. STORE: Well, as long as you either give the prescription to another pharmacist who will fill it or give it back to the patient, I guess we can live with that." reasonable?
If the pharmacy has the medication in stock, then I should certainly be able to obtain it no matter what pharmacist is on duty. Failure to provide the medication is seriously unethical.If you can still get the drugs from the pharmacy across the street, how is this the pharmacist imposing their beliefs on you? No. It's you imposing your belief that you should get anything from anyone, regardless of how they feel about it.
Then they must violate their morals, since their morals are ultimately irrelevant to the safety of the patient.The misguided pharmacist only has two, refuse to fill you prescription or violate their morals.
Both of those situations indicate that illegal activity is taking place, and are thus irrelevant when discussing legally obtained prescriptions.So, someone reeking of a meth lab comes into Euri's pharmacy and drops a cartful of Sudafed on the counter. Yeah, that's a smart sell. Maybe someone comes in with a few too many OxyContin prescriptions, it's ok, Euri Drug Shoppe is open for business.
Of the association in charge of pharmacists who is really the one who should be kicking out these people.No one is saying that an employer shouldn't fire an employee who refuses to perform a portion of their job. But, when an employer doesn't fire such an employee, the only enforcement agency that can compel compliance is the federal government.
Health issues are public issues. Private companies have no business determining what health services are available to the public.If Walmart thinks so too, I have no problem with that. It's when the government steps in and takes the discretion to make that decision away from the employers that I have a problem.
No, it doesn't tie in at all. What you actually have here is a pharmacist who is not capable of performing his job competently. Since the employer won't get rid of him, and the professional association won't get rid of him, then it's the government's job to get rid of them.This ties into the obedience at work thread, do we want people to be blindly obedient?
No. You are asking a person to go against their morals.
If part of their job is, in their estimation, immoral, then the only reasonable solution is to quit that job.No. You are asking a person to go against their morals.
You also have yet to address my situations at all. Can I deny treatment to a black person? What about a fat person? What about an old person? Can I refuse to perform say, CPR? What is the limit, exactly?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote