View Full Version : Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says
Circe
07-11-2009, 04:49 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pill-ruling9-2009jul09,0,6469894.story
I'm very glad to hear this. What it comes down to is stated very succinctly in the last paragraph of the article.......
"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said."
Tracian
07-11-2009, 04:56 PM
I agree. Very good news.
MercedesV
07-11-2009, 05:01 PM
A voice of reason, a logical conclusion. The only right thing to do. If a pharmacist isn't able to do the whole job, then they shouldn't do the job.
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 05:17 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pill-ruling9-2009jul09,0,6469894.story
I'm very glad to hear this. What it comes down to is stated very succinctly in the last paragraph of the article.......
"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said."
very good news and about time :patriot::thumbsup:
Circe
07-11-2009, 05:26 PM
And just for the record..........and for those that can't be bothered to actually read the link provided.........this panel was made up of two Bush appointees and one Clinton.
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 05:31 PM
And just for the record..........and for those that can't be bothered to actually read the link provided.........this panel was made up of two Bush appointees and one Clinton.
yep, great news too, happy to see that... the pill has zero to do with abortion, as it only works PRIOR to conception, a pharmacist that did not know that in the first place needs more schooling imo cause what these pharmacists were actually doing was creating the need for more abortions
Details
07-11-2009, 05:47 PM
Excellent! A pharmacist should never be interfering in my prescribed meds, selected for my situation between my doctor who knows the medical situation, and me.
It's such an obvious thing - if you cannot do the job, don't take the job. If you're a pacifist, you don't volunteer to join the army, if you are a vegetarian who is ethically against meat, you don't go to a grocery store and refuse to ring up meat, if you're a racist, you don't take a job that would require you to serve minorities, if you believe fluoride kills people, you don't take a position as a dental hygienist and refuse to give fluoride treatments - etc. If they let this go through, we'd have Scientologist pharmacists who refuse to dispense psychological medications.
It's such an obvious thing - if you cannot do the job, don't take the job. If you're a pacifist, you don't volunteer to join the army,
What if you were drafted for WW 2, would you go and kill, if it was against your religion, or would you dodge the draft, be called a coward and go to federal prison.
Being excused for being a conscientious objector was not very often granted?
Jobs are sometimes "forced" on others.
Details
07-11-2009, 06:34 PM
What if you were drafted for WW 2, would you go and kill, if it was against your religion, or would you dodge the draft, be called a coward and go to federal prison.
Being excused for being a conscientious objector was not very often granted?
Jobs are sometimes "forced" on others.No, pharmacists are not forced to become pharmacists. It takes a fair bit of training - they choose the job.
Were I drafted, and I didn't believe in killing - I'd not dodge the draft, I'd make my position clear, and then the government would decide how to handle me - were that my belief. Prison or whatever role they decided I'd fill. But - I wouldn't volunteer for the military as a pacifist - that's the specific case I was describing. Because you don't get drafted to the pharmacy.
You don't get drafted to the pharmacy. You decide to take the training, you decide to apply for the job, you decide to take the job.
You want your medications subject to whatever your pharmacist feels like that day? Especially if you are in a nice small town, and don't have a second pharmacy around that takes your insurance, and don't have the transportation to go elsewhere every time you need your medicine filled? Your medical treatment decided by a random stranger who just figures he knows better than you, and that you must be forced to follow his religious beliefs?
medical treatment decided by a random stranger who just figures he knows better than you, and that you must be forced to follow his religious beliefs?
Some states are passing laws that exempt such professionals from dispensing these types of drugs on religious grounds, ergo it is a state matter, no 1st AM, involved.
Would you agree with these laws?
Some drugs did not exist when someone chose to become a pharmicist. Are we expecting them to have anticipated any future drugs they may be forced to dispense before they existed?
Excellent point, I did not bring it up, because soemone always says they should resign then anyway!
Circe
07-11-2009, 06:51 PM
Some states are passing laws that exempt such professionals from dispensing these types of drugs on religious grounds, ergo it is a state matter, no 1st AM, involved.
Would you agree with these laws?
Why should his or her belief trump mine, along with my right to recieve the medication that my doctor has deemed neccesary?
Details
07-11-2009, 06:52 PM
Some states are passing laws that exempt such professionals from dispensing these types of drugs on religious grounds, ergo it is a state matter, no 1st AM, involved.
Would you agree with these laws?Heck no!
They can be excused from TAKING the drugs - but to say they have the right to decide what medications I may and may not take - that is not right.
Do you really want to see your medication limited to what your pharmacist believes? If he's a Jehovah's witness, he may think most medications will sentence you to eternal hellfire - and thus have a religious objection to dispensing most of them. Are you OK with letting his decision become your decision? If it's a Scientologist, someone with a severe mental disorder will be denied their medication. If it's a Christian, any form, at all, of birth control may be denied. There might be a med based on animal research - if the pharmacist is a PETA type, they might say they cannot dispense those murder drugs. The drugs based on stem cell research - say bye bye to them too - no matter if they will cure diabetes or paralysis.
Is this right?
No - you do the job. If the job changes, to something you cannot do - you change your job. You don't decide you will tell all of the thousands who have to get their meds from you that they will be denied this medication.
We have a diverse nation, with diverse beliefs. You may have whatever belief you like - but when your belief hits my body, my rights - that's where it ends. You don't have to dispense them - you can quit - but you can't keep the job if you aren't willing to do it.
Why should his or her belief trump mine, along with my right to recieve the medication that my doctor has deemed neccesary?
"His"?
It would be the state legislature's?
Religion is forced on others all the time!
Details
07-11-2009, 06:55 PM
I am in the medical field, so this is somehting I am a bit sensitive about.
I have had it suggested to me that I should quit my job if I don't want to participate in something that I wasn't originally trained to do, which would require me to pick up and move, but they worry about someone else having access to certain procedures more.You are sensitive??!!
You realize this is my body, my health, my LIFE you are talking about. You work in the field - but ALL of us depend on it. Yes indeed, I do consider your right to your job to be SIGNIFICANTLY less important than thousands of patients access to procedures, medicine, treatments for their lives, their health, their body.
Job - versus - life
Life wins. If that causes you problems in your job - I'm sorry - but I'm sure not going to say anything different. If you think your beliefs should determine MY treatment, the treatments for all those patients that depend on you, that what you believe gets enforced on them - that is simply wrong.
Heck no!
They can be excused from TAKING the drugs - but to say they have the right to decide what medications I may and may not take - that is not right.
But first, you were for the appeals court ruling and the "rule of law" now if it against your belief, you are not for the "rule of law"??
Tracian
07-11-2009, 06:58 PM
It is not the job of a pharmacist to promote their spiritual beliefs on another person.
While it is true, that new drugs come about, as their is a need for them, where should the line be drawn?
So if a pharmacist thinks that AIDS is God's punishment to homosexuals, should he/she be able to refuse the dispense the medications to homosexuals, but agree to dispense the same drug to those that he/she believes contracted it through other means?
If a pharmacist thinks that premarital sex is a sin, should he/she be able to refuse to sell condoms to someone unless they prove they are married, or if he/she believes it is a sin to engage in sex without the desire to procreate should he/she just be able to refuse?
What about those that believe in natural selection? Let's say that a pharmacist believes that certain illnesses are natures way of killing off the weak? Or a pharmacist that does not believe in mental health medications?
To allow pharmacists to pick and choose what medications they will give opens a huge can of worms, and what you may support in this particular case, may come back to bite you later, when it is your medication some pharmacist has issues with according to their personal moral compass.
MercedesV
07-11-2009, 06:58 PM
A person cannot rightfully force their religious beliefs onto others. Some people believe birth control pills are abortion. So a pharmacist should be able to not dispense that? Wrong. If a patient has a legal script for a legal drug then the pharmacist has a legal obligation to fill it. No one will force them to take it against their wishes. But they cannot refuse to fill the script because they don't believe in it.
There is a push on now with some groups to protest contraceptives as well as abortion. They are welcome to their beliefs, just don't force them on others.
Circe
07-11-2009, 07:00 PM
Excellent point, I did not bring it up, because soemone always says they should resign then anyway!
No one can predict the future........but if you worked for a company that suddenly had a policy that conflicted with your ability to do your job due to your own beliefs........what would you do? Just sit back and say you won't do it, and expect that a special accommodation should be made for you, even if it impacts upon the lives of others.........or go out and find another job that didn't conflict with your beliefs?
Details
07-11-2009, 07:02 PM
You should find another pharmacy/pharmacist. There are plenty out there.
Even if you live in a one-pharmacy town, you sometimes have to travel for other things. People with no pharmacy in town do.No - that is not always the case - nor should someone be shamed and inconvenienced (at a minimum) by being told to go search somewhere else (and what if that pharmacist too does not fill the prescription?).
Sometimes there are few that take your insurance. People have to go in once a month. Even for the local pharmacy this is sometimes very difficult - they may not have a car, may be elderly, may have physical problems, may be sick - for Plan B, they may have been raped, molested, date raped and may be seconds away from a total breakdown - yeah, just go find another because someone doesn't want to do their job.
Why should their decision to take a job they don't want to do impact my life and my health in that way?
MercedesV
07-11-2009, 07:02 PM
You should find another pharmacy/pharmacist. There are plenty out there.
Even if you live in a one-pharmacy town, you sometimes have to travel for other things. People with no pharmacy in town do.
Sorry, that is just wrong, period. Why should the patient have to find a different pharmacy? We are going to have to play guessing games as to which pharmacy has which pharmacist working at which time to guess which store to go to to get a legal script written by a doctor for us for a legal drug?
If the pharmacist won't do the job, why should they have it? Get another job, there are plenty of them out there too.
No one can predict the future........but if you worked for a company that suddenly had a policy that conflicted with your ability to do your job due to your own beliefs........what would you do? Just sit back and say you won't do it, and expect that a special accommodation should be made for you, even if it impacts upon the lives of others.........or go out and find another job that didn't conflict with your beliefs?
Here is the bottom line, if you are pro-life, you side with the druggist, if you are pro-choice, you side with the customer? Am I right here?
Is anyone who sides with the customer pro-life?
Details
07-11-2009, 07:04 PM
But first, you were for the appeals court ruling and the "rule of law" now if it against your belief, you are not for the "rule of law"??You asked if I would agree. I answered your question. You didn't ask if I was going to break the law, commit a violent act, or whatever. You asked if I agreed.
You don't like the answer?
jaxback
07-11-2009, 07:05 PM
Some drugs did not exist when someone chose to become a pharmicist. Are we expecting them to have anticipated any future drugs they may be forced to dispense before they existed?
You must be talking about a very small percentage of pharmacists, since the so-called "morning after pill" has been available, prescribed and dispensed since the mid 1960s!
You asked if I would agree. I answered your question. You didn't ask if I was going to break the law, commit a violent act, or whatever. You asked if I agreed.
You don't like the answer?
If the state passed such a law, would you, if you had standing, file a suit to challenge it?
Circe
07-11-2009, 07:10 PM
Here is the bottom line, if you are pro-life, you side with the druggist, if you are pro-choice, you side with the customer? Am I right here?
Is anyone who sides with the customer pro-life?
I am pro your personal beliefs don't get to trump my right to medication that my doctor has deemed neccesary for my health. I am also pro if you don't personally believe in some medication or medical procedure,then don't take that medication or have that procedure.......but don't tell me that I can't.
In simple terms..........mind your own business,and let me tend to mine.
Details
07-11-2009, 07:11 PM
Here is the bottom line, if you are pro-life, you side with the druggist, if you are pro-choice, you side with the customer? Am I right here?
Is anyone who sides with the customer pro-life?IMO - I think you are substantially right.
Those who side with the patients - they are pro-choice - as in, they don't believe it is OK to force your religious beliefs on others - whether that applies to abortion, birth control, AIDS drugs, psych drugs, or whatever next comes up that someone decides they don't like. Choice - it's up to the individual - I cannot force my beliefs on them.
Those who side with the druggist - seems to me like they're taking the other side. And while pro-life is a case of forcing your religious beliefs on others - this is a more general case of it. Anti-choice - what I believe is right is something I am able to force on others.
Supporting the patient's right to whatever they were prescribed - whether or not I personally agree with the drug - that's a very pro-choice position. I might think stem cells are dead babies - but if I've taken the job, I dispense the medicines created by research with them. Or I quit the job. That's the ethical thing to do, when you believe your job requires you to perform unethical actions that are not illegal.
I am pro your personal beliefs don't get to trump my right to medication that my doctor has deemed neccesary for my health. I am also pro if you don't personally believe in some medication or medical procedure,then don't take that medication or have that procedure.......but don't tell me that I can't.
In simple terms..........mind your own business,and let me tend to mine.
Mind my own business? If you don't want to discuss without insults, don't!
Details
07-11-2009, 07:13 PM
If the state passed such a law, would you, if you had standing, file a suit to challenge it?No doubt! I'd be happy to be the person to bring the issue up. Without standing, I'd be writing to lawmakers, protesting, and donating.
Details
07-11-2009, 07:14 PM
Mind my own business? If you don't want to discuss without insults, don't!I do believe - it seemed quite clear to me - that she was expressing a philosophical position - the pro-choice position.
As she said, "in simple terms" - a clear indication she was summing up her post.
jaxback
07-11-2009, 07:15 PM
I am pro your personal beliefs don't get to trump my right to medication that my doctor has deemed neccesary for my health. I am also pro if you don't personally believe in some medication or medical procedure,then don't take that medication or have that procedure.......but don't tell me that I can't.
In simple terms..........mind your own business,and let me tend to mine.
Excellently put, Circe! :thumbsup:
I would even go a bit further and say to the OP, "your personal beliefs don't trump anything I want or need, especially when what I want or need is LEGAL."
I do believe - it seemed quite clear to me - that she was expressing a philosophical position - the pro-choice position.
As she said, "in simple terms" - a clear indication she was summing up her post.
Oh I see now!!
Circe
07-11-2009, 07:17 PM
Mind my own business? If you don't want to discuss without insults, don't!
A tad touchy are we??
And isn't that really what it comes down to? What medication my doctor prescribes to me is MY business. A pharmacist might question if it's the correct dosage, or if the doctor actually meant A rather than B....but his or her personal beliefs should not enter into the equation.
No doubt! I'd be happy to be the person to bring the issue up. Without standing, I'd be writing to lawmakers, protesting, and donating.
That is a sufficient answer.
As I stated before, the government forces religious beliefs on others? Anyone want examples?
A tad touchy are we??
I though you were telling ME to mind my own business, when I was just debating, see above.
Circe
07-11-2009, 07:20 PM
I though you were telling ME to mind my own business, when I was just debating, see above.
Yes,I saw that after I had posted........no harm,no foul.
Details
07-11-2009, 07:24 PM
That is a sufficient answer.
As I stated before, the government forces religious beliefs on others? Anyone want examples?I don't believe you - to be blunt - and if you want to discuss it - I suggest another thread, since it seems enough of a branch to need it's own thread.
The government, the laws - they force actions and inactions (don't murder) based on society's needs. So - if you are talking of something like "Don't murder" being a religious belief - I don't agree that that is such an example - because this is a societal need, not done due to a religious belief. Or if you are speaking of secular, scientific beliefs being used - that is clearly not religious. Anyway - topic for another thread. The government should never be forcing any religious belief on anyone - we have separation of church and state.
Yes,I saw that after I had posted........no harm,no foul.
Thank you!
I don't believe you - to be blunt - and if you want to discuss it - I suggest another thread, since it seems enough of a branch to need it's own thread.
The government, the laws - they force actions and inactions (don't murder) based on society's needs. So - if you are talking of something like "Don't murder" being a religious belief - I don't agree that that is such an example - because this is a societal need, not done due to a religious belief. Or if you are speaking of secular, scientific beliefs being used - that is clearly not religious. Anyway - topic for another thread. The government should never be forcing any religious belief on anyone - we have separation of church and state.
Well, since you don't believe me, I won't cite any, but the topic is about religon being forced on another, ergo, my points.
Anyone else want examples?
Details
07-11-2009, 07:27 PM
Just for the record -
I am in the medical profession. I am pro-life. My pro-life position did NOT come from my religious beliefs, but my beliefs that an unborn has a very good chance of being human life that should be protected. I err on the side of life.
Some may be going to Dr's that won't prescribe certain medications too. Do you know? ANd if you knew they didn't, would you go to the next town looking for a new Dr?Every egg has a good chance of becoming a human life - so should birth control be denied?
Doctors should prescribe what is needed medically, based on medicine.
How many layers of people do you think should be allowed to judge us, to impose each of their religions on us? Sure, the doctor doesn't believe in A, so he prescribes B instead. But the medical insurance doesn't believe in B, so they force you to go to C - but the pharmacist, who believes in A and B, but not C, refuses to fill the prescription!
It's insane. You have your beliefs. There is no reason those beliefs should be forced on me. I have my beliefs - I am quite certain you would be unhappy and find it outrageous if my beliefs were forced on you, inserted into your medical treatment.
jaxback
07-11-2009, 07:31 PM
Just for the record -
I am in the medical profession. I am pro-life. My pro-life position did NOT come from my religious beliefs, but my beliefs that an unborn has a very good chance of being human life that should be protected. I err on the side of life.
Some may be going to Dr's that won't prescribe certain medications too. Do you know? ANd if you knew they didn't, would you go to the next town looking for a new Dr?
If I went to a doctor who refused to prescribe certain medications due only to his or her personal beliefs I would be raising holy h*** with my insurance company, working as hard as I could to make sure that doctor was kicked off the list of approved - and reimbursed - physicians. It is the same response I would give to any retail store that employs pharmacists who act according to their own personal beliefs and refuse a service or product I request.
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 07:58 PM
Here is the bottom line, if you are pro-life, you side with the druggist, if you are pro-choice, you side with the customer? Am I right here?
Is anyone who sides with the customer pro-life?Good point but then there are those who may not care about this particular situation but fear the slippery slope.
I can easily see an argument for making ministers marry gays because druggist are forced to have Plan B. And of course, that brings up other arguments.
What it comes down to, is can the government force professionals to go against their religion. In this case, it appears, yes. Then the question is does that extend to other situations?
imo
MercedesV
07-11-2009, 08:29 PM
Good point but then there are those who may not care about this particular situation but fear the slippery slope.
I can easily see an argument for making ministers marry gays because druggist are forced to have Plan B. And of course, that brings up other arguments.
What it comes down to, is can the government force professionals to go against their religion. In this case, it appears, yes. Then the question is does that extend to other situations?
imo
I don't know how you can begin to make the leap you made. A church has church rules. A public pharmacy is not a religious organization. A professional should be able to act like a professional. No one is forcing them to take any legal drug. Just do their job. Which is to fill scripts for legal drugs to clients with legal scripts. And if they can't do their jobs professionally maybe it isn't the job for them.
Maybe drugstores will need to be sure they have a qualified pharmacist on duty who is willing to do the complete job. To back up pharmacist who want to decide as they go which client they will serve and which they won't.
How about going to a grocery store and the clerk won't ring up your meat because they are a vegetarian. Think that would fly? Why should it? That is more the slippery slope we may go down if everyone gets to decide what part of their job they want to do. If people get to impose their beliefs on others.
jaxback
07-11-2009, 08:34 PM
Good point but then there are those who may not care about this particular situation but fear the slippery slope.
I can easily see an argument for making ministers marry gays because druggist are forced to have Plan B. And of course, that brings up other arguments.
What it comes down to, is can the government force professionals to go against their religion. In this case, it appears, yes. Then the question is does that extend to other situations?
imo
Really, you see those situations as analogous? I certainly don't.
It's none of anyone's business what medications a person is prescribed, and it is certainly not a pharmacists's business to decide whether or not withholding a medication will be harmful to the person it was prescribed for. How does that compare to the issue of ministers being forced (and by whom, by the way?) to marry gay couples?
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 08:41 PM
Some drugs did not exist when someone chose to become a pharmicist. Are we expecting them to have anticipated any future drugs they may be forced to dispense before they existed?
should scientoloigiest be able to deny people their meds for depression, anxiety and other mental conditions? what about a satanic worshipers, you want them deciding what you can have?
all I want from my pharmacist is for them to do their jobs.... is that too much to ask?
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 08:42 PM
I don't know how you can begin to make the leap you made. A church has church rules. A public pharmacy is not a religious organization. A professional should be able to act like a professional. No one is forcing them to take any legal drug. Just do their job. Which is to fill scripts for legal drugs to clients with legal scripts. And if they can't do their jobs professionally maybe it isn't the job for them.
Maybe drugstores will need to be sure they have a qualified pharmacist on duty who is willing to do the complete job. To back up pharmacist who want to decide as they go which client they will serve and which they won't.
How about going to a grocery store and the clerk won't ring up your meat because they are a vegetarian. Think that would fly? Why should it? That is more the slippery slope we may go down if everyone gets to decide what part of their job they want to do. If people get to impose their beliefs on others.
Sometimes at my local grocery store they will call another checker because of what I am buying violates their religious belief. I have had the same situation with taxi drivers. imo
jaxback
07-11-2009, 08:46 PM
Sometimes at my local grocery store they will call another checker because of what I am buying violates their religious belief. I have had the same situation with taxi drivers. imo
Please share with us exactly what you buy at a grocery store that violates a checker's belief. I cannot imagine that a grocery store would continue to emply a checker who behaved in that way, so I am extremely curious what you are talking about.
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 08:46 PM
Good point but then there are those who may not care about this particular situation but fear the slippery slope.
I can easily see an argument for making ministers marry gays because druggist are forced to have Plan B. And of course, that brings up other arguments.
What it comes down to, is can the government force professionals to go against their religion. In this case, it appears, yes. Then the question is does that extend to other situations?
imo
actually you on the right are asking for that to be done and is being done, your telling preachers they can not legally marry same sex couples if they choose too, we on the left believe in separation of church and state and believe the church can be bigoted if they choose - but if you want a license to sell prescriptions, you follow the law, simple as that
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 08:48 PM
Really, you see those situations as analogous? I certainly don't.
It's none of anyone's business what medications a person is prescribed, and it is certainly not a pharmacists's business to decide whether or not withholding a medication will be harmful to the person it was prescribed for. How does that compare to the issue of ministers being forced (and by whom, by the way?) to marry gay couples?
I have seen people try to make them analogous. Whenever there are religious clashes some will try to use it to their advantage. imo
jaxback
07-11-2009, 08:51 PM
I have seen people try to make them analogous. Whenever there are religious clashes some will try to use it to their advantage. imo
I asked you if you see them as analogous, not what you have seen other people attempt to do.
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 08:56 PM
Please share with us exactly what you buy at a grocery store that violates a checker's belief. I cannot imagine that a grocery store would continue to emply a checker who behaved in that way, so I am extremely curious what you are talking about.Bacon and alcohol for example.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/22895/muslim-exceptionalism
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/03/muslim_store_cl.php
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 08:58 PM
actually you on the right are asking for that to be done and is being done, your telling preachers they can not legally marry same sex couples if they choose too, we on the left believe in separation of church and state and believe the church can be bigoted if they choose - but if you want a license to sell prescriptions, you follow the law, simple as thatI think it is far from that simple. imo
MercedesV
07-11-2009, 09:00 PM
Bacon and alcohol for example.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/22895/muslim-exceptionalism
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/03/muslim_store_cl.php
I have never ever had that situation arise. And I've bought both. But you say the store called another checker. You weren't told go to another store. Let the drugstore or the pharmacist get another pharmacist to fill the legal script if someone has an urge not to do their job. Like you say your grocery store did. Any paying customer/client legally looking to purchase a legal item should not be refused service.
What the heck did the taxi driver object to?
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 09:01 PM
I asked you if you see them as analogous, not what you have seen other people attempt to do.My point is/was that others could see it that way. imo
jaxback
07-11-2009, 09:03 PM
Bacon and alcohol for example.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/22895/muslim-exceptionalism
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/03/muslim_store_cl.php
Did these things actually happen to you? One of these stories is from England in 2008 and the other is from Minneapolis in 2007.
Unless these were incidents in which you were personally involved, what has been your personal experience that you mentioned in your post?
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 09:03 PM
I have never ever had that situation arise. And I've bought both. But you say the store called another checker. You weren't told go to another store. Let the drugstore or the pharmacist get another pharmacist to fill the legal script if someone has an urge not to do their job. Like you say your grocery store did. Any paying customer/client legally looking to purchase a legal item should not be refused service.
What the heck did the taxi driver object to?
I think that is usually the case.
Some taxi drivers object to alcohol and dogs. imo
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 09:05 PM
Did these things actually happen to you? One of these stories is from England in 2008 and the other is from Minneapolis in 2007.
Unless these were incidents in which you were personally involved, what has been your personal experience that you mentioned in your post?
These are some examples of what I was talking about. imo
jaxback
07-11-2009, 09:08 PM
These are some examples of what I was talking about. imo
But you wrote, "Sometimes at my local grocery store they will call another checker because of what I am buying violates their religious belief. I have had the same situation with taxi drivers."
Since you put it out there that it actually happened to you, you certainly can't be surprised that other posters are curious about what really happened, can you?
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 09:13 PM
But you wrote, "Sometimes at my local grocery store they will call another checker because of what I am buying violates their religious belief. I have had the same situation with taxi drivers."
Since you put it out there that it actually happened to you, you certainly can't be surprised that other posters are curious about what really happened, can you?
I'm sorry but my situations did not rate a story in the news. I gave some examples.
It may have happened to you without you even noticing. It is not a big deal. imo
jaxback
07-11-2009, 09:17 PM
I'm sorry but my situations did not rate a story in the news. I gave some examples.
It may have happened to you without you even noticing. It is not a big deal. imo
No, it has not happened to me. I would have noticed, just as you did. I actually don't know anyone it has happened to, which is why I was so curious. No biggie.:biggrinjester:
Circe
07-11-2009, 09:32 PM
No, it has not happened to me. I would have noticed, just as you did. I actually don't know anyone it has happened to, which is why I was so curious. No biggie.:biggrinjester:
I can't say that I've had it happen to me, or to anyone that I know.....and like you, I'd sure notice if it had. And I'd probably make a scene about it if it did.........but that's just me. :tongueside:
withay
07-11-2009, 11:04 PM
When I was in high school (many, many years ago) I was not allowed, by law, to ring up, in my job as a grocery store cashier, alcohol.
I really think that the pharmacy decision was correct. Refusing to provide a medication because you object to it is just allowing you too much say so over how I live my life. I never liked ringing up tobacco products because I believe they are slow, legal suicide but I did it. :thumbdown: It was part of the job.
Personally, I am glad they have Plan B now. When I was young, it was the girls who either did not plan to have sex and either were forced or got carried away (it happens, you know) who ended up with unplanned pregnancies. Now there is an option that prevents pregnancy for those circumstances. I am the guardian of a teenager who says she does not need BC. I believe her but am happy that something exists that could stop a pregnancy before it started if she ever needs it.
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 11:05 PM
I think it is far from that simple. imo
it is just that simple
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 11:06 PM
I can't say that I've had it happen to me, or to anyone that I know.....and like you, I'd sure notice if it had. And I'd probably make a scene about it if it did.........but that's just me. :tongueside:
I want to make sure I understand you.
If someone refused to sell you something because of their religious belief you would be upset. If another person sold you the item, you would make a scene. Is that correct?
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 11:10 PM
I want to make sure I understand you.
If someone refused to sell you something because of their religious belief you would be upset. If another person sold you the item, you would make a scene. Is that correct?
as long as I get my prescription I do not care who gives it to me, if your the only one there though and your too fanatical to hand over my prescription, then you need to be fired, simple as that, if you can't do your job, you need to look for a job you can do
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 11:14 PM
it is just that simpleIf it was that simple I think Propositon 8 would have failed in California but it didn't. There are many examples where people don't vote left and right. imo
Lady_Jean_La
07-11-2009, 11:16 PM
as long as I get my prescription I do not care who gives it to me, if your the only one there though and your too fanatical to hand over my prescription, then you need to be fired, simple as that, if you can't do your job, you need to look for a job you can doI think most people wouldn't even notice. imo
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 11:23 PM
I think most people wouldn't even notice. imo
I agree with you, unless they were the only ones there, that is where it becomes a issue, these people can not do their jobs, they need a second person on duty at all times that can do their jobs for them
LisaM22
07-11-2009, 11:25 PM
If it was that simple I think Propositon 8 would have failed in California but it didn't. There are many examples where people don't vote left and right. imo
the majority should never be able to vote away the rights of the minority, can you imagine if we put other kinds of discrimination up to a vote
votes should be to end the rights for EVERYONE or give the right to EVERYONE equally
Lady_Jean_La
07-12-2009, 12:31 AM
the majority should never be able to vote away the rights of the minority, can you imagine if we put other kinds of discrimination up to a vote
votes should be to end the rights for EVERYONE or give the right to EVERYONE equally
I think it is far from that simple. imo
Details
07-12-2009, 03:14 AM
Bacon and alcohol for example.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/22895/muslim-exceptionalism
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/03/muslim_store_cl.phpNotice how far you have to look for such an example? Normally, you don't handle pork - you're fired. The first guy - he was put on leave, then demoted. Hardly a matter where he's allowed to refuse to do his job. In the other, they are making an accomodation.
In neither example, even when it's merely some food, not something as essential as medicine, is the customer expected to leave without their necessary goods.
jaxback
07-12-2009, 09:01 AM
Well reasoned argument. One more time the government usurps personal freedom and the progressives cheer. What if the government ruled that an abortion doctor had to show the patient an ultrasound of the growing fetus and describe the abortion procedure before it was performed. The uproar would be deafening.
How tragic that some think the advancement of their agenda is more important than protecting liberty.
:sad: IMO
No, it's not a well reasoned argument. As I posted quite awhile back (and got no response) the morning after pill has been legal, available and dispensed since the mid-1960s, so relying on the "they didn't expect these drugs to exist when they became pharmacists" is a specious argument. jmo
jaxback
07-12-2009, 09:04 AM
What was the accomodation?
If you can get the medication you want, across the street, why force a pharmacist at one store to provide it when it denies his liberty? It's not because it's the right thing to do. It's because of a progressive agenda. Where do the right of the customer end and the rights of the pharmacists begin? Why is the government allowed to determine who's freedom and liberty should be denied?
IMO
It's not the government that is denying anyone anything. It's free choice and the bottom $$$ line:
The pharmacist has a choice to do what he or she was hired to do, or to face the consequences of failing to do their job.
As a customer, I have the choice to find another pharmacy or inform the owner that I will no longer purchase anything at their store because they employ someone who makes it difficult for me to shop there.
The owner has a choice of retaining an employee who makes things difficult for paying customers or losing those customers and their money.
jmo
If the druggist is forcing his views on the customer, as most say, IF he is mandated to sell the item, how is that not forcing the customers view on him?
And I will give examples of "forced beliefs" of such no one requested to hear anyway.
1. Seperation of church and state: Yet the courts have ruled the "child benefit" doctrine, even if taxpayer funds are for religious/parochial institutions, is constitutional.
2. The death penalty; If it is against a person's belief to kill, the government is using thier tax $$ to kill them.
3. The Equal Access Act to the schools; Christian groups can meet at federally funded schools.
4. The Supreme Court building; inside the courtroom has a frieze on the Ten Commandments, built with taxpayer $$.
5. In "God we Trust" on coins.
6. ANY 1st AM case that moves the court to strike down a law, etc., due to a person's religious beliefs, and the court does not, is forcing the person to believe in something the government wants them to.
7. The city of Austin, Texas has a Christian Cross on it's seal. It was held to be constitutional.
LisaM22
07-12-2009, 10:36 AM
I think it is far from that simple. imo
it is that simple...
LisaM22
07-12-2009, 10:40 AM
If the druggist is forcing his views on the customer, as most say, IF he is mandated to sell the item, how is that not forcing the customers view on him?
<snip>
because the pharmacist is still free to believe what he wants, he just has to do his job and fill the prescription written by the doctor or he can find another job, same as a pharmacist that was a Scientologiest would have to fill prescriptions for antidepressants, ect...
pharmacies are federally regulated, if we want all drugs to be OTC, then that would be different
because the pharmacist is still free to believe what he wants, he just has to do his job and fill the prescription written by the doctor or he can find another job, same as a pharmacist that was a Scientologiest would have to fill prescriptions for antidepressants, ect...
And the customer is still free to believe what she wants, regardless if he sells it or not.
As I stated before, IF a state passes a law exempting such, then NO, his job no longer requires it.
jaxback
07-12-2009, 11:07 AM
And the customer is still free to believe what she wants, regardless if he sells it or not.
As I stated before, IF a state passes a law exempting such, then NO, his job no longer requires it.
And as I said, we as customers are all free to let business owners know that if they don't provide the products or services we require and that are perfectly legal, they will lose customers. And when they lose customers, they lose money. And I think we all know where the bottom line is for most business owners, don't we?
And as I said, we as customers are all free to let business owners know that if they don't provide the products or services we require and that are perfectly legal, they will lose customers. And when they lose customers, they lose money. And I think we all know where the bottom line is for most business owners, don't we?
On this we can also say that MOST doctors will not perform abortions even though they could get rich doing so. They morally refuse to do so.
LisaM22
07-12-2009, 11:16 AM
And the customer is still free to believe what she wants, regardless if he sells it or not.
As I stated before, IF a state passes a law exempting such, then NO, his job no longer requires it.
like I said if these products were sold OTC you would be right, but they are not, they are federally regulated, the pharmacists needs to follow the laws
jaxback
07-12-2009, 11:22 AM
On this we can also say that MOST doctors will not perform abortions even though they could get rich doing so. They morally refuse to do so.
Another anti-choice myth: link to doctors being able to get rich perofrming abortions, please.
Another anti-choice myth: link to doctors being able to get rich perofrming abortions, please.
You know what an abortion costs these days?
like I said if these products were sold OTC you would be right, but they are not, they are federally regulated, the pharmacists needs to follow the laws
The 9th ruling was not based on such a "mandated" sale law! It was based, as I read snippets, on an Equal Protection Clause basis, ergo, they can't refuse the sale based on the applied for Injunction basis.
The case was remanded back to the District Court.
Thus if a state passes a law that says they can refuse, they can!
jaxback
07-12-2009, 11:29 AM
You know what an abortion costs these days?
No I don't, so please provide that info along with the link to "doctors getting rich."
No I don't, so please provide that info along with the link to "doctors getting rich."
You surely don't think they are a mere 200$$ do you?
Even if we put it at that figure, with an estimated a million a year, that is 200 million $$ in someones pockets.
jaxback
07-12-2009, 11:35 AM
You surely don't think they are a mere 200$$ do you?
Even if we put it at that figure, with an estimated a million a year, that is 200 million $$ in someones pockets.
Bolding mine: I'm not "putting the figure" anywhere! I asked for a link and facts, not your guesstimates. I could "guess" they cost $50.00 or $80K and extrapolate from that - just like you did - but it wouldn't make it true. So, links?
Bolding mine: I'm not "putting the figure" anywhere! I asked for a link and facts, not your guesstimates. I could "guess" they cost $50.00 or $80K and extrapolate from that - just like you did - but it wouldn't make it true. So, links?
This link says between 372 and 478!
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html
jaxback
07-12-2009, 11:51 AM
This link says between 372 and 478!
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html
Thank you for providing the link. IMO, no one is getting rich off providing abortions - certainly not as rich as they are by delivering babies.
But that is all beside the point of this thread anyway, so let's get back on topic, shall we? This is about pharmacists refusing to provide legally prescribed medications, and as I said, they can refuse - that's their right. And I can make sure their employers know their stores have lost my business - that's my right.
Actions have consequences, and if a pharmacist puts a personal agenda above his or her job requirements, then the consequence may just be unemployment. It's a choice.
Actions have consequences, and if a pharmacist puts a personal agenda above his or her job requirements, then the consequence may just be unemployment. It's a choice.
Then I would be forced to resign or get fired, I have an eternal soul to worry about!
jaxback
07-12-2009, 12:02 PM
Then I would be forced to resign or get fired, I have an eternal soul to worry about!
And that would be your choice.
LisaM22
07-12-2009, 12:17 PM
Then I would be forced to resign or get fired, I have an eternal soul to worry about!
and how would filling a prescription for the day after pill effect your eternal soul? you do realize if conception has already occurred the day after pill does nothing, it is not an abortion, this just proves that the anti-choice people would not stop at abortion, they want to ban all birth control, even condoms
and how would filling a prescription for the day after pill effect your eternal soul? you do realize if conception has already occurred the day after pill does nothing, it is not an abortion, this just proves that the anti-choice people would not stop at abortion, they want to ban all birth control, even condoms
If I refused to sell them to you, I am forcing my views on you, now when I say I would resign, I am still questioned?
Whatever religious reason I give, it won't matter.
Why do they call it the day AFTER pill? AFTER what? One day after sex, it is impossible to determine if a woman is pregnant, so if she is buying a pill, it is a very good chance she may be pregnant, ergo, an abortion pill.
Why do they call it the day AFTER pill? AFTER what? One day after sex, it is impossible to determine if a woman is pregnant, so if she is buying a pill, it is a very good chance she may be pregnant, ergo, an abortion pill.
Okay, I checked my facts, I am confusing the ru486 pill, or whatever it is, with this plan b. My error.
If it is meant to prevent "possible" conception, yes it is a form of birth control and the druggist still has a right to resign if he wishes and not sell it.
I am Catholic and the church teaches that the only method of birth control is the rhythm method.
Please, now, no Catholic bashing from anyone, please! I will admit even some catholics do not follow this, but I am not questioning a person who buys it, so don't question me on it, thanks!!
As with any moral issue, there is always a soul tug of war.
airportwoman
07-12-2009, 01:12 PM
I am a pharmacist. Professional ethics allow us to refuse to dispense any prescription or refuse to sell an over-the-counter product for any reason.
When the hospital where I work decided to stock Plan B in the emergency room, our director called a meeting and said he would like to know if there were any (his words) conscientious objectors, and that they didn't have to announce it in the meeting. One did speak up right there - a woman.
One of my co-workers sometimes does relief work in a nearby college town, and he said that the Planned Parenthood affiliate there - which, BTW, does not do abortions - wrote for Plan B with 11 refills, and he had a really big problem with that because in that context, it could potentially be used as a birth control method which was NOT its intended purpose.
Some pharmacists who do not believe in birth control and/or abortion are opening their own contraceptive-free stores. Interestingly, a surprising number of these owners are reproductive-age women! They are not fooling anybody because they are very upfront about what they are doing, often with a big sign on the door announcing what they DO NOT sell.
A woman who posts on another board does volunteer work at a crisis pregnancy center. She thought it would mostly be, for instance, women whose boyfriends, husbands, or parents had tossed them out because they were pregnant, but to her horror it's mostly adolescent girls who come there for the free pregnancy test, and are disappointed when it's negative. She also said that some women use Plan B so much, their menstrual cycles are totally messed up and they have no idea whether they are or could be pregnant or not.
There is a much-publicized story about a male pharmacist who not only refused to dispense birth control, he wouldn't give the prescriptions back or send them to another store. This man lost his license for other reasons.
I was still in retail pharmacy when Plan B and Preven, which is no longer marketed, came out. We ordered two of each, so we would have a spare, and never sold any of them. So, when they expired, we just didn't order it again. Had someone showed up, we would have sent them across the street to Walgreens.
airportwoman
07-12-2009, 01:14 PM
On this we can also say that MOST doctors will not perform abortions even though they could get rich doing so. They morally refuse to do so.
Most of them aren't OB/GYNs either, and abortion is the territory of this specialty. Were I to want an abortion (at my age, it's highly unlikely), I certainly wouldn't want a dermatologist, cardiologist, pediatrician, etc. performing it!
Most of them aren't OB/GYNs either, and abortion is the territory of this specialty. Were I to want an abortion (at my age, it's highly unlikely), I certainly wouldn't want a dermatologist, cardiologist, pediatrician, etc. performing it!
Of course I meant those who knew how! I would not expect a dermatologist to know how!
PoppySeeds
07-12-2009, 03:39 PM
Please share with us exactly what you buy at a grocery store that violates a checker's belief. I cannot imagine that a grocery store would continue to emply a checker who behaved in that way, so I am extremely curious what you are talking about.
How about a Muslim checker and a pork buying customer? You can't discriminate based on religion, so what would you suggest? And yes, I have run into this situation before. It didn't bother me in the least, because I respect that different religions do not allow certain things.
PoppySeeds
07-12-2009, 03:48 PM
as long as I get my prescription I do not care who gives it to me, if your the only one there though and your too fanatical to hand over my prescription, then you need to be fired, simple as that, if you can't do your job, you need to look for a job you can do
And then the company has a lawsuit on their hands for violating the law because they fired someone over their religious beliefs. That is a big No No, so it isn't "as simple as that".
I think it is a wonderful thing that Plan B is avaliable. It isn't an abortion pill, it is simple a very strong dose of birth control that prevents pregnancy. I don't get what all the hoopla is, but I do know that a person can't be fired if their religious beliefs keep them from preforming certain aspects of their job.
How about a Muslim checker and a pork buying customer?
Hey Poppy, I see you are new here, welcome aboard. Since you are new you won't remember a thread we had here, oh say a year ago, on this very issue.
TARGET's statement was that since the LAW requires an employer "reasonably accomodate" an employees religious belief's, if this person was a checkout girl at the time of a pork purchase, they WOULD have another ring it up.
It was the same in that thread, she should quit, not take a job there, get another job, etc., but the "law" does not say that, TARGET did what they needed to do under the law.
And then the company has a lawsuit on their hands for violating the law because they fired someone over their religious beliefs.
A distinct legal possibility, yes.
PoppySeeds
07-12-2009, 06:04 PM
Hey Poppy, I see you are new here, welcome aboard. Since you are new you won't remember a thread we had here, oh say a year ago, on this very issue.
TARGET's statement was that since the LAW requires an employer "reasonably accomodate" an employees religious belief's, if this person was a checkout girl at the time of a pork purchase, they WOULD have another ring it up.
It was the same in that thread, she should quit, not take a job there, get another job, etc., but the "law" does not say that, TARGET did what they needed to do under the law.
I have had the same situation happen in the same market more than once. And like I said, it didn't bother me, because the young lady explained the situation, and asked the lady at the next register to finish up for her.
Here is the Opinion, if anyone is interested. As I said, it was remanded and certain issues were NOT decided. On remand, they very well could turn in favor of the pharmacy??
Summary conclusion:
5. Remaining Claims
Because the original injunction was predicated only upon
Appellees free exercise claim, we find it unnecessary to
reach Appellees equal protection, preemption, procedural due
process, and Title VII claims. While we have the discretion to
affirm the district court on any ground supported by the
record, Sony Computer Entmt, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203
F.3d 596, 608 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted), in light of the undeveloped record, we decline to do so.
Cf. Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Anchorage
Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 1085, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 1989) .We
question the appropriateness of [movants] attempt to use the
appellate process to resolve a question that must first be
18resolved in the district court.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/08/07-36039.pdf
Lady_Jean_La
07-12-2009, 06:58 PM
Hey Poppy, I see you are new here, welcome aboard. Since you are new you won't remember a thread we had here, oh say a year ago, on this very issue.
TARGET's statement was that since the LAW requires an employer "reasonably accomodate" an employees religious belief's, if this person was a checkout girl at the time of a pork purchase, they WOULD have another ring it up.
It was the same in that thread, she should quit, not take a job there, get another job, etc., but the "law" does not say that, TARGET did what they needed to do under the law.
Sounds very reasonable. imo
Brentwood
08-02-2009, 12:32 AM
The repub cycle is ending, thank g-d. Justice for ALL!!!
R~O~S
08-02-2009, 10:57 AM
Excellent point, I did not bring it up, because soemone always says they should resign then anyway!
Like it or not, a job position is voluntary.
If a job is so adverse to your religious beliefs that you can't perform the duties of that job, find one within the religious settings that will allow you to perform.
ie, a pharmacist who has an issue with dispensing birth control in any form can find a job within the Catholic hospitals where they'd never be asked to do so. All hospitals have their own pharmacy, that's where the prescriptions & orders the doctor writes for in patients are filled. However I find it difficult to believe there's anyone out there, currently working, who became a pharmacist prior to the innovation of condoms.
Time for the religious zealots to either put up or shut up. Either birth control is against their religion or it isn't. If they've sold any form of birth control it's not up to them to decide what form is or isn't acceptable for anyone.
What they choose for themselves is one thing, what they force upon others in the course of their work duties is quite another.
CindR
08-02-2009, 11:31 AM
Like it or not, a job position is voluntary.
If a job is so adverse to your religious beliefs that you can't perform the duties of that job, find one within the religious settings that will allow you to perform.
ie, a pharmacist who has an issue with dispensing birth control in any form can find a job within the Catholic hospitals where they'd never be asked to do so. All hospitals have their own pharmacy, that's where the prescriptions & orders the doctor writes for in patients are filled. However I find it difficult to believe there's anyone out there, currently working, who became a pharmacist prior to the innovation of condoms.
Time for the religious zealots to either put up or shut up. Either birth control is against their religion or it isn't. If they've sold any form of birth control it's not up to them to decide what form is or isn't acceptable for anyone.
What they choose for themselves is one thing, what they force upon others in the course of their work duties is quite another.
Great post, ROS. :thumbup:
Tracian
08-02-2009, 12:04 PM
Great post, ROS. :thumbup:
I second that!!! :thumbsup:
Tracian
08-02-2009, 12:10 PM
How about a Muslim checker and a pork buying customer? You can't discriminate based on religion, so what would you suggest? And yes, I have run into this situation before. It didn't bother me in the least, because I respect that different religions do not allow certain things.
IMO, it is hypocritical for them to even work in a store that sells products they are religiously against, to the point they cannot even ring up the item.
I very strongly believe in freedom of religion, and the right to follow it, but not when it comes to taking the basic rights away from another person.
In the case mentioned, should a small business hire someone that is against pork products, for example, what if they cannot afford to have another person to jump in and finish a sale?
IMO, like any other job, if you cannot do the work expected, then you should not apply for the job; or you can without violating the law, the right to refuse employment for that reason.
LisaM22
08-02-2009, 01:44 PM
no kidding, they are ok working in a store that sells these items, should that not be against their beliefs? why don't they quit, because obviously quiting would effect them, fanatics only like to claim their beliefs when it would effect others
no kidding, they are ok working in a store that sells these items, should that not be against their beliefs? why don't they quit, because obviously quiting would effect them, fanatics only like to claim their beliefs when it would effect others
The "touching" of pork, is the disbelief in, NOT the premises theory you throw out.
airportwoman
08-02-2009, 01:51 PM
How about a Muslim checker and a pork buying customer? You can't discriminate based on religion, so what would you suggest? And yes, I have run into this situation before. It didn't bother me in the least, because I respect that different religions do not allow certain things.
Before I went to pharmacy school, I worked for a while at a place that processed magazine subscriptions. There were several people who would not process orders for pornographic magazines, for a variety of reasons. Since there was enough other work for them, this did not cause problems.
Interestingly, the problems were with the people who did customer service who had to field calls from the subscribers to these magazines who got their jollies from calling the customer service number and basically wanting to do phone sex. :thumbdown:
Tracian
08-02-2009, 02:04 PM
The "touching" of pork, is the disbelief in, NOT the premises theory you throw out.
Same thing, they believe that eating pork or even touching it is a sin; those that do not believe in BC because of their religious beliefs, believe it is a sin.
But, here is a question:
Should a Pharmacy have to employ a person that refuses to fill some prescriptions because of their religious beliefs?
But, here is a question:
Should a Pharmacy have to employ a person that refuses to fill some prescriptions because of their religious beliefs?
Can you show me any case law where an employer does not have to "reasonably accomodate" the potential emnployee under the law?
Or are you saying they have a legal right to "refuse to hire" such person?
Discrimination in "refusing to hire" is the same as when an person is employed, unless it is a BFOQ, bona fide occupational qualification
Tracian
08-02-2009, 02:23 PM
Can you show me any case law where an employer does not have to "reasonably accomodate" the potential emnployee under the law?
Or are you saying they have a legal right to "refuse to hire" such person?
Discrimination in "refusing to hire" is the same as when an person is employed, unless it is a BFOQ, bona fide occupational qualification
Define reasonable.
BFOQ, wouldn't that include being able to do the job hired for?
Lady_Jean_La
08-02-2009, 02:33 PM
no kidding, they are ok working in a store that sells these items, should that not be against their beliefs? why don't they quit, because obviously quiting would effect them, fanatics only like to claim their beliefs when it would effect others
Many people work in stores that sell tobacco products and they may hate selling cigarettes. I don't think it necessarily has to do with religion. imo
Define reasonable.
BFOQ, wouldn't that include being able to do the job hired for?
Defining reasonable here is, surely, an easier task then defining the 4th AM's UNreasonable clause.
You would have to read some Title 7/EEOC case law to bone up. There is NO exact definition, it is subjective, just as "Due Process" has NO exact definition to hold onto.
BFOQ is say, for instance, a man was refused to be hired to clean a woman's suana/steam bath while in use.
Reasonable: When a pork purchase came up, another cashier would ring it up.
UNreasonable: Transferring her to a store 30 miles away that does not sell it.
R~O~S
08-02-2009, 02:36 PM
Can you show me any case law where an employer does not have to "reasonably accomodate" the potential emnployee under the law?
Or are you saying they have a legal right to "refuse to hire" such person?
Discrimination in "refusing to hire" is the same as when an person is employed, unless it is a BFOQ, bona fide occupational qualification
Dispensing prescribed medication is a bona fide requirement of being a pharmacist. It's kinda the entire job.
Dispensing prescribed medication is a bona fide requirement of being a pharmacist. It's kinda the entire job.
You are not understanding BFOQ here.
Tracian
08-02-2009, 02:39 PM
Defining reasonable here is, surely, an easier task then defining the 4th AM's UNreasonable clause.
You would have to read some Title 7/EEOC case law to bone up. There is NO exact definition, it is subjective, just as "Due Process" has NO exact definition to hold onto.
BFOQ is say, for instance, a man was refused to be hired to clean a woman's suana/steam bath while in use.
Reasonable: When a pork purchase came up, another cashier would ring it up.
UNreasonable: Transferring her to a store 30 miles away that does not sell it.
As you stated, it is subjective.
Suppose that this store only has one clerk per shift, such as 24 hour convenience store; should they have to take on the loss to have another employee there just to ring up pork products?
Is it reasonable to put the employer in that circumstance?
As you stated, it is subjective.
Suppose that this store only has one clerk per shift, such as 24 hour convenience store; should they have to take on the loss to have another employee there just to ring up pork products?
Is it reasonable to put the employer in that circumstance?
Good example, as this is why I said it was subjective. Different facts warrant different outcomes. That is another matter, I agree. If the potential employee objects, and it is stated there is only 1 clerk on duty at a time, there seems to be little other "reasonable accomodation" for the company.
LisaM22
08-02-2009, 02:46 PM
The "touching" of pork, is the disbelief in, NOT the premises theory you throw out.
so they can get a pair of tongs....
Tracian
08-02-2009, 02:51 PM
Good example, as this is why I said it was subjective. Different facts warrant different outcomes. That is another matter, I agree. If the potential employee objects, and it is stated there is only 1 clerk on duty at a time, there seems to be little other "reasonable accomodation" for the company.
Jay:
Even though we will never agree on this issue; I admire your willingness to discuss, and your knowledge of the law.
Thank you for an interesting and educational exchange.
LisaM22
08-02-2009, 02:55 PM
Many people work in stores that sell tobacco products and they may hate selling cigarettes. I don't think it necessarily has to do with religion. imo
does an employee have a right to refuse to sell them to a customer of their employer because of their hatred of them though...
Jay:
Even though we will never agree on this issue; I admire your willingness to discuss, and your knowledge of the law.
Thank you for an interesting and educational exchange.
Why thank you, that is very kind of you to say!! :smile:
so they can get a pair of tongs....
That I do not know if it the same as a "touch"??
LisaM22
08-02-2009, 03:27 PM
supprised some are not afraid of the tree of knowledge, bookstores full of books made of trees or apples for that matter
Lady_Jean_La
08-02-2009, 04:07 PM
That I do not know if it the same as a "touch"??
In my area some people use the medical gloves. You may have seen that and not known why. imo
Lady_Jean_La
08-02-2009, 04:23 PM
Minnesota: “In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold’n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities.”
http://overlawyered.com/2008/11/eeoc-settlement-pork-handling-prayer-breaks-for-muslim-workers/
Details
08-02-2009, 05:11 PM
does an employee have a right to refuse to sell them to a customer of their employer because of their hatred of them though...I believe - and with good reason - that cigarettes are deadly - I am selling someone a product that will kill them, that they have been (IMO) deliberately addicted to, to steal their money before they are killed. A vile product. Should I have the right not to be forced into selling cigarettes?
I don't think so. If my shop decides to start selling cigarettes - I have to make my choice - change jobs, or accept that I will be participating in this trade.
And - a moral or ethical objection should NOT have to be religions in origin (addressing LJL) to be respected. We are a secular state - do only those with a religion have the right to their ethics?
Details
08-02-2009, 05:13 PM
http://overlawyered.com/2008/11/eeoc-settlement-pork-handling-prayer-breaks-for-muslim-workers/Sure hope that gets overturned. The prayer breaks - no worse than cigarette breaks, and not a necessity of business. But Pork - if they've got 10% pork being dealt with, and 10% muslim employees - not too hard to see that the two never meet. But if they happen to have all the qualified employees in one area turning out to be Muslim, and their plant needs to do pork - that's not right.
LisaM22
08-02-2009, 07:17 PM
Sure hope that gets overturned. The prayer breaks - no worse than cigarette breaks, and not a necessity of business. But Pork - if they've got 10% pork being dealt with, and 10% muslim employees - not too hard to see that the two never meet. But if they happen to have all the qualified employees in one area turning out to be Muslim, and their plant needs to do pork - that's not right.
it was a settlement, no precedent set in that case as it never made it to trial, I think it was stupid of them to settle, but that was their choice
LisaM22
08-02-2009, 10:14 PM
I believe - and with good reason - that cigarettes are deadly - I am selling someone a product that will kill them, that they have been (IMO) deliberately addicted to, to steal their money before they are killed. A vile product. Should I have the right not to be forced into selling cigarettes?
I don't think so. If my shop decides to start selling cigarettes - I have to make my choice - change jobs, or accept that I will be participating in this trade.
And - a moral or ethical objection should NOT have to be religions in origin (addressing LJL) to be respected. We are a secular state - do only those with a religion have the right to their ethics?
I agree, if someone thinks money is the root of all evil and wont accept cash, should the employer be forced to keep them employed only accepting plastic or even if their religion believes in no god, should they be able to refuse to accept cash with the words "in the money god we trust" and if their employee fires them they have a right to sue, I agree, I do not think so either
LisaM22
08-02-2009, 11:22 PM
Donuts and "empty calorie" snack foods are bad, imo. However, if I were to be a supermarket checker, it would not be my job to judge the contents of the cart or assume anything about the customer. The job is to scan the items, not the customer and make medical judgements.
In that same category, pharmacists fill prescriptions, with due diligence to safety. Any "conflict" arising should only be a question of two or more prescriptions being contraindicated, at which point contacting the doctor is a safety issue. Not filling a prescription for any other reason, imo, is practicing medicine w/o a license.
good point on the "practicing medicine w/o a license." - if they go against a doctors orders they better have a good reason or lose their license to dispense drugs
Brentwood
08-02-2009, 11:50 PM
so they can get a pair of tongs....
:lol::lol::lol: I sooooo agree with you.
IMO, It is ok for employers to work with employees on what they can and cannot do, but the bottom line is the customer must be served and if they cannot do it then they need to look for another job.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.