Not where a pharmacy is concerned. I am sure you have to get a licence of some sort to run one here and you would have to comply with rules and regulations which are laid down.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If it could violate your religious views, don't take the job!
- Thread starter Engyo
- Start date
Not where a pharmacy is concerned. I am sure you have to get a licence of some sort to run one here and you would have to comply with rules and regulations which are laid down.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
That's right, and you have socialized medicine in the UK. As it stands right now, we don't.
I do not think it's any more right for a pharmacist who owns his own pharmacy to be forced to carry the "morning after pill" than it is right to force a nun who is a registered nurse to participate in an abortion.
Alas, what is right isn't always what is law. (I don't purport to even know what is "right"...all I have are my own values.) Overwhelming public
policy in the US is that public accommodations (eg, landlords, restaurants, pharmacies) are highly regulated regarding discrimination of service.
If I wanted to rent only to gays, Asians, or Buddhists, I'd face prosecution. A pharmacy is a public accommodation, but a nurse is only an employee,
so they would face different legal requirements.
What is wrong with the morning after pill? Better than having an abortion I think. School teachers can obtain them for kids who have been unwise enough to have unprotected sex, without their parents being informed, although that is a bit of a dodgy area. Likewise I think abortions can be obtained in the same way, but of course this is done very rarely and only where the child is terrified, with justification, of the parent's reaction.
In the UK pharmacists have to stock all the reular drugs that could be legally obtained in the UK, or not be granted a licence, which I think is reasonable. I live in Wales and all prescription meds on the NHS are free, in England you have to pay a prescription charge, but not the full cost of the medication on the NHS. I think meds should be free for eveyone in the UK, like our healthcare is free at point of need for all UK citizens even if you have never paid National Insurance. Whilst the system isn't perfect, at least we don't have to worry about not getting the treatment we require.
Smoke
Done here.
We do have licensing requirements and legal regulations, though. They vary from state to state.
Seven states (Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Washington, Wisconsin) require a pharmacist to dispense contraceptives.
One (California) allows a pharmacist to refuse with the employer's consent, but requires the pharmacy to provide the drugs in a timely manner.
Seven states (Alabama, Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas) allow a pharmacist to refuse but not to obstruct; a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription must a meaningful referral or transfer. (And yes, there have been cases of pharmacists who refused to fill a prescription and refused to transfer it.)
Arizona permits a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription, but the pharmacist must return the prescription to the patient.
Four states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota) allow the pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription with no further obligation.
Source: http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PharmacyRefusalPolicies-June2010.pdf
Smoke
Done here.
Or a Jehovah's Witness who works in an emergency room to assist in any way with the treatment of a patient who needs a transfusion?
Smoke
Done here.
Oh my god, you sure do. If you lived in the United States you'd know that a fertilized egg is a CHILD! It's a CHILD with all possible human rights. Women who take the morning after pill are BABY KILLERS! And probably irresponsible sluts, too, because nobody we know would MURDER her BABY! If they didn't want to have BABIES they should never have had SEX! Sluts! Murderers!
Obviously, not all Americans believe that. But all Americans have heard it before.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Originally Posted by Kathryn
I do not think it's any more right for a pharmacist who owns his own pharmacy to be forced to carry the "morning after pill" than it is right to force a nun who is a registered nurse to participate in an abortion.
Or a Jehovah's Witness who works in an emergency room to assist in any way with the treatment of a patient who needs a transfusion?
There is a big difference between refusing to carry the morning after pill in a privately owned pharmacy, than a Jehovah's Witness emergency worker refusing to help with an emergency blood transfusion. In fact, I would support the rights of a private hospital owned and operated by Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse treating patients with blood transfusions. However, in a public hospital, that worker should not be working in any area in which blood transfusions are required.
This is not a good example though, because one situation is an emergency in which the patient has very few options and very little time, and the other is not.
The woman seeking the morning after pill can go down the road to Wal Mart or another pharmacy. This novel concept is called Free Enterprise.
Naturally when human lives hang in the balance, the ante is upped and there is less room for individual idiosyncracies and accommodation.
Let's use your earlier example of discrimination in housing. A woman who has a garage apartment that she rents out from her own backyard is not under the same anti-discrimination laws as the owner of an apartment complex. The woman with the backyard garage apartment can refuse to rent to anyone she pleases for any reason, including race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, age, you name it. She doesn't have to provide an explanation to anyone regarding how she chooses a tenant. If she owns an apartment complex though, she falls under different restrictions and laws.
As you pointed out, the laws about pharmacies vary from state to state, and I think that's a good thing. If a pharmacist doesn't like the laws of his state or city, he can vote for politicians who better reflect his ideology. If that doesn't work, he can move his business to a state that is more in line with his beliefs.
It's all good.
I do not think it's any more right for a pharmacist who owns his own pharmacy to be forced to carry the "morning after pill" than it is right to force a nun who is a registered nurse to participate in an abortion.
Or a Jehovah's Witness who works in an emergency room to assist in any way with the treatment of a patient who needs a transfusion?
There is a big difference between refusing to carry the morning after pill in a privately owned pharmacy, than a Jehovah's Witness emergency worker refusing to help with an emergency blood transfusion. In fact, I would support the rights of a private hospital owned and operated by Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse treating patients with blood transfusions. However, in a public hospital, that worker should not be working in any area in which blood transfusions are required.
This is not a good example though, because one situation is an emergency in which the patient has very few options and very little time, and the other is not.
The woman seeking the morning after pill can go down the road to Wal Mart or another pharmacy. This novel concept is called Free Enterprise.
Naturally when human lives hang in the balance, the ante is upped and there is less room for individual idiosyncracies and accommodation.
Let's use your earlier example of discrimination in housing. A woman who has a garage apartment that she rents out from her own backyard is not under the same anti-discrimination laws as the owner of an apartment complex. The woman with the backyard garage apartment can refuse to rent to anyone she pleases for any reason, including race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, age, you name it. She doesn't have to provide an explanation to anyone regarding how she chooses a tenant. If she owns an apartment complex though, she falls under different restrictions and laws.
As you pointed out, the laws about pharmacies vary from state to state, and I think that's a good thing. If a pharmacist doesn't like the laws of his state or city, he can vote for politicians who better reflect his ideology. If that doesn't work, he can move his business to a state that is more in line with his beliefs.
It's all good.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Unfortunately, the law dictates that not selling somebody something or refusing to provide them a service based purely on your own personal ideology or the ideology of the customer is discrimination, plain and simple. It's the law, and frankly I think it's a good law.
I fail to see exactly how you're justifying it.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Really? Where can I find this law? There are various anti discriminination laws, and by and large, they are excellent laws and I support them. However, they are not blanket laws meant to fit every situation.
Depending on the type of business, the size, etc. it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on personal ideology at times. For instance, a Christian bookstore is not legally obligated to order books on witchcraft for a person who walks in off the street wanting to order through them. An adult video store is under no law to order Intelligent Design videos for customers who want to order them through that store. A grocery store is under no obligation, either legally or morally, to stock kosher foods. A Catholic hospital is exempt from providing abortions. Private communities can discriminate based on age and family size. Nudist colonies can insist on nudity on the premises. Private schools can discriminate in their enrollment by offering reduced tuitions to members of a certain group.
By the way, I didn't say it was OK for a pharmacist who works at a pharmacy which sells the morning after pill to refuse to sell it. I said I believe it would be ok for a privately owned pharmacy to refuse to STOCK any drugs the owner didn't want to stock.
The bus driver in the original OP may have genuinely never been faced with the knowledge that he was driving someone to have an abortion - and when faced with it, realized he couldn't do so with a clear conscience. In that case, which was a non emergency, I believe he did what he had to do to live with himself, which was refuse and take the punishment - termination. Would it have been a better situation if he had already requested for his route to be changed so that he never had to take anyone to an abortion appointment? Yes - but I can see how he may have never even thought of that possible scenario until faced with it.
Sometimes we are blindsided by moral dilemmas and have to do the best we can as our conscience dictates.
As I've said repeatedly - I don't believe he has a legal case and he undermines his moral validity by filing a lawsuit. The bus company is within it's rights to expect him to either comply with company policy or be terminated.
Emergency situations where a person's life or health is imminently at risk, as in a hospital setting, are not in the same category as a bus ride downtown for a non emergency appointment.
Smoke
Done here.
What if the woman doesn't drive and there's only one pharmacy in town?
Smoke
Done here.
Except that it's not at all clear from the data we have that either of the two women involved was actually planning to have an abortion. He may, for all we know, have deprived them of their one chance to get their pre-natal vitamins that month.
He didn't do that at all. At least, he didn't take the punishment. He is after all, demanding all kinds of compensation and reparations for having refused to do his job.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Oh come on, Smoke, you could keep coming up with more and more extreme cases, with rarer and rarer juxtapositions of circumstances. I am speaking generally. There are exceptions to every rule - but bad law is based on exceptions RATHER than the rule. Using exceptions to the rule, you could say that it's OK to euthanize all old people over age 85 just because in some RARE circumstances, it might be the best alternative.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Quit cherry picking my posts. I have said in nearly every one of my numerous posts on this topic that he should not have filed a lawsuit, and that the company had every right to fire him.
Sometimes living up to your own moral standards requires self sacrifice. In fact, it often does.
Smoke
Done here.
It's really not that extreme. There are plenty of women who don't drive, or don't have a vehicle, and plenty of towns with only one pharmacy.
But frankly, I don't think it matters. I think if you're not willing to do the job of a pharmacist you should surrender your license and go into some line of work that suits you better.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Or open a specialty sort of pharmacy that clearly explains your purpose, your views, and the scope of your business. I don't think a person who has invested thousands of dollars and hours into their career should be forced to give it up just because they will not dispense meds which are specifically used for abortion.
Personally, I would drive out of my way to support a pharmacy that didn't sell abortion products.
Personally, I would drive out of my way to support a pharmacy that didn't sell abortion products.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
So you're comfortable with a woman being out of luck simply just because she happened to be an exception to the rule?
Smoke
Done here.
How would you feel about one that didn't sell any kind of contraceptives, not even condoms?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I'd think they were a stupid sort of extreme organization and I would probably shop elsewhere, but I wouldn't lobby to force them to comply with my moral views.
And I don't even need condoms or birth control products.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't think that a privately owned company should be forced to carry products that are morally reprehensible to the owner.
I also don't think that a woman who needs the morning after pill would have a problem going to the local emergency room and getting this product, if the local pharmacy didn't carry it. In fact, if the local pharmacy doesn't carry it, the local emergency medical facility most definitely SHOULD carry it. A doctor or nurse could order it for her online and have it shipped overnight - in many cases it could be delivered the same day. You can take those drugs within two or three days of sexual intercourse and they are effective.