Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Curious what folks think about this...


  • Please log in to reply
398 replies to this topic

#151 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:13 PM

The unemployed pharmacists will volunteer, as long as you don't have questions about BC


We don't need employment, we're moving forward.

#152 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:27 PM

I would have to see the law but I would say that no employee should be forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.



But you just said that it would not be OK for the employee, as it would be for the owner. :undecided:

#153 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,381 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:28 PM

But you just said that it would not be OK for the employee, as it would be for the owner. :undecided:


Houston, we have a problem....

#154 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,859 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:39 PM

I would have to see the law but I would say that no employee should be forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.


I have to work on Christmas. Every employee in the department is required to work that day. If I objected based upon my religious beliefs, guess what? I'd be out of a job.

I knew this going into the job.

Prior to embarking on the six year education and licencing exams to become a pharmacist, that person should know that dispensing BC is part of the job. If you don't like that part of the job, go find another line of work.

#155 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:40 PM

how would I know? maybe not?

What I do know, is that her prefered method of LEGAL birth control is not available to her because of her gender. Yes, I say gender, because this method of birth control is only available to females. Possibly over the objections of the owner/manager of the pharmacy.


Or it may not be available to her because of the religious beliefs of the pharmacist. Possibly because the owner/manager is giving his pharmacist the option to make that decision.

#156 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,973 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

AGAIN. The question is the law. Not how easy it is to circumvent the law. Forget about whether the pharmacist has to prove it. The law says he can not be fired for it.


I'm not a lawyer but I would think there could/would be a good case for this. I don't know the answer but the law is there IMO to stop people from say, firing someone because they are Mexican or Black or Muslim or whatever because you don't like X, Y or Z. In this case, you are not necessarily firing them because you don't like their religion, you're not racist or whatever. They're incapable of doing their job due to their religion but does that make you ethnocentric?

#157 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,381 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:44 PM

I'm not a lawyer but I would think there could/would be a good case for this. I don't know the answer but the law is there IMO to stop people from say, firing someone because they are Mexican or Black or Muslim or whatever because you don't like X, Y or Z. In this case, you are not necessarily firing them because you don't like their religion, you're not racist or whatever. They're incapable of doing their job due to their religion but does that make you ethnocentric?


to me, its an issue of lost profits. When profits are down in an ailing economy, reducing labor is an easy way to shore them up again. There is no law against downsizing, regardless of whether said employee happens to be religious, or an atheist.

#158 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:17 PM

If it's their business they should be able to decide how they operate and what they will and will not do. If they're not breaking any laws, I don't see any problem with it.

So it's ok for a pharmacist who owns the pharmacy, but not for the pharmacist who is just an employee?

That sounds right to me.


But you just said that it would not be OK for the employee, as it would be for the owner. :undecided:

What I said/meant was that it's the owner/pharmacist that should decide how the business operates as long as no laws it's legal (actually I guess they should also be the one's to decide if it's going to be illegal too ;) )


I see nothing wrong with a law allowing the "employee pharmacist" the right to refuse to do something based on religious reasons

#159 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:28 PM

What I said/meant was that it's the owner/pharmacist that should decide how the business operates as long as no laws it's legal (actually I guess they should also be the one's to decide if it's going to be illegal too ;) )


I see nothing wrong with a law allowing the "employee pharmacist" the right to refuse to do something based on religious reasons



You keep contradicting yourself.
First you say the owners should operate the business as they see fit.
Then you say the employee should be able to refuse to perform the job based on religious reasons.

#160 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

And I believe both :confused1:

#161 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:04 PM

So the owner is running his business as he sees fit, the employee has been working there for a few years and all of a sudden this law comes on the books and the owner is not allowed to run his business as he sees fit anymore due to the employees religion.
You're OK with this?

#162 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:05 PM

Absent any state or federal law, which is what we have here regarding this measure (the law allows...no, there isn't one!), the business owner is responsible for making policies such as these (as it should be. Even if the policy is "no blacks will be served", as stupid as that may be) and employees can either adhere tot eh business policies/rules or go somewhere else.

An employee is contracted to perform business duties listed out by the owner of the business. The federal government, or the state for that matter shouldn't have the ability to step in unless someone's right is being infringed upon. In the case above (of employee/employer relationship) you're under contract. if you don't like the terms, dont sign on or quit (based on the terms of the contract).

#163 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

Absent any state or federal law, which is what we have here regarding this measure (the law allows...no, there isn't one!), the business owner is responsible for making policies such as these (as it should be. Even if the policy is "no blacks will be served", as stupid as that may be) and employees can either adhere tot eh business policies/rules or go somewhere else.

An employee is contracted to perform business duties listed out by the owner of the business. The federal government, or the state for that matter shouldn't have the ability to step in unless someone's right is being infringed upon. In the case above (of employee/employer relationship) you're under contract. if you don't like the terms, dont sign on or quit (based on the terms of the contract).



But this law makes it possible for the employee to retain the job at the expense of the owner running the business as he sees fit.

#164 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

So the owner is running his business as he sees fit, the employee has been working there for a few years and all of a sudden this law comes on the books and the owner is not allowed to run his business as he sees fit anymore due to the employees religion.
You're OK with this?

Nope.

#165 In A Silent Way

In A Silent Way
  • VibeTribe
  • 25,998 posts
  • LocationShoreline, CT

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:17 PM

New employee policy: "We fill all (legal) prescriptions for all customers. if you have religious beliefs that won't allow you to do so, you will be reassigned from the pharmacy to other duties."

If that doesn't work, you kneecap the religious fanatic so the mf'er can't work.

:iasw:

#166 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:19 PM

But this law makes it possible for the employee to retain the job at the expense of the owner running the business as he sees fit.


Apparently so. There are already a dozen zillion laws that take the owners ability to run there business as seen fit away. This is just a another bit of icing on the cake. Try setting up a business and put a sign out front saying Blacks not Served and see how long you stay in business. This is just a case of speical interests having a negative view of this particular encroachment by religious claims. We have them for every other special interest, so here is one more.

#167 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:20 PM

Nope.



Earlier you said you were OK with this law.
Now you're saying you're not.
Which is it?

#168 In A Silent Way

In A Silent Way
  • VibeTribe
  • 25,998 posts
  • LocationShoreline, CT

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:21 PM

Looks like the only option is to frame the nutter employee for stealing narcotics and benzos.

#169 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:25 PM

I have yet to see this law you say I said I was OK with. I can't say for sure if I am for or against it without actually seeing it.

#170 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:37 PM

http://thinkprogress...trol/?mobile=nc

This is the Kansas law.

One excerpt.
No pharmacist could be fired for refusing to fill such prescriptions, and doctors can refuse to refer patients to pharmacists who would fill a birth control prescription. Additionally, the Associated Press had reported that the law could “allow a doctor to refuse to provide chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient because it might end her pregnancy.

So, the business owner may say " I will provide BCP for all"
A pharmacist/employee can say "not on my watch"
Business is screwed, 'cause now people go to the other pharmacy across town, most people would not hang around to hear the owner's story.
Customer is screwed.
Employee is happy, he/she prevented a pregnancy prevention

Dunno, but from my view, Joker was all fine with this when it was thought that only the client was getting screwed, but seems to be on the fence now that the business owner can't run his business as he/she sees fit.

#171 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:38 PM

New employee policy: "We fill all (legal) prescriptions for all customers. if you have religious beliefs that won't allow you to do so, you will be reassigned from the pharmacy to other duties."

If that doesn't work, you kneecap the religious fanatic so the mf'er can't work.

:iasw:


The law says you can't do either.

#172 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

I have yet to see this law you say I said I was OK with. I can't say for sure if I am for or against it without actually seeing it.




Not being able to say for sure without actually seeing it is a horse of a different color.
That's not what you stated earlier, but it's OK to change your mind.


Here are the first two posts of the thread.


From a post on the Bookface:


Quote

Did you know in Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and South Dakota, state law allows your pharmacist to deny you birth control because it's against HIS religion? Enough is enough! JOIN US and fight back!


Ttb's responses:


Quote

While I believe everyone should have reasonable access to birth control, and I'm not a religious person, I don't want to live in a country which would require someone to engage in commerce which violates his or her religious or moral beliefs.


Quote

Should bookstores owned by atheists be required to sell bibles?



I agree with you.

Who are the "us" that would want to fight back against those laws?




You agreed.
And then you continued to defend the right to refuse service on religious grounds.

A couple pages of blah blah blah, then I said you contradicted yourself and questioned if you are for or against.
You then chose both positions and are now choosing neither until you review the law.
Fair enough.

#173 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,973 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

fuck it, I'd call Joey to handle the uppidy pharmacist. yeah yeah yeah, they're laws against that too but Joey don't give a shit.

#174 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

I'm not a lawyer but I would think there could/would be a good case for this. I don't know the answer but the law is there IMO to stop people from say, firing someone because they are Mexican or Black or Muslim or whatever because you don't like X, Y or Z. In this case, you are not necessarily firing them because you don't like their religion, you're not racist or whatever. They're incapable of doing their job due to their religion but does that make you ethnocentric?


That is not what this law says.
This law states, that a pharmacist/employee MAY have a moral objection to dispensing birth control. Even though the shop owner may have no moral objection. Pharmacist puts this pharmacist in charge one day. The pharmacist can say he will not fill the script, even if there is no one there to fill it for him. The law states that the pharmacist can't be fired for that inaction. The law states that you can't force someone to go against their moral code.
Remember, this is not federal law. this has nothing to do with EEOP. This is state law.

In IL for example, they have an opposite law. A pharmacy MUST dispense BCP whether the pharmacist agrees or not.

#175 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:46 PM

fuck it, I'd call Joey to handle the uppidy pharmacist. yeah yeah yeah, they're laws against that too but Joey don't give a shit.

Joey has a way of making people see their moral code a little differently...;)

#176 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:51 PM

The topic started out (as I saw it) of people thinking this was about making sure the actual STORE/PHARMACY would stock and sell birth control.
From there, a number of people hopped on saying that the store owner could /should make any decision he/she wanted. After it came to light that the law PROHIBITS the store owner from doing as he/she pleases, there appeared to be a number of people hopping on the fence. With more than one suggesting that "Yes it is a good law, because it is unenforceable. The pharmacist should be fired....."

OY.

#177 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

Dunno, but from my view, Joker was all fine with this when it was thought that only the client was getting screwed, but seems to be on the fence now that the business owner can't run his business as he/she sees fit.

I would have to see the law but I would say that no employee should be forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.



#178 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:56 PM

The topic started out (as I saw it) of people thinking this was about making sure the actual STORE/PHARMACY would stock and sell birth control.
From there, a number of people hopped on saying that the store owner could /should make any decision he/she wanted. After it came to light that the law PROHIBITS the store owner from doing as he/she pleases, there appeared to be a number of people hopping on the fence. With more than one suggesting that "Yes it is a good law, because it is unenforceable. The pharmacist should be fired....."

OY.




It's a crappy law that benefits no one but the pharmacist who chooses to bestow his religious beliefs on his customers.
Find a new profession if your religion prohibits you from performing your present one.

#179 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:04 PM

Not being able to say for sure without actually seeing it is a horse of a different color.
That's not what you stated earlier, but it's OK to change your mind.


Here are the first two posts of the thread.







You agreed.
And then you continued to defend the right to refuse service on religious grounds.

A couple pages of blah blah blah, then I said you contradicted yourself and questioned if you are for or against.
You then chose both positions and are now choosing neither until you review the law.
Fair enough.

This "I don't want to live in a country which would require someone to engage in commerce which violates his or her religious or moral beliefs." is what I agreed with. I don't believe my position on this has changed at all. The owners should be allowed to run their company as they see fit and if they don't want to allow their employees the right to make that decision, and they live in a state where they are allowed to do so, they should handle that position themselves.

#180 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,179 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:07 PM

Looks like the only option is to frame the nutter employee for stealing narcotics and benzos.


Naw. You could also kill him and wear his skin as a suit. There's always that.

#181 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,216 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:07 PM

This "I don't want to live in a country which would require someone to engage in commerce which violates his or her religious or moral beliefs." is what I agreed with. I don't believe my position on this has changed at all. The owners should be allowed to run their company as they see fit and if they don't want to allow their employees the right to make that decision, and they live in a state where they are allowed to do so, they should handle that position themselves.



Totally ducking the question here, with "and they live in a state where they are allowed to do so".
This is not the issue at hand.

#182 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

Posted Image[/url]Joker, on 12 December 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:


I would have to see the law but I would say that no employee should be forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.
]


You had no such distinction (having to see the law) when you thought it was the shop owner who had the view. You said "I agree". Now that there is a dilemma between the shop owner, and the religious employee, you are holding back.
You had no such apprehensions when it was the woman being screwed for just wanting her LEGAL medical script filled...
Did the radio not cover this talking point correctly?

#183 In A Silent Way

In A Silent Way
  • VibeTribe
  • 25,998 posts
  • LocationShoreline, CT

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

Naw. You could also kill him and wear his skin as a suit. There's always that.


Killing is immoral. If he goes to prison he's still alive and gets three hots and a cot.

#184 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:28 PM

You had no such distinction (having to see the law) when you thought it was the shop owner who had the view. You said "I agree". Now that there is a dilemma between the shop owner, and the religious employee, you are holding back.
You had no such apprehensions when it was the woman being screwed for just wanting her LEGAL medical script filled...
Did the radio not cover this talking point correctly?

And again, this is what I agreed with from the start
"I don't want to live in a country which would require someone to engage in commerce which violates his or her religious or moral beliefs."
While I was referring to the employee as being the "someone" I think the same could be said if the owner was the "someone"

I don't listen to the radio or watch any of the slanted "news" networks so there's no talking points that were covered (unlike the clearly biased and untrustworthy ThinkProgress that you seem to be getting your info from)

#185 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:36 PM

Not being able to say for sure without actually seeing it is a horse of a different color.
That's not what you stated earlier, but it's OK to change your mind.


Here are the first two posts of the thread.







You agreed.
And then you continued to defend the right to refuse service on religious grounds.

A couple pages of blah blah blah, then I said you contradicted yourself and questioned if you are for or against.
You then chose both positions and are now choosing neither until you review the law.
Fair enough.


here ya go, joke:

Posted Image

If you can't dispense all the prescriptions behind the counter, then you're not qualified to be a pharmacist in my opinion.

Maybe they should have to advertise on the outside of the building that their phamacy is birth control free so nobody's time is wasted. Or at the least make sure a real pharmacist is always on duty.

#186 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:39 PM

And again, this is what I agreed with from the start
"I don't want to live in a country which would require someone to engage in commerce which violates his or her religious or moral beliefs."
While I was referring to the employee as being the "someone" I think the same could be said if the owner was the "someone"

I don't listen to the radio or watch any of the slanted "news" networks so there's no talking points that were covered (unlike the clearly biased and untrustworthy ThinkProgress that you seem to be getting your info from)


my first quote was from catholic.com. Hardly a left leaning site...

#187 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,583 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:39 PM

:popcorn1:

#188 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:46 PM

I thought it was against people's religion not to USE birth control... dispensing it isn't using it. It's just doing your job.

Should people be allowed to refuse to sell cigarettes and alcohol because it's against their religion? Isn't that the same thing?

Now business owners would have to have a separate checkout marked "cigarette, alcohol, pork and porn free" for the religious fanatics? Can a Hindu cashier refuse to sell beef? Where does it end?

high fructose corn-syrup is against my religion. If I get a job bagging groceries, can I refuse to bag all products containing high-fructose corn syrup?

#189 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:46 PM

and here ya go... From a site that would not normally be on my radar. This has the laws, along with views from the christian pharmacists view.
http://www.pfli.org/....php?pfli=legal

#190 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:48 PM

and my "slanted biased" source says pretty much the same thing as the pharmacists for life international site says.

both are quoting the law, not slanting the news....

well the pfli site slants a bit....

#191 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:58 PM

apparently it's only for the "plan b" type next day pills.

I can now understand the conflict of conscience... I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

they'll figure it out somehow... you'll only be able to get it from planned parenthood or something.

#192 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:08 PM

Not only for plan B... In most states.

And there is some debate as to whether Plan B is an "abortion" pill or a Emergency Contraception pill.

#193 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:15 PM

my first quote was from catholic.com. Hardly a left leaning site...

Never said any of them were left leaning.

I honestly don't know what the problem is here. You were the one suggesting I was getting talking points from somewhere.

My opinion from the start was that I don't believe the pharmacists should be forced to do something against their moral/religious beliefs.

If there's anything that's unclear let me know what it is and I'll try to reframe my answer.

#194 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,859 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:08 AM

My opinion from the start was that I don't believe the pharmacists should be forced to do something against their moral/religious beliefs.


They should never take the job in the first place if their religion matters that much to them. As I said, six years prior to becoming a pharmacist, you know damn well what's required of you to do the job. If something in that job goes against your religion, find another career.

#195 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:12 AM

So little diversity in that statement. It's only a job and there is only one way to attain credential, it screams. Then totalitarian.

#196 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:16 AM

religion is a choice, right?

#197 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,859 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:08 AM

So little diversity in that statement. It's only a job and there is only one way to attain credential, it screams. Then totalitarian.


There IS only one way to get credentials to become a Pharmacist. Eight years of school to get your PharmD and passing two licensing exams. In those eight years, the pharm student is definitely going to learn what their job duties will be. I would certainly hope they'd know what the job duties are before even entering school and making the minimum 100K+ investment to get into the career. The job is to receive prescriptions from Docs and PAs and dispense the medication the prescription requires. The only interaction with the patient is to verify their identity and explain the possible side effects of the drug. That's the job. Whether it's Birth Control, BP meds, Oxycontin, you name it.....the Docs prescribe it, you dispense it. That's the job.

http://www.bls.gov/o...Pharmacists.htm


I'm studying to become an X-Ray tech. Never mind, what will be required me as a licensed Radiographer, even as a student I will be in the Operating Room controlling an X-Ray machine to guide doctors to complete Fallopian Tubal Litigation; Surgical Birth Control. If I refuse to do that portion of my training based upon personal religious objection, I have no doubt I'd get kicked out of school.

Thinking about that in comparison with a Pharmacy student, there is ZERO doubt in my mind that while the student is in school, they'll have to do Pharmacist/Patient simulations explaining to another student in class the effects of BC.

Seriously, a Pharmacist refusing to dispense ANY drug based upon religious objection is like a Cop refusing to make an arrest because it goes against his religion. IMO there's no difference. Some States agree, apparently those that inspired this thread don't. Glad I don't live there.

#198 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.



#199 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,352 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:39 PM

If Ttb were King of America, Pharmacists could refuse to fill scripts for Birth Control, and Pharmacy owners could choose to tell them, "find somewhere else to work."

And Hindu checkout people could refuse to ring up beef, and store owners could choose to tell them, "find somewhere else to work."

If TtB were King of America.

#200 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,490 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:50 PM

Sounds like King TtB doesn't approve of this law.

Prior to the law, the Pharmacist could refuse to fill a script, but could be fired for doing so. Now (in 24 states) that pharmacist can't be fired.

Tough way to run a business.