• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Which Rights Take Priority?

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
I can understand the woman being upset... Because if I had to go to a different pharmacy because of that I'd be upset too. I don't know how birth control and pharmacies work where she lives but where I live birth control is covered by both my parent's insurance plans currently. Not all pharmacies are linked especially not the one I go to, and the pharmacy I go to is the only pharmacy close to my house. So basically, if someone had a problem filling out my prescription, I'd have to wait a day (because I don't have my parents insurance card on-hand, it's theirs not mine) and essentially miss my dose and travel farther for something usually available to me (and after getting the insurance cards/numbers I'd have to register to a new pharmacy just for one pack if the same person was at my pharmacy the next day). It's not the end of the world maybe, but it seems unnecessary. Most doctor's would advise you NOT to miss doses. The fact that this lady needs birth control for health reasons just makes it all the more annoying. I can sympathize with the religious woman, it just sucks she was the only one there who could fill it. Her boss should be more careful when hiring.

Luckily, usually there's always more than one pharmacist at my pharmacy. :) Having only one seems like a poor choice.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
What harm does she suffer by them not taking the script?

Nothing, because they never were going to fill the script.

but they did take it

If this pharmacist couldn't fill the script, they should've bought in someone who could, that day, not the next.

If there was a contract established, and it was breached, what are her damages?

Her damages would be any side effects she'd experience from missing a dose of her prescribed medicine. I'm not familiar with her exact condition, but typically it can cause stomach pain and some bleeding. Since she's taking it for a non-contraceptive purpose, other damages might be factored in as well.
 
Last edited:

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
You know full well that what I meant by the word "tell" had nothing to do with free speech. I meant the word "tell" in the sense of "force". Such as, "I told you to pick up your room". The first amendment does not give people the right to coerce or force or pressure other people to change their moral convictions.

Somehow I doubt she was ordering the woman to change her religious views in the same sense a mother orders her child to clean his room.

That's a cool opinion you've got there. Do you have anything to back it up or is it just another baseless opinion?

... You're actually asking me to provide a source for the claim that employers expect people to do the job they've been hired to do? Are you actually going to be that ****ing obtuse?

Going to the media isn't an "actual action"? Are you serious?

Oh for God's sake. Criticizing someone's beliefs publicly is different from withholding medicine to a customer who has a prescription for it based on your personal beliefs. The former is covered under freedom of speech (unless you can show me that the customer was actually trying to force the employee to change her beliefs, because somehow I doubt that's what was going on), the latter has potential negative effects on the customer's health. Don't dodge the point.

I sure bet the pharmacist would have loved it if the customer would have had a backbone and weathered the harshness of being told to go elsewhere

I'm not sure if it's really that easy, but then again I don't know how prescriptions work in the US and UK. Suppose for a moment that this had been a small town with only one pharmacy.

without whining about the persecution and defamation of having someone disagree with them.

Last I heard, she was upset because she didn't get her medicine, not because the pharmacist disagreed with her.

I'll ask the question again, since many of you seem to feel fine just ignoring it, why should the pharmacist be expected to find another line of work when she can fill out hundreds of thousands of other prescriptions a year? Feel free to just pass this one up.

Well, if you'd read the bottom of my post, I kind of... did. If her religious convictions against birth control are so strong that she can't even pass a damn box of pills to a customer, why is she working in a pharmacy where such a situation is likely to arise? I don't think anyone's saying she should stop being a pharmacist. There are pharmacies in the US that don't stock birth control, she could work at one of those. Hell, maybe she could even tell her employer so they could take measures to ensure such a situation doesn't come up, like having multiple pharmacists on hand. You know, anything aside from "work in a pharmacy that stocks birth control and pray to god nobody ever comes with a prescription for birth control".

We have a pharmacist who feels strongly that contraceptives are a sin.

... working at a pharmacy that stocks contraceptives and being surprised when someone comes in asking for contraceptives.

We have a customer who doesn't mind contraceptives at all.

... who has already gotten a prescription that has been accepted by the pharmacy for medicine that she is taking for her health rather than for birth control.

The pharmacist takes the woman aside and explains that she cannot fill the prescription because of her religious beliefs, and tells the woman how to get the prescription filled.

... a day later, potentially causing health problems for the customer. But it's okay that she didn't do her job and potentially put the customer's health at risk, because she did it politely.

The customer storms out (her own admission) and criticizes the pharmacist to the worldwide media, specifically singling out her religious belief.

... because it was the employee's religious beliefs that started the whole problem, much the same way that we would single out a murderer's racism if he yelled racial slurs while beating his victim to death.

Can any of you, ANY of you see how the customer is trying to force her belief that contraceptives are fine on the pharmacist?

Is she suing the pharmacist to make her change her beliefs? Is she threatening her if she doesn't change her beliefs? No? Then she is not forcing her belief that contraceptives are fine on the pharmacist. She is disagreeing with the pharmacist's beliefs. Disagreeing very loudly and very publicly is still just disagreeing. To quote Profesco,
Profesco said:
Words versus actions. If the Deely lady forced the pharmacist to use contraception, that's force. Saying "I think you're wrong" is not force.

Oh, and I like how you're ignoring every single analogy we bring up to show how stupid this situation is. I especially like how you quoted mine and still completely glossed over it. Unless you can explain how this situation is any different from a Hindu refusing to serve a customer beef in a butcher shop, or a Muslim refusing to serve a person their pepperoni pizza, or a Jehovah's Witness working in a hospital refusing to perform a blood transfusion for a patient (inb4 "but the JW scenario is so much more dangerous!"), I will treat them all the same.
 

Diz~

Combat Specialist
I assume that you will find this following scenario to be fair: A man orders a pepperoni pizza by phone and says it'll take him 15 minutes to get there. When he arrives a Muslim employee said that person who took his order has left for the day. He then refuses to sell the pepperoni pizza, because his religion states that a pig is an unclean animal. Surely there's no foul play, because that guy didn't technically pay for the pizza.

Then the manager better find another sap or I'll tell him I will never order a damn pizza at his place ever again and will tell other people that place have a terrorist Muslim under their employ and let all hell break loose.

So yeah, you better gimme my pizza with the best topping or else.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Then the manager better find another sap or I'll tell him I will never order a damn pizza at his place ever again and will tell other people that place have a terrorist Muslim under their employ and let all hell break loose.

So yeah, you better gimme my pizza with the best topping or else.
And then you are being sued for defamation of character. Taking your business to a different establishment is your best avenue of protest.
 

Diz~

Combat Specialist
And then you are being sued for defamation of character. Taking your business to a different establishment is your best avenue of protest.

Pffft, that boring. I prefer my idea.
 

DocGoblin

Well-Known Member
The pharmacy one is kind of stupid imo. I respect her views on birth control, but she's working in a multicultural, non religious environment that advertises itself as a distributor of contraceptive, as such she should not have brought her religious views into the situation, that's like someone refusing to serve a homosexual in a shop because the clerk is a Christian. It's not ok and it's a good example of when religion oversteps it's line.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Then the manager better find another sap or I'll tell him I will never order a damn pizza at his place ever again and will tell other people that place have a terrorist Muslim under their employ and let all hell break loose.

So yeah, you better gimme my pizza with the best topping or else.

That scenario wasn't for you. It was someone who does not understand the obvious. The same thing is with my Starbucks example.
 

DocGoblin

Well-Known Member
In regards to the pizza scenario, I would complain to a manager. I had ordered the Pizza, it had been cooked and just because I hadn't paid doesn't mean my rights were not impaired. I would not deny a vegetarian their veggie pizza on the basis that I disagree with their lifestyle.

In reality that pizza scenario is very unlikely, my local pizza place has some muslim employees and they've never denied serving me anything with pork on based on their religion
 
You're looking for Jains. They practice ahisma, or complete nonviolence (to the point of wearing masks over their mouths/noses to avoid inhaling and killing small organisms). And I, at least, would deliver the same argument as I am here, because I am trying to develop one that applies to as many various incarnations of this problem as possible - ideally all of them.
Ah, thanks for the information on that point. My mistake on the specific religion.

(BTW, does ahisma allow them to eat plants, and if not, what on earth are they allowed to eat?)

I should point out that one can easily find non-religious versions of this basic problem. For example, what if a taxi driver has a passenger who requests to go to a specifically dangerous location in a big city? The taxi driver can say that he cannot, in good conscience, take someone to that location. Maybe the passenger is from out of town and will appreciate the taxi driver's scrupulous concern for his passengers, and subsequently choose a different destination. If the location under discussion is an area and not just a single site, perhaps the passenger can convince the driver to take him there by telling him he lives there.

It is still not a clear case of one person being in the right, but no religion is necessary for such discussions to take place.

I beg pardon for not expressing myself clearly, then. Recall the section of my quote where I identified "other people's access to goods and services?" I meant other people as opposed to the person holding the religious belief. Freedom of religion does not procure the unchecked privilege to hinder, hamper, or ignore the various rights of others. One can practice whatever they wish on themselves; they cannot extend their practices onto others.
Don't you see? It's not by any means a clear case of one person actually extending their practices onto another.



I also want to add that the same thing could have happened when another pharmacist willing to fill the prescription was on duty, and with the employer knowing about the employee's scruples. (This clearly should have been known before the person was ever hired.) Still, the customer may have had to wait a bit longer than she wanted to, and still been outraged.

... working at a pharmacy that stocks contraceptives and being surprised when someone comes in asking for contraceptives.
... who has already gotten a prescription that has been accepted by the pharmacy for medicine that she is taking for her health rather than for birth control.
The above quotes are completely correct. They explain something called, in the American legal system, "reasonable expectation." This is why I disagree with mattj's point that it is a clear case of the woman not being required to fill the prescription. There are definitely factors working on both sides, making the issue unclear.

Oh, and I like how you're ignoring every single analogy we bring up to show how stupid this situation is. I especially like how you quoted mine and still completely glossed over it. Unless you can explain how this situation is any different from a Hindu refusing to serve a customer beef in a butcher shop, or a Muslim refusing to serve a person their pepperoni pizza, or a Jehovah's Witness working in a hospital refusing to perform a blood transfusion for a patient (inb4 "but the JW scenario is so much more dangerous!"), I will treat them all the same.
To be fair, though I don't know how the legal systems in other countries have responded to Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical argument" against blood transfusions, but if I recall correctly, American courts have upheld the right of JW parents to deny a blood transfusion to one of their children even in life-or-death cases. I have very mixed emotions about this, since I strongly disagree with false religion (especially when they harm people bodily) and also don't want the government forcing people violating their religion.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
I also want to add that the same thing could have happened when another pharmacist willing to fill the prescription was on duty, and with the employer knowing about the employee's scruples. (This clearly should have been known before the person was ever hired.) Still, the customer may have had to wait a bit longer than she wanted to, and still been outraged.

But that's a guessing game, as for if she'd be outraged. Hell, if another pharmcist was on duty, there'd be no need for the religious pharmacist to address the employee directly at all. I think waiting an additional hour for a medication the same day the refill was already promised is better than "come back tomorrow".

Which is why I pointed to CVS' policy. They allow a pharmacist to not fill a script due to moral reasons, but also require the pharmacist AT THAT SPECIFIC PHARMACY to make sure another pharmacist is either on duty or will come in to fill the script on that same day. None of this "Go to another pharmacy" jazz (many pharmacies still aren't 24/7, and some still keep business hours) or "come back tomorrow"

Now I know some people will be like "but bu but but the religious pharmacist might face ridicule from their co-workers for inconveniencing them during their breaks or days off". Well, when your place of employment has to adjust to you, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

You're also dead on in that there was a pattern of filling the script and even accepting this script. Regardless of what the law is or isn't in the UK, the US, or (if Newt Gingrich gets his way) the moon, the point a pharmacy refuses to fill the script is BEFORE they accept the script, not AFTER it. You can't say "We'll get you your medicine" and then go "Psyche!"

To be fair, though I don't know how the legal systems in other countries have responded to Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical argument" against blood transfusions, but if I recall correctly, American courts have upheld the right of JW parents to deny a blood transfusion to one of their children even in life-or-death cases. I have very mixed emotions about this, since I strongly disagree with false religion (especially when they harm people bodily) and also don't want the government forcing people violating their religion.

You're exactly right, though I wouldn't be too confident that it's always "false religion" as there are some pretty extreme sects of many Christian religions as well. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley has written about how, in cases of child abuse and neglect leading up to and including death, sentencing is much more lenient when the neglectful party claims a religious reasoning. Here's a 2009 column he wrote about the issue that was published in the Washington Post.
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
To be fair, though I don't know how the legal systems in other countries have responded to Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical argument" against blood transfusions, but if I recall correctly, American courts have upheld the right of JW parents to deny a blood transfusion to one of their children even in life-or-death cases.

If that's actually true, then I want to cry.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
To be fair, though I don't know how the legal systems in other countries have responded to Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical argument" against blood transfusions, but if I recall correctly, American courts have upheld the right of JW parents to deny a blood transfusion to one of their children even in life-or-death cases. I have very mixed emotions about this, since I strongly disagree with false religion (especially when they harm people bodily) and also don't want the government forcing people violating their religion.

Who are you to claim which religion is false?

I remember in one episode of Scrubs, a patient refused a blood transfusion because she was a JW. Dr. Cox said it was her choice if she wanted to die.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Who are you to claim which religion is false?

I remember in one episode of Scrubs, a patient refused a blood transfusion because she was a JW. Dr. Cox said it was her choice if she wanted to die.

Adult patients can always refuse treatment for any or no reason. Religious faith and medical treatment usually come into conflict when the patient is a minor, or not mentally capable of making a sound decision.
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
If that's actually true, then I want to cry.

It is true, actually. Hospitals have to respect cultural and spiritual beliefs. Since parents are the guardians and the decision-makers, they can refuse to allow a blood transfusion for their child. In the same way, a husband can tell a wife (who, say, is recovering from a c-section) that she can't have pain meds, and if she refuses them because her husband says so, you aren't allowed to try to convince her to take them. Not quite as extreme as the child example, but another example of how sometimes other people can influence health care choices.
 
Police refuse orders to arrest protesters
Soldiers refuse orders to fire on protesters
Atheist soldier refuses order to bow head at ceremony
Muslim cashiers refuse to handle pork products
Supermarket cashier refuses to sell beer
Amazon directors refuse to sell pedophilia book

thought i'd list a few more "holier than thou" troublemakers that should either ignore their consciences and get in line with arbitrary expectations or find a new line of work

oh and
Boy refuses to pledge allegiance
he should probably either quit school or transfer to an atheist school or soemthing.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
"Refuses to handle" is much different than saying "Oh, yes, we'll have this ready for you *1 hour later*-PSYCHE!"

Also, none of those "refusals" actually had the potential to cause medical or physical harm. Some of them in fact PREVENTED harm. This "refusal", with the pharmacist telling the patient to skip one day's dose of medicine and come back the next day, had the potential to create problems for the patient.

Finally, none of those situations are remotely similar.

EDIT: lol. Did you even read any of these? Just reading the Supermarket refusing beer sales one, the customer is alleging discrimination due to his disability.
 
Last edited:
Refusing to check out food has no potential to cause "medical or physical harm"? I think I read soemwhares that people still die from starvation. As far fetched as that is, its not much more far fetched than a woman dying from missing one birth control pill.

Oh, they're all very much similar. It's just that they're not the christian bashing fodder you seem to feast on. Guess what? Atheists and secularists have consciences too. They have values and morals that some times conflict with their occupations. It's a glaring double standard if you condemn the pharmacist for following her conscience in the face of your personal expectations, but allow these others who followed their consciences in the face of other's expectations.

how DARE those dirty muslims not check out my sausage RIGHT NOW
how DARE those disobedient soldiers not fire on those innocent protesters if they had a problem following orders maybe they should have thought of that before joining the military

ahaha yeah yeah i read em! x) that poor guy
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Refusing to check out food has no potential to cause "medical or physical harm"? I think I read soemwhares that people still die from starvation. As far fetched as that is, its not much more far fetched than a woman dying from missing one birth control pill.

Bold: Who made that claim?

No Christian bashing here. But I do like bashing hypocrites. If I believed birth control was a sin, I wouldn't compromise my beliefs by working in a place that sells birth control because I'd know part of my salary would be derived from profits of those products. Doesn't matter if you're a Christian, Muslim, or Spaghetti Monster worshiper. Just like I'd never work at Planned Parenthood because I'm pro-life. They provide non-abortion services, but they do make some money from abortions.

So really, how deeply held are these convictions if these people are working in places that sell products they believe are sinful? Seems like they're picking and choosing when to be morally righteous.

EDIT: Soldiers have a duty to not follow unlawful and illegal orders. Grocers have a duty not to sell alcohol to those they believe are already intoxicated. How is that similar to a pharmacist CHOOSING to not fill a script which the pharmacy had already said would be filled?
 
Last edited:
Top