Which Rights Take Priority?

[J.T.]

Judging by the fact that you're not denying that you meant what I think you meant, I can only assume that, yes, you are perfectly okay with people's right to believe in a deity/deities being allowed to take away other people's right to live. Explain to me why the WTC attacks, the Crusades/Inquisition, and other such events were such bad things if the right to be religious is more important than the right to live.

Your mistake was respecting humanity in the first place... I think!

Clearly.

As the Moral Pharmacist (TM) had the right not to. Because a perspective employee cannot be denied a job due to religion, any more than they can be denied cause they are gay! Anything less is discrimination!

The woman would be denied her job because she is incapable of doing it, not because she's religious.

Yeah cause I could not live another 0:20-1:00 to drive to the next pharmacy and fill my script.

We've been over this. What if this is the only pharmacy in town? What if the person is unable to get around very easily (disabled, elderly, etc.)?

Then it falls to my family to try and sue the profits outta the Pharmacy.

Yeah, that totally fixes the fact that someone has died because someone decided her religion was more important than your life.

Not to mention that the prescription here was for a contraceptive! I have never heard that a contraceptive was ever used as a life sustaining medication.

Ahahaha no. Don't try to get out of this. I asked you at what point the right to live healthily becomes more important than the right to be religious. You said never. My question wasn't just about birth control, which should have been perfectly clear because I gave two examples of what I meant in the very next ****ing sentence. You looked at my question, and I'm being generous in assuming that you read what came immediately after the question, and said that the right to live never comes above the right to follow a religion. Unless you want to retract that statement in a goddamned hurry, I'm going to assume that you meant what you said.

People choose to not go to the hospital because of religious reasons all the time.

If someone makes a personal decision to not go to a hospital, that's fine. If someone makes a personal decision to prevent anyone else from going to a hospital, they have crossed several lines.

Also people choose to pull the plug terminating a life all the time.

If there's no chance of the person getting out of their current conditions, if they have a living will drawn up, etc., etc.

I know a plethora of Attorneys that would argue (and win possibly) your position.

I damn well hope so.

Yeah my parents get/got there scripts filled by mail. They aren't/weren't in my situation any more.

Eh?

Which she wouldn't do because of her religious beliefs. Thus religious discrimination.

Okay. So we should hire a Hindu to work as a butcher even though we know he will refuse to handle beef, because if we don't we'd be discriminating against his religion. Wow, sounds like a plan - I should convert to fundamentalist Christianity, apply for a job at an abortion clinic, and then claim a religious opposition to abortion once I get hired. Sounds like an easy way to get paid without having to do anything - after all, if my religion says abortion is a sin, then clearly I should be able to get out of having to do anything related to abortion on the job, even if the job revolves entirely around abortion! But they can't fire me when they realize they're essentially handing me a big fat paycheck for doing jack-monkey-squat. That would be religious discrimination.

I am now asking this as an honest question: Do you even read what you type?

 

[CSolarstorm]

Not to mention that the prescription here was for a contraceptive! I have never heard that a contraceptive was ever used as a life sustaining medication. People choose to not go to the hospital because of religious reasons all the time. Also people choose to pull the plug terminating a life all the time. Who's morals takes priority? Lives are chosen to be terminated all the time, but not because they were refused a Contraceptive to relieve cramps and bloating!

Because those aren't worth relieving, or what? *skeptical*

Ms Deeley, 38, of Wybourn, said she was furious she was not allowed her prescription, especially because she used it to treat endometriosis and not as a method of birth control.

The article says that she's using it to treat endometriosis. (Why did I read osteoporosis before?) Endometriosis is when uterine cells accidently grow in other parts of the body and cause more severe (but notably unpredictable) cramping and in many instances pelvic pain.

Typically, contraceptives are used to treat long-term endometriosis, which probably means she's stuck with endometriosis. She might have had a surgery before to remove one of these growths, or may be at risk to have a future surgery, at least that's what I get from 'long term'.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

There's no reason why a state can't have both anti-discriminatory laws or even hate crime legislation that addresses LGBT groups and still ban same-sex marriage, either by statute or constitutionally.

I think there is undoubtedly some reason, especially since most pro-gay people often argue that simply not having the "right" to marry is an instance of discrimination and a violation of basic human rights. Under that argument, if the government discriminates against them in this major way, how can the same government prohibit lesser forms of discrimination?

I agree with your point here, TFP.

I'll add, though, that adoption by single parents is becoming more acceptable. If there ended up being an instance where an adoption agency accepted single parent candidates, then at least for that adoption agency, state marriages laws would no longer have a strong bearing on their candidacy procedures. I don't know (and actually doubt) that this is a relevant factor with Catholic church-run adoption agencies; I just thought it was an interesting aside.

That definitely points to the possibility of marriage laws not being the only thing to be considered, then.

Agreed, again. Though I hope that my explication of the logic he used in creating his arguments is sufficiently detached from the moral argumentation to clearly show why it fails (or, technically, why it works in such a way as to support the criticism leveled at it). I'm not sure how I'd go about arguing the moral differences between inaction and action, to be honest. The two can be redefined and reframed so easily to swap meanings. In our case, we could argue in at least two divergent ways whether the pharmacist "did something" (withheld medicine or obeyed her moral code) or "did not do something" (did not do her job or did not force her moral code on the customer) - both the pro and con sides can be evenly expressed in terms of an action-inaction split. @_@

What seems to be at issue here is whether the customer has the right to get her prescription filled from that pharmacist. She has the reasonable expectation of getting it filled by that pharmacy without reference to specific employees. When a certain pharmacist is the only one? That suggests a policy change is necessary...or perhaps robot pharmacists!

Additionally, as if it weren't worth considering already that even weak moral relativism necessarily leads to silly and difficult disputes like this, mattj's explanation of why he takes his morals from the Bible really attracted my interest because I think it highlights a very central point in our differing philosophical tendencies, and one that is quite descriptive of a portion of divine command ethics in general: the position that, if there is no supreme creator deity to personally define and dictate absolute morals, then the only alternative is thorough (I would certainly not call the option assumed under this dichotomy weak) moral relativism where, as was expressed, might makes right.

As a student of ethics trying to find a defensible middle ground, I can say this is tough stuff. @_@

You might be interested to know that I meant that statement you quoted as a rejection of the common view that the Bible supports absolute morality in the form you've described. With only a finite number of commands in Scripture, Christians are guaranteed to experience situations not directly addressed in Scripture. Using logic to properly deduce more from the scriptural principles is necessary, but that still doesn't prove all questions will be answered with no remaining gray areas.

You and me both. Could either of us live in Omelas?

That's interesting, because I've actually read one Ursula K. Le Guin's books (called Catwings). I'd walk away from Omelas.

I want to, but I'm not sure what I'd say about it. My points on the pharmacist case were all being developed partly through the dialogue here, in fact. (A function I hope this subforum serves for everyone, at least on occasion.)

It does for me, and continues to develop my view, though more often, it helps mere fine the way I state my view.

Jains are supposed to be vegetarians, yes. They pray over the food they eat, though: thankfulness, respect, solemnity, and the like.

Ah, being able to eat plants makes sense! If that were disallowed, they'd be hosed.

I agree that this is a problem regardless of the religious factor, actually - I tried to sketch out the inconsequence of the pharmacist's Catholicism in a previous post, in fact. I'm glad to read your example.

As a basic idea of an answer to your hypothetical, I'd argue that the taxi driver in this case is within his rights to refuse driving the passenger to a dangerous location (assuming the danger is something specific and beyond the level of normal expectations in an average city - if it's just something like a "bad neighborhood," then the driver will of course be expected to fulfill his job requirements and provide the service he has contracted on to provide). But his or her rights in this case are founded on the fact that the driver would be exposing himself to the very same danger as the passenger, and here comes the old refrain: the passenger's right to the taxi service ends when it infringes on the driver's right to health and safety.

However, I don't believe it is merely the taxi driver's own harm or danger that is relevant, because it is easy to see how he can object even if there is no danger to him. If he knows he can handle anything that that area throws at him (martial arts and other skills?), or if he just knows that the people in that area won't harm him (i.e., he's related but can't stop their criminal activity, the passenger belongs to a demographic targeted by area criminals), the issue is protecting the passenger.

In this situation, the passenger has a reasonable expectation of being taken wherever he or she requests for the appropriate payment. The taxi driver weighs the protection of the customer with the customer's will. Being careful to avoid endangering the lives of passengers is good, but there's still no clear, absolute answer.

The college and the Christian club really isn't much to discuss. If the club wants to use college resources, then they have to abide by the college's policies (in this case, non-discrminatory policies). At univesities I've attended and other places I've read about, they'll allow clubs to have more discretion with membership policies, but they won't be allowed the benefits of being an "official" university club. Meaning that they might have to pay (or pay more) for meeting space, might not be able to host a site on the university's web servers, and so on.

I'd have to question whether this issue is about rights at all. Government money may be considered "public" but that doesn't mean using it for clubs is a right instead of a privilege.

However, I think the very nature of a club involves some form of "discrimination," though it is a form few people recognize as such. I highly doubt any atheist clubs are penalized for restricting membership to atheists (by whatever definition of "atheist" they use).

 

[Malanu]

We've been over this. What if this is the only pharmacy in town? What if the person is unable to get around very easily (disabled, elderly, etc.)?

Then I ask the manager to get an employee who doesn't have a problem filling my script. Why is it so hard for people to work around this one stick in the mud?

I damn well hope so.

Worded ambiguously on my part. I meant that they would argue against your stand.

Ahahaha no. Don't try to get out of this. I asked you at what point the right to live healthily becomes more important than the right to be religious. You said never. My question wasn't just about birth control, which should have been perfectly clear because I gave two examples of what I meant in the very next ****ing sentence. You looked at my question, and I'm being generous in assuming that you read what came immediately after the question, and said that the right to live never comes above the right to follow a religion. Unless you want to retract that statement in a goddamned hurry, I'm going to assume that you meant what you said.

Having period cramps from hell are by no means "Unhealthy"... they suck but they are not life threatening! I've been denied prescription cold medication because my insurance refused to pay for it. I biotched, called my Doc and got a different script! Problem solved. Same situation... I was denied the meds my doctor prescribed. So if an insurance bean counter can dictate what meds I can have, Why can't a person who dispenses meds have the same power?

Eh?

You pointed out that I am generally healthy etc etc, my parents are old and busted & have the ability to get their scripts filled. One way or another.

If there's no chance of the person getting out of their current conditions, if they have a living will drawn up, etc., etc.

Yeah... We'll point counter point all day.

If someone makes a personal decision to not go to a hospital, that's fine. If someone makes a personal decision to prevent anyone else from going to a hospital, they have crossed several lines.

What about the parents who because of their faith don't take their child to the hospital? As my example showed, Even a child that DIED because of the parents religious preference, were acquitted of wrong doing... Kinda more severe than saying, "no drug for you!"

Because those aren't worth relieving, or what? *skeptical*

To me personally Sunny, you bet they are worth relieving, To someone else.... whole different ballgame. I've been pissed for having my sinus meds refused, but I worked around it... I also changed providers over it.

Okay. So we should hire a Hindu to work as a butcher even though we know he will refuse to handle beef, because if we don't we'd be discriminating against his religion. Wow, sounds like a plan - I should convert to fundamentalist Christianity, apply for a job at an abortion clinic, and then claim a religious opposition to abortion once I get hired. Sounds like an easy way to get paid without having to do anything - after all, if my religion says abortion is a sin, then clearly I should be able to get out of having to do anything related to abortion on the job, even if the job revolves entirely around abortion! But they can't fire me when they realize they're essentially handing me a big fat paycheck for doing jack-monkey-squat. That would be religious discrimination.

Don't like it? Petition to get the law changed! Cause all those examples of yours are exactly what the law can be abused to do!

I personally would be tempted to punch someone for doing what happened in all the examples, but like it or not... the law protects asholes like that!

 

[randomspot555]

I think there is undoubtedly some reason, especially since most pro-gay people often argue that simply not having the "right" to marry is an instance of discrimination and a violation of basic human rights. Under that argument, if the government discriminates against them in this major way, how can the same government prohibit lesser forms of discrimination?

You can still institute protective class policies at local levels even if the state doesn't recognize marriages. Many cities across the US have instituted Human Rights Ordinances, inserting "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" into their non-discrimination statutes in regards to employment and housing. And while I haven't thoroughly researched every single state that has passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman, I wouldn't be totally surprised if at least a few states had the aforementioned constitutional amendment and had sexual orientation and gender identity in hate crime statutes.

I'd have to question whether this issue is about rights at all. Government money may be considered "public" but that doesn't mean using it for clubs is a right instead of a privilege.

However, I think the very nature of a club involves some form of "discrimination," though it is a form few people recognize as such. I highly doubt any atheist clubs are penalized for restricting membership to atheists (by whatever definition of "atheist" they use).

I think the whole gist of it is "who cares". I mean, it's a college club. The college is saying they're looking into it, and they want clubs that benefit from their resources to abide by their policies. Seems pretty open-and-shut to me.

 

[J.T.]

Then I ask the manager to get an employee who doesn't have a problem filling my script. Why is it so hard for people to work around this one stick in the mud?

Because that didn't happen in this situation. The pharmacist that you are defending failed to inform the manager and find another employee to fill the prescription. We've been over this.

Worded ambiguously on my part. I meant that they would argue against your stand.

Uh-huh. Show me a case or two where a person was hired for a job, refused to do the job they were hired to do for religious reasons, got fired, sued for religious discrimination, and won, and I will show you a court system that is ****ed beyond all hope. The US court system's bad, but I don't think it's that bad.

Having period cramps from hell are by no means "Unhealthy"... they suck but they are not blah blah blah

Stop. Avoiding. The point. I was not talking about the ****ing birth control. I was talking about medicine in general. If you had taken five seconds to read what I had written in either of those posts, you'd know that. You said you put more value on a person's right to be religious than on a person's right to live. Deal with the consequences (in this case, answering my ****ing counterpoints) or withdraw that statement.

So if an insurance bean counter can dictate what meds I can have, Why can't a person who dispenses meds have the same power?

Because the insurance company is the one who'd be paying for the medicine and the pharmacist is not? For the record, I'm not a fan of insurance companies, but come on.

You pointed out that I am generally healthy etc etc, my parents are old and busted & have the ability to get their scripts filled. One way or another.

How widespread is this service?

Yeah... We'll point counter point all day.

Debating in a nutshell. I take this to mean you have no response?

What about the parents who because of their faith don't take their child to the hospital?

Yes, they are 110% in the wrong. I thought that'd be fairly obvious.

As my example showed, Even a child that DIED because of the parents religious preference, were acquitted of wrong doing... Kinda more severe than saying, "no drug for you!"

One example of parents getting their child killed due to religious beliefs being acquitted... in a page full of parents being convicted for doing basically the exact same thing. The page doesn't make it clear whether or not there were additional factors that resulted in the acquittal that weren't present in the other cases that resulted in conviction. I know that parents who get their children killed through neglect get an easier sentence if they have a religious excuse, and I consider that a prime sign that the US court system and its priorities are screwed.

Don't like it? Petition to get the law changed! Cause all those examples of yours are exactly what the law can be abused to do!

Do you have any examples of this happening, or is this just how you think the law works?

I personally would be tempted to punch someone for doing what happened in all the examples, but like it or not... the law protects asholes like that!

And you're defending such a system? Just because X is the way things are now, doesn't mean X is the way things should be. And again, I don't think that's how law works.

 

[CSolarstorm]

To me personally Sunny, you bet they are worth relieving, To someone else.... whole different ballgame. I've been pissed for having my sinus meds refused, but I worked around it... I also changed providers over it.

Sinus medication? Really? Well sure you can put up a fit with bad sinuses, but I'm having a hard time identifying since if my problems go untreated, I won't be able to put up a fit or 'work around it'. I have a whole different perspective because of my [lack of] health. I'm a dependant. Stuff like changing providers or suing helps is only retaliatory, it's not a rescue measure or a safety net.

And I thought it was generally understood in Debate that although laws are good sources, since we commonly debate what the laws should be, the subject is more debating what things should be like, so 'that's the law' isn't exactly a good defense.

 

[Malanu]

Because that didn't happen in this situation. The pharmacist that you are defending failed to inform the manager and find another employee to fill the prescription. We've been over this.

The heck with the employee, I'd do it myself if I want the script!

Do you have any examples of this happening, or is this just how you think the law works?

Did the Pharmacy fire the offending employee?

And you're defending such a system? Just because X is the way things are now, doesn't mean X is the way things should be. And again, I don't think that's how law works.

Yes I am. It does if you have a good enough lawyer.

Debating in a nutshell. I take this to mean you have no response?

Yes debating in a nutshell. Just that my response/position is not yours. And that is enough.

Yes, they are 110% in the wrong. I thought that'd be fairly obvious.

To you or me... yes it would, however to some diehard devoties, it's in god's hands/god's will whatever! I think it's sick that they think that way, but it is their belief!

You said you put more value on a person's right to be religious than on a person's right to live.

Sometimes and in some cases yes I do. And before you ask, it would be case by case because I try to not thow a blanket answer. In this specific case, I don't think the moral Pharmacist (TM) is 100% obligated to bend his/her morals. If the Meds were for treating a Cancer patient's symptoms after chemo my opinion may be different. If the meds were for cold relief, I'd side with the pharmacist again. See how this works? There is no set blanket answer, it is quite literally situational. So I think I have explained my position sufficiently now. How about you?

One example of parents getting their child killed due to religious beliefs being acquitted...

Is exactly the point of this debate, sometimes you're the Pharmacist sometimes you're the dead kid. (YES a sad example!)

I have a whole different perspective because of my [lack of] health.

I would expect you to have a different perspective and opinion on the subject than I do. I haven't once tried to tell someone else what their opinion should be! In fact You should have a different opinion than I do! I am not trying to change JT's opinion on the subject. I am giving mine, I am defending mine, and that is all I am doing. I respect JT and your right to disagree with me. Please continue to do so when I say something you don't agree with!

Sometimes I may change my position sometimes I won't, but no matter what it will be Mine to believe.

 

[J.T.]

The heck with the employee, I'd do it myself if I want the script!

The fact that you'd be forced to contact a manager just to get the medicine they agree to give you doesn't give you some sort of hint that maybe the pharmacist is doing something wrong?

Did the Pharmacy fire the offending employee?

No, they didn't (not as far as I know, anyway). Kind of disqualifies this case from what I asked for, no? If they had fired her for being unable to do her job, she sued for religious discrimination, and she had won the case despite it being clearly demonstrated that her religion prevented her from adequately doing her job, then it would be an example of what I was asking for. If the pharmacy decided to keep her and instead took measures (on their own accord) to ensure such an incident never occurs again, such as having more pharmacists on call to fulfill such prescriptions, then that's fine, and not what I was asking for.

Yes I am.

... Um, okay. Second question, and I guess I thought this one was kind of inferred to be part and parcel with the first one: Why?

It does if you have a good enough lawyer.

Oh, thanks. You haven't demonstrated that that's permissible under the law, though.

To you or me... yes it would, however to some diehard devoties, it's in god's hands/god's will whatever! I think it's sick that they think that way, but it is their belief!

And here's the core of where we differ. You seem so eager to appease them and let them believe how they want that you don't seem to care if they get other people killed in doing so. I value the right to life over basically anything, because if you're denied the right to life, you don't really get to enjoy any other rights in the first place.

Sometimes and in some cases yes I do. And before you ask, it would be case by case because I try to not thow a blanket answer. In this specific case, I don't think the moral Pharmacist (TM) is 100% obligated to bend his/her morals. If the Meds were for treating a Cancer patient's symptoms after chemo my opinion may be different. If the meds were for cold relief, I'd side with the pharmacist again. See how this works? There is no set blanket answer, it is quite literally situational.

Ah. So you don't actually believe that the right to religion is more important than the right to life. If you'd said that more coherently a page ago, we could've avoided the shitstorm that ensued.

That said, you still in some cases put more value on person A's religion than on person B's health, depending on how much A's religious beliefs would cause B's health to deteriorate. While that is a much more reasonable and defensible belief than "**** those dying children, MOMMA BELIEVES IN GAWD", I still must disagree on the basis that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Denying medication to a person causes a significant inconvenience at best and tangible harm at worst, and one who finds themselves unable to do their job because of their religious beliefs should either find a way to ensure that their job is still completed regardless or seek another place of employment (in this case, the pharmacist could apply at a pharmacy that doesn't sell birth control if she is unable to find any way to ensure her customers who need birth control are still able to get birth control). The fact that it's not immediately endangering the customer's life is irrelevant - your personal beliefs should remain your personal beliefs, and should not cause undue stress or harm to others, no matter how much you try to rationalize it by claiming "it's just a bigger than normal period, no big deal" or other such attempts to tone down the consequences.

Is exactly the point of this debate, sometimes you're the Pharmacist sometimes you're the dead kid.

The fact remains that you're defending a system that allows children to die because their parents decided their personal beliefs were more important than their children's lives. And why? No, seriously, I'm asking, why?

 

[Malanu]

The fact that you'd be forced to contact a manager just to get the medicine they agree to give you doesn't give you some sort of hint that maybe the pharmacist is doing something wrong?

I've had a manager called on me because I was doing my job properly! On more than one occasion, so No that is not an indication of employee misconduct.

No, they didn't (not as far as I know, anyway). Kind of disqualifies this case from what I asked for, no? If they had fired her for being unable to do her job, she sued for religious discrimination, and she had won the case despite it being clearly demonstrated that her religion prevented her from adequately doing her job, then it would be an example of what I was asking for. If the pharmacy decided to keep her and instead took measures (on their own accord) to ensure such an incident never occurs again, such as having more pharmacists on call to fulfill such prescriptions, then that's fine, and not what I was asking for.

... Um, okay. Second question, and I guess I thought this one was kind of inferred to be part and parcel with the first one: Why?

Because in a land without discrimination, neither person is wrong. You must accept everyone's views and opinions. even the bigot's opinion! How can you say you're supporting diversity when you are discriminating against bigots?

Oh, thanks. You haven't demonstrated that that's permissible under the law, though.

I'm not a lawyer!

And here's the core of where we differ. You seem so eager to appease them and let them believe how they want that you don't seem to care if they get other people killed in doing so. I value the right to life over basically anything, because if you're denied the right to life, you don't really get to enjoy any other rights in the first place.

You are right, we do differ here. I am fully in favor of not giving life saving meds on moral grounds if the customer is a known murderer, drug dealer, or rapist. I am willing to support the refusal of service when the drug does not lead to impending doom and it violates the employee's morals as is the case in question in the OP.

Ah. So you don't actually believe that the right to religion is more important than the right to life. If you'd said that more coherently a page ago, we could've avoided the shitstorm that ensued.

That said, you still in some cases put more value on person A's religion than on person B's health, depending on how much A's religious beliefs would cause B's health to deteriorate. While that is a much more reasonable and defensible belief than "**** those dying children, MOMMA BELIEVES IN GAWD", I still must disagree on the basis that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Denying medication to a person causes a significant inconvenience at best and tangible harm at worst, and one who finds themselves unable to do their job because of their religious beliefs should either find a way to ensure that their job is still completed regardless or seek another place of employment (in this case, the pharmacist could apply at a pharmacy that doesn't sell birth control if she is unable to find any way to ensure her customers who need birth control are still able to get birth control). The fact that it's not immediately endangering the customer's life is irrelevant - your personal beliefs should remain your personal beliefs, and should not cause undue stress or harm to others, no matter how much you try to rationalize it by claiming "it's just a bigger than normal period, no big deal" or other such attempts to tone down the consequences.

And yet you are trying to impose your personal beliefs on the pharmacist. WHo if he did give those pills would have to deal with the guilt of failing his beliefs. Which is also a harm. I never once said 'F those dying children'... I can, but it's not what I was saying in THIS instance. In my former job "collateral damage" was a given. So being able to deal with "Acceptable Losses" was part of my training. If a parent, does not want to give their child medication because of ANY reason, that is their choice. Their child dies, not mine! I still go to work & take care of MY family the best I can. It's none of my concern if they want to be pig headed jackasses, because it is their lives, they have to live with it.

I served this country so you can be the sensitive caring person you are JT (this is a compliment BTW). I also did it so Jack Kevorkian could perform assisted suicides, and Pharmacists can deny dispensing birth control for cramps. You either support freedom for good and bad or you are one of the people you are 'Rrarring' against! Or at least that's my position.

The fact remains that you're defending a system that allows children to die because their parents decided their personal beliefs were more important than their children's lives. And why? No, seriously, I'm asking, why?

Because their choice for their family Is. Not. My. Concern. If they believe their child will live or die by god's will, power to them! I'm going shake my head about it, then go back and help my wife with the dishes or my son with his homework or play D&D with my daughter and her friends. Let's turn the question around. Is there nothing you stand for that you would sacrifice anything for? Some folks do.

 

[7 tyranitars]

And yet you are trying to impose your personal beliefs on the pharmacist. WHo if he did give those pills would have to deal with the guilt of failing his beliefs. Which is also a harm. I never once said 'F those dying children'... I can, but it's not what I was saying in THIS instance. In my former job "collateral damage" was a given. So being able to deal with "Acceptable Losses" was part of my training. If a parent, does not want to give their child medication because of ANY reason, that is their choice. Their child dies, not mine! I still go to work & take care of MY family the best I can. It's none of my concern if they want to be pig headed jackasses, because it is their lives, they have to live with it.

I served this country so you can be the sensitive caring person you are JT (this is a compliment BTW). I also did it so Jack Kevorkian could perform assisted suicides, and Pharmacists can deny dispensing birth control for cramps. You either support freedom for good and bad or you are one of the people you are 'Rrarring' against! Or at least that's my position.


Because their choice for their family Is. Not. My. Concern. If they believe their child will live or die by god's will, power to them! I'm going shake my head about it, then go back and help my wife with the dishes or my son with his homework or play D&D with my daughter and her friends. Let's turn the question around. Is there nothing you stand for that you would sacrifice anything for? Some folks do.

If a parents knowingly let their children die they don't deserve to be parents. And are nothing but murderers. But that is me I guese.

 

[Malanu]

Not to be callous but if they let their child die they probably aren't parent's any more...
...
...
Just sayin'.

 

[J.T.]

Because in a land without discrimination, neither person is wrong. You must accept everyone's views and opinions. even the bigot's opinion!

By this logic, a serial killer's belief that he has the right to kill anyone and everyone he pleases cannot be wrong.

How can you say you're supporting diversity when you are discriminating against bigots?

Expecting a person to do the job they've been hired to do is hardly discriminating against bigots.

No, seriously, you are defending a system where (you think) people can be hired for a job, claim a religious reason for being opposed to their job, and then proceed to be handed a big fat paycheck every week for doing absolutely nothing... in the name of not discriminating? And yet there's no way I can get it through your head that the reason they're not getting the job is because they are incapable of doing the job, not because they're religious? Honestly, you're just being intentionally obtuse about this.

You are right, we do differ here. I am fully in favor of not giving life saving meds on moral grounds if the customer is a known murderer, drug dealer, or rapist.

... I... don't even know what to say here. Except that a case of mistaken identity would really suck.

And yet you are trying to impose your personal beliefs on the pharmacist.

Which personal beliefs are you referring to? The one that says a person who's been hired to do a job should be able to do said job? The one that says the life and health of a living breathing human being is more important than the feelings of an omnipotent yet impotent, omnipresent yet unprovable tyrannical deity who doesn't understand the idea of flexibility? The one that says the phrase "your personal beliefs" should have a lot more emphasis on the words "your" and "personal"?

WHo if he did give those pills would have to deal with the guilt of failing his beliefs. Which is also a harm.

So she'd be harmed by the guilt of handing a box of birth control pills over the counter to a customer... but not by the guilt of working in a pharmacy that sells and makes money off of birth control, or by the guilt of giving the prescription back so they can get it filled somewhere else, or by the guilt of working through the system to make sure the customer gets the evil and sinful birth control from another pharmacist, or by the guilt of telling them that if they come back tomorrow they'll still be able to get their evil and sinful birth control. You know, all of which you've said at one point or another are things that the pharmacist could have/should have done (in particular getting another pharmacist to fill the prescription). Soooo apparently it's not the birth control that's against her religion, it's having to physically touch them.

I never once said 'F those dying children'...

No, turns out you saved that for later.

In my former job "collateral damage" was a given. So being able to deal with "Acceptable Losses" was part of my training. If a parent, does not want to give their child medication because of ANY reason, that is their choice. Their child dies, not mine! I still go to work & take care of MY family the best I can. It's none of my concern if they want to be pig headed jackasses, because it is their lives, they have to live with it.

... excuse me a second, apparently I still had a few liters of respect for humanity left in there. *runs to bathroom*

In my former job "collateral damage" was a given. So being able to deal with "Acceptable Losses" was part of my training.

You consider the completely avoidable loss of innocent children's lives an "acceptable loss"?

If a parent, does not want to give their child medication because of ANY reason, that is their choice.

Ten bucks says Malanu's against abortion.

Explain to me how that's different from outright infanticide (which, by the way, is against the law - apparently whether or not something's currently legal matters to you when deciding whether or not it's right). Hell, why stop at kids? If a religious man does not want to suffer the fellow down the street to live for any reason, that is his choice, is it not?

Their child dies, not mine!

... Not even sure how to respond to that.

It's none of my concern if they want to be pig headed jackasses, because it is their lives, they have to live with it.

Except it's not their lives that are at stake, it's the lives of other people; the lives of innocent children.

You either support freedom for good and bad or you are one of the people you are 'Rrarring' against! Or at least that's my position.

Yeah, um, you're wrong. I don't often say that outright, but yeah, your position's wrong.

I support freedom. I place more value on freedom than on almost anything else. I support freedom of religious belief, as odd as that will probably sound to an all-or-nothing person such as yourself. I also support the right to life. If one is denied the right to life, they are denied absolutely everything else. In no way does this make me "one of the people I am 'Rrarring' against".

Let's put it this way. Say we have a parent who says his religious beliefs are that he must kill his child for disobedience. If we deny the parent the right to kill his child, we are (well, according to you) denying the parent his right to freedom of religious belief and... well, that's about it, isn't it. If we allow him to kill his child, we are denying the child his right to life, and by extension every other right he has - including his right to freedom of religious belief. By simple numbers, the child is the one who stands to suffer the most. Are you telling me the parent's right to religious freedom is more important than every single one of the child's right, including the child's right to religious freedom?

Because their choice for their family Is. Not. My. Concern.

It is, however, the concern of the child they'd be killing. Funny how you keep forgetting that this is not just about the parents - there's a child involved in this whole thing, and I somehow doubt they want to e

If they believe their child will live or die by god's will, power to them!

Cool. Suppose the child doesn't believe so. Considering it's the child's life at stake, I'd say he should have a say in whether or not he gets to live or die.

I'm going shake my head about it, then go back and help my wife with the dishes or my son with his homework or play D&D with my daughter and her friends.

This basically sums up the average person's reaction to news about a pointless tragedy, except in this context it's a lot more disturbing.

Let's turn the question around. Is there nothing you stand for that you would sacrifice anything for? Some folks do.

There's some things I'd sacrifice myself for, but there's nothing I'd sacrifice another person for, especially an innocent child - it's their life, they have their own decisions to make with it. I am not going to be the one to make that decision for them (unless you want to start a euthanasia debate or something).

------

... I need to shower.

 

[Malanu]

Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first:
Malanu is cool with innocent children dying because denying their parents the "right" to kill their kids would be religious discrimination (also because innocent people dying is "none of his business").
Never mind everything the child would be losing. Dear god, this entire post manages to take the title for Most Disgusting and Horrible Thing I've Read On a Forum away from the guy who told me "who cares if a woman is executed for being raped, if she's a Christian she's going to heaven anyway".

Hey if you think this was horrible you'd be struck blind by some of my other opinions. *Shrug*

By this logic, a serial killer's belief that he has the right to kill anyone and everyone he pleases cannot be wrong.

The mob that draws and quarters the offending serial killer would be justified as a result.

Expecting a person to do the job they've been hired to do is hardly discriminating against bigots.

Correct.

No, seriously, you are defending a system where (you think) people can be hired for a job, claim a religious reason for being opposed to their job, and then proceed to be handed a big fat paycheck every week for doing absolutely nothing... in the name of not discriminating? And yet there's no way I can get it through your head that the reason they're not getting the job is because they are incapable of doing the job, not because they're religious? Honestly, you're just being intentionally obtuse about this.

No they can do the job, and they do... most of the time.

... I... don't even know what to say here. Except that a case of mistaken identity would really suck.

Yes. Yes it would.

Which personal beliefs are you referring to? The one that says a person who's been hired to do a job should be able to do said job? The one that says the life and health of a living breathing human being is more important than the feelings of an omnipotent yet impotent, omnipresent yet unprovable tyrannical deity who doesn't understand the idea of flexibility? The one that says the phrase "your personal beliefs" should have a lot more emphasis on the words "your" and "personal"?

All of them. You are giving your personal beliefs I am giving mine. I can disagree with you while respecting your individual belief.

So she'd be harmed by the guilt of handing a box of birth control pills over the counter to a customer... but not by the guilt of working in a pharmacy that sells and makes money off of birth control, or by the guilt of giving the prescription back so they can get it filled somewhere else, or by the guilt of working through the system to make sure the customer gets the evil and sinful birth control from another pharmacist, or by the guilt of telling them that if they come back tomorrow they'll still be able to get their evil and sinful birth control. You know, all of which you've said at one point or another are things that the pharmacist could have/should have done (in particular getting another pharmacist to fill the prescription). Soooo apparently it's not the birth control that's against her religion, it's having to physically touch them.

You are missing the simplicity of giving the pills violates the individuals morals, and yet understanding that, they are open enough to allow the person to damn their own soul while not directly contributing. The customer can still get the pills they just won't get them from the Moral Pharmacist (TM).

No, turns out you saved that for later.

We'll address this later.

... excuse me a second, apparently I still had a few liters of respect for humanity left in there. *runs to bathroom*

Careful not to get any in your hair!

You consider the completely avoidable loss of innocent children's lives an "acceptable loss"?

Yes. If killing a few innocents bags bad guys that would have kills 10s to 100s more times of innocent lives Yes find it acceptable.

Ten bucks says Malanu's against abortion.

I am. I would not want my wife to have one. I also understand that if you are for having one, I have no say whether or not you get one, and I respect your choice! I'll raise the stakes. I'm an adopted child, so I would not have been born if my parents chose an abortion. So my position stands in the face of my own bastard status.

Explain to me how that's different from outright infanticide (which, by the way, is against the law - apparently whether or not something's currently legal matters to you when deciding whether or not it's right). Hell, why stop at kids? If a religious man does not want to suffer the fellow down the street to live for any reason, that is his choice, is it not?

Um... isn't infanticide legal in China? Where population control is becoming a problem?

I... wow. I don't even know how to debate someone with such a blatant disregard for human life. Seriously, this almost borders on sociopathy.

At one time my job was to be able to go out and kill people. Lot's of people if I was called upon. In war some innocents will die. You either suck it up and continue to do your job or you blow your own brains out from guilt. You choose.

Except it's not their lives that are at stake, it's the lives of other people; the lives of innocent children.

As long as I don't know the people in question I don't give a rat's fanny what they do with their lives or the lives of their family.



Yeah, um, you're wrong. I don't often say that outright, but yeah, your position's wrong.

I support freedom. I place more value on freedom than on almost anything else. I support freedom of religious belief, as odd as that will probably sound to an all-or-nothing person such as yourself. I also support the right to life. If one is denied the right to life, they are denied absolutely everything else. In no way does this make me "one of the people I am 'Rrarring' against".

So you support freedom to be like you. People are denied the right to life every day. Just watch the news.

Let's put it this way. Say we have a parent who says his religious beliefs are that he must kill his child for disobedience. If we deny the parent the right to kill his child, we are (well, according to you) denying the parent his right to freedom of religious belief and... well, that's about it, isn't it. If we allow him to kill his child, we are denying the child his right to life, and by extension every other right he has - including his right to freedom of religious belief. By simple numbers, the child is the one who stands to suffer the most. Are you telling me the parent's right to religious freedom is more important than every single one of the child's right, including the child's right to religious freedom?

Yup he has the right, he then has the right to stand trial and be held responsible. Unless I am on the jury, his/her choice doesn't matter to me.



It is, however, the concern of the child they'd be killing. Funny how you keep forgetting that this is not just about the parents - there's a child involved in this whole thing, and I somehow doubt they want to e

Cool. Suppose the child doesn't believe so. Considering it's the child's life at stake, I'd say he should have a say in whether or not he gets to live or die.

To take the moron's position here. There are statutory laws, and most minors are not legally able to give or refuse consent. However I would love for the child to have the right to tel the moron's I wanna live. When I take my kid to the doctor I sign a legal guardian waver... I have the legal right to make choices for my child. I'd choose to bankrupt all of Europe to save my child, other's... may not. Their loss not mine.

This basically sums up the average person's reaction to news about a pointless tragedy, except in this context it's a lot more disturbing.

Not for me, I sleep well at night.

There's some things I'd sacrifice myself for, but there's nothing I'd sacrifice another person for, especially an innocent child - it's their life, they have their own decisions to make with it. I am not going to be the one to make that decision for them (unless you want to start a euthanasia debate or something).

I'd sacrifice myself or preferably any one of you (as in the entire world) or even everyone of you to protect my family & be able to continue to do so). I'd do it, say I was sorry and go home to my family and love em.

Not everyone can do it. Not everyone would do it. I wouldn't want to, but I know I can if the situation called for it.

------

... I need to shower.

You know what? I respect that you do.

It's thanks to people like me, you CAN have your views and opinions.

 

[Antiyonder]

Just wanted to be sure. Did the pharmacist have a non religious reason for withholding medication?

I mean sure denying employment to someone because of religious background is a moral wrong, but so is forcing one's religious beliefs too. You know, Road to Hell and all that.

Sorry, but rights and freedom are a two way street. Don't expect someone to respect yours if you can't respect theirs.

 

[Malanu]

No she refused on religious grounds alone. So does that mean Miss Deeley should have been understanding of the female Chemist's moral pickle or vice versa?

 

[Antiyonder]

So does that mean Miss Deeley should have been understanding of the female Chemist's moral pickle or vice versa?

I refer you to my previous comment:

Sorry, but rights and freedom are a two way street. Don't expect someone to respect yours if you can't respect theirs.

The pharmacist showed no respect for the customer's rights, and thus deserves no respect for her decision.

Again, respect is a two way street. Don't ask for it, unless you're willing to give it yourself.

 

[Malanu]

The Pharmacists gave respect by telling the customer to come back the next day to get the script from a different worker. It was the best solution the pharmacist could offer without infringing her morals. The article did not say the worker said anything derogatory only due to religious beliefs, she could not fill the script. She did it in private, so to avoid any possible embarrassment. Outside of not filling the script, there was no sign of disrespect towards the customer. IF the pharmacist berated the customer or tore up the script then she would have disrespected Miss Deeley.

I'd be miffed but I'd respect the worker's beliefs, and either return the next day or go to a different store.

 

[Antiyonder]

Outside of not filling the script, there was no sign of disrespect towards the customer. IF the pharmacist berated the customer or tore up the script then she would have disrespected Miss Deeley.

Denying service to a paying customer is disrespectful. Especially when it's something like dealing in medication.

Furthermore, when you take a job, you are under obligation to behave in a professional manners (not letting your personal feelings inhibit you from doing your job). I mean should a vegetarian working in a restaurant or a grocery store be allowed to deny a paying customer meat products?

Yes, a person shouldn't be disrespected for having a moral/religious belief, but the trade off is that they need to respect that others don't follow said beliefs. I mean, if a person's religious beliefs are strong to the point that they refuse to watch R Rated movies, fine. But said person has no right in say trying to ban R Rated movies.

Have to ask, but do you believe that a religious belief justifies anything, and should absolve someone from penalty?

 

[randomspot555]

Have to ask, but do you believe that a religious belief justifies anything, and should absolve someone from penalty?

Well he linked to an article where someone basically abused and killed their child, and got off scott free because "god said so". Ironically, a few pages back, I linked to a constitutional scholar's lengthy article documenting how it's unfortunately common miscarriage of justice where parents who cause harm (up ot death) to their children get far lesser criminal punishments if they cite religious reasons, than those who do the same or similar crimes and don't have religious defenses.