Religious Beliefs Entering into the workplace

[Hababi]

Or ITT I defend Muslims :p (to prove wrong those of you who think I'm Islamophobic)

As of late there's been a little stir about Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up someone transporting alcohol, since it's against Islamic law, and likewise are asking not to be called to people being transported to alcohol stores. There's a whole article about it here:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-cabbies-culture_x.htm?csp=34

Anyway, some (primarily on the right) are objecting to this, as they say it's trying to impose Sharia law on the US. But I don't have a problem with it, because a person's religious beliefs shouldn't be offended at a job (within reasonable range, obviously, and I consider this reasonable range). Likewise, the left wing anti-Christian forces out there shouldn't object to Christian pharmacists refusing to stock and/or disperse the morning after pill, because it, too, violates their religious beliefs (and ethical beliefs, for those that understand what it is and what it does and the nature of life).

[roll dem bones]

If you are very sensitive to being offended, I don't think becoming a cab driver is the best career choice.

That Christian pharmaceutical thing is crazy, and dangerous. I'd rather have the no alcohol Muslim cab drivers over Christian pharmacists who refuse to stock important medications. WTH?

[Hababi]

That Christian pharmaceutical thing is crazy, and dangerous. I'd rather have the no alcohol Muslim cab drivers over Christian pharmacists who refuse to stock important medications. WTH?

It's not important medication. Important only for sluts and lecherous men (to get for their sex partners, since I don't want to appear sexist)

[Mr. Ron]

They are being neglectful of their customers. They aren't doing their job.

[Hababi]

They are being neglectful of their customers. They aren't doing their job.

Yeah but there's an easy solution to that: the customers can go elsewhere :p Catch a different cab, or go to a different pharmacy.

[unknownsoldier12]

if you owned your own pharmacy, and it was in your beliefs to either carry/not-carry a specific medication because you feel it compromises your beliefs, I feel thats completely justifiable considering it's your store.

If you were a pharmacist that worked for a chain store (Walgreens, Rite-Aid, etc) and refused to despense the medication for those same reasons, then they should fire your arse

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah but there's an easy solution to that: the customers can go elsewhere :p Catch a different cab, or go to a different pharmacy.

Thats impeading business. The whole world cant stop due to someone's personal beliefs. People shouldn't have to rejected when they are willing to pay good money to get to someplace important.

[Iskandar]

The answer is really quite simple ... if they own and operate their own cabs, it's fine. If it contradicts company policy, it's not.

[Mr. Ron]

The answer is really quite simple ... if they own and operate their own cabs, it's fine. If it contradicts company policy, it's not.

^^^ Yes.

[roll dem bones]

It's not important medication. Important only for sluts and lecherous men (to get for their sex partners, since I don't want to appear sexist)

So let's say two teens do it because they love each other, or whatever. They'll be going off to college soon to study to become doctors, or some other big career that requires a ton of dedication. Obviously, if the girl got pregnant, some bad sh!t would happen. If their parents were planning on helping them out for college, and they were pretty strict parents, they might cut off the college funding. Having a kid requires a ton of dedication and work, so their college opportunities could very well be shot. They could, of course, just wait to see if she actually becomes pregnant, then abort. But carrying the social and moral stigma of having an abortion... well, it can't be too nice. They want the morning after pill, to be safe. They should damn well be able to get it from any licensed pharmacy.

If you can't carry basic medicine because you're a zealot, you shouldn't be a pharmacist. They're here to help people, not hinder them based on some iron age religious beliefs.

[roll dem bones]

Uhhh... hold on. Are we talking about chain stores or little mom-and-pop or whatever pharmacies?

[Iskandar]

^^^ Yes.
And if nobody else in their company has a problem with it, it's fine there too. It's their loss if they don't accept a fare.

[Mr. Ron]

So let's say two teens do it because they love each other, or whatever. They'll be going off to college soon to study to become doctors, or some other big career that requires a ton of dedication. Obviously, if the girl got pregnant, some bad sh!t would happen. If their parents were planning on helping them out for college, and they were pretty strict parents, they might cut off the college funding. Having a kid requires a ton of dedication and work, so their college opportunities could very well be shot. They could, of course, just wait to see if she actually becomes pregnant, then abort. But carrying the social and moral stigma of having an abortion... well, it can't be too nice. They want the morning after pill, to be safe. They should damn well be able to get it from any licensed pharmacy.

If you can't carry basic medicine because you're a zealot, you shouldn't be a pharmacist. They're here to help people, not hinder them based on some iron age religious beliefs.


Agreed. But, I think I would prefer if the couple would have the baby and put it up for adoption.

[Mr. Ron]

And if nobody else in their company has a problem with it, it's fine there too. It's their loss if they don't accept a fare.

If it's a large cab company and they decide to let them refuse business form certain people, then thats their decision. A smart decision? I don't think so, but their call nonetheless.

Separating social and religious things has a lot of grey area.

[roll dem bones]

Agreed. But, I think I would prefer if the couple would have the baby and put it up for adoption.

Could they afford to take nine months out of their lives? If they did have the kid and put it up for adoption, they'll always have that hanging over their head - they gave up their baby. What happens when, 18 years down the line, the kid contacts them? What happens when they're very successful doctors and the kid is not that nice of a guy and works to strip all their money away? What if they have a real family and their current kids don't trust their parents anymore once they find out that they gave away their first child?

Yea, it's all speculation, but this stuff happens. If you're not ready, you shouldn't have to be forced if it can be prevented.

[Mr. Ron]

Could they afford to take nine months out of their lives? If they did have the kid and put it up for adoption, they'll always have that hanging over their head - they gave up their baby. What happens when, 18 years down the line, the kid contacts them? What happens when they're very successful doctors and the kid is not that nice of a guy and works to strip all their money away? What if they have a real family and their current kids don't trust their parents anymore once they find out that they gave away their first child?

Yea, it's all speculation, but this stuff happens. If you're not ready, you shouldn't have to be forced if it can be prevented.


I think its better for a life to grow than just end it. Woah, i'm sounding christian...

[ringworm]

The answer is really quite simple ... if they own and operate their own cabs, it's fine. If it contradicts company policy, it's not.
At first I agreed with this, but the more I thought about it, this is stupid (not your comment, this topic).

It's like an adult video store owner who is offended by a certain genre & won't sell them because it offends him. If you're in that type of business, you must cater to YOUR clients, not them to you.

[Mr. Ron]

At first I agreed with this, but the more I thought about it, this is stupid (not your comment, this topic).

It's like an adult video store owner who is offended by a certain genre & won't sell them because it offends him. If you're in that type of business, you must cater to YOUR clients, not them to you.

Bingo.

[AlienEater]

At first I agreed with this, but the more I thought about it, this is stupid (not your comment, this topic).

It's like an adult video store owner who is offended by a certain genre & won't sell them because it offends him. If you're in that type of business, you must cater to YOUR clients, not them to you.

I agree with this.

[I Am a Hat]

At first I agreed with this, but the more I thought about it, this is stupid (not your comment, this topic).

It's like an adult video store owner who is offended by a certain genre & won't sell them because it offends him. If you're in that type of business, you must cater to YOUR clients, not them to you.

why exactly should you be forced to sell something you don't want to sell

[ringworm]

uhh, why should you get into a business that may have some aspects that may offend you?

[I Am a Hat]

is that really your argument

[ringworm]

?? See post 17 for more info.

[BJ_maddog]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20544457-2,00.html?from=public_rss

same issue arising in australia, also refusing to drive blind people with guide dogs

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If the muslim/christian owns their business, they should be allowed to do as they wish. If not, they should have to take a job which they are happy they can do without violating their beliefs.

So:

The pharmacist should be able to say "I'm a fundie and I don't want my shop to stock the morning after pill, even though thinking that it's any worse or better than condom use in a moral sense shows a complete lack of understanding of it"

but an employee should not be able to say

"Even though my employer told me to sell the morning after pill I refused, and so he said "get another job" and I sued him."

[ringworm]

Man, what a weird religion?
There are about 2000 Muslims among drivers of Melbourne's 10,000 taxis. Many are from countries with strict Islamic teachings about "unclean" dogs and the evils of alcohol.
lol, so let's remove our troops from Iraq & let the Humane Society go in there & clean up the insurgents after we blast the area with some Jack Daniels

[Hababi]

Thats impeading business. The whole world cant stop due to someone's personal beliefs. People shouldn't have to rejected when they are willing to pay good money to get to someplace important.


If enough people object, another pharmacy will get enough traffic to either a) necessetate a change in the no-morning after pill pharmacy or b) shut the pharmacy down, due to lack of business. Simple free market economics. Same with taxi's.

[Light__Fantastic]

Well the chemist is supposed to be supporting a community.

You know seeing as there is kind of a difference between finding difficulty in getting to a bar to get drunk with your friends, and finding difficulty in locating medicine. A chemist should act, ethically, as an extension of the state health systems, i.e not we're not going to help you if we dont like it.

[Amit]

nocturnal emissions = baby murder

[Samuel]

nocturnal emissions = baby murder

fro seros

I think that the pharmacist fundies should be punished for their lack of critical thinking skills and understanding, not for their bad business sense.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Likewise, the left wing anti-Christian forces out there shouldn't object to Christian pharmacists refusing to stock and/or disperse the morning after pill, because it, too, violates their religious beliefs (and ethical beliefs, for those that understand what it is and what it does and the nature of life)."How dare the government make a moral judgement over you, you're the one who's supposed to be doing that for the woman!"

[Scythe404]

It's not important medication. Important only for sluts and lecherous men (to get for their sex partners, since I don't want to appear sexist)

Those ham-fists are-a-swingin today, aren't they? Okay. Two words to blow you away:

Broken. Condom.

Add 'accidentally' to the top of the list, as well. Hell, let's even insert a context and pretend it's a happily married couple who simply don't want more children.

Generalizations are no fun when you sweep with them, people.

[Hababi]

Broken. Condom.


Three words: Regular. Birth. Control.

And if all that doesn't work? Tough crap.


Hell, let's even insert a context and pretend it's a happily married couple who simply don't want more children.


Vasectomy?

[Steerpike]

If you own the company, you make the policies whatever you want. But if you work for somebody else, don't try to romanticize your bullshit when you start forcing your beliefs on everyone else.

If you are a Muslim and work for a cab company without your religious beliefs, tough. Sorry, but it was kind of expected you'd deal with this stuff when you took the job.

If you are a Christian and refuse to let people have certain medications, shut the hell up and get me my meds. You're being paid to give me bottles of medicine, not lecture me on theology.

Either way, your moral crusades are in vain. If you don't want to drive me to a bar for my friend's stag party or give me a morning after pill, I'll take my business elsewhere.

[Hababi]

I'll take my business elsewhere.


^^ That's the route to take, not "let's force people to violate their religious standards."

[EinzingerIsGod]

As much as I feel no one's religious views should be repressed, at the same time, they should not surface at the workplace (assuming it's the secular sector).

[Steerpike]

^^ That's the route to take, not "let's force people to violate their religious standards."

Doesn't change the fact that your job is not to lecture me. It's to give me the damn pill.

[Hababi]

Doesn't change the fact that your job is not to lecture me. It's to give me the damn pill.

The pharmacist won't lecture you. He/she will just say, "Sorry but we don't carry that" and that's it.

[Steerpike]

The pharmacist won't lecture you. He/she will just say, "Sorry but we don't carry that" and that's it.

And I would not accept that answer. I'd expect an explanation. Especially if I know somebody who got that pill earlier.

[Hababi]

And I would not accept that answer. I'd expect an explanation.

So you're actually looking for a lecture, or to give one?

[SubtleDagger]

The pharmacist won't lecture you. He/she will just say, "Sorry but we don't carry that" and that's it.
So the pharmacist should lie to the customer

I see

[EinzingerIsGod]

So you're actually looking for a lecture, or to give one?

Well if he knew it was there earlier he would probably be looking for a reason why they no longer carry it.

[Steerpike]

So you're actually looking for a lecture, or to give one?

If I know the company stocks it, and then some guy tells me they don't carry it, bells go off in my head, especially considering I'm asking for the "controversial" morning after pill.

Naturally, I expect an explanation.

[Hababi]

Well if he knew it was there earlier he would probably be looking for a reason why they no longer carry it.


So then the pharmacist says, "we believe that the morning after pill destroys a human life, and that violates our code of ethics." End of conversation.

Well, till Steerpike throws tomatoes at them yelling "Jesus freaks gimme my pill I wanna screw!"

[SubtleDagger]

So then the pharmacist says, "we believe that the morning after pill destroys a human life, and that violates our code of ethics." End of conversation.

Well, till Steerpike throws tomatoes at them yelling "Jesus freaks gimme my pill I wanna screw!"
There's a difference between "our ethics" and "my ethics"

"Our" implies the people who own the store

If the owners feel that way fine, if one member of the pharmacy feels that way he should be ready to lose his job by pushing his own agenda where it doesn't belong

[EinzingerIsGod]

So then the pharmacist says, "we believe that the morning after pill destroys a human life, and that violates our code of ethics." End of conversation.

Why would they stock it if they didn't believe it was ethical? The pharmacist would have to take sole responsibility of his or her opinion of the ethics of it.

[Steerpike]

If the owners feel that way fine, if one member of the pharmacy feels that way he should be ready to lose his job by pushing his own agenda where it doesn't belong

Give the man a cigar.

[Hababi]

If the owners feel that way fine, if one member of the pharmacy feels that way he should be ready to lose his job by pushing his own agenda where it doesn't belong


That's firing someone for their religious beliefs, and it's already been ruled unconstitutional.

[SubtleDagger]

That's firing someone for their religious beliefs, and it's already been ruled unconstitutional.
Wrong

It's firing someone for not doing what they were hired to do

[EinzingerIsGod]

Wrong

It's firing someone for not doing what they were hired to do

Right.

[Steerpike]

That's firing someone for their religious beliefs, and it's already been ruled unconstitutional.

That's more a matter of firing them for bad conduct. While in the work place, you are expected to behave by company policy. If you are a pharmacist working for a chain like Walgreens, then you have absolutely no authority to tell people what drugs they can and can't have for "ethical" reasons.

If you want to keep your job, stand aside and let somebody else in your department sell me the pill.

[Hababi]

It's firing someone for not doing what they were hired to do

They weren't hired to violate their religious standards.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

That's firing someone for their religious beliefs, and it's already been ruled unconstitutional.

Tell that to the buddhist who works in a slaughterhouse

[Steerpike]

They weren't hired to violate their religious standards.

If it's that offensive, why are you working for a chain store that has policies that violate your religious standards?

[SubtleDagger]

Your argument is akin to saying that an Amish person could work at a computer store, not do any work since it is against his beliefs, and that person would be exempt from being fired

There is an obvious line between religious persecution and lack of experience/work ethic

[Hababi]

If it's that offensive, why are you working for a chain store that has policies that violate your religious standards?

That doesn't reflect on what you do. Many states have a conscience law that entitles medical professionals to opt out of procedures and processes that they object to on moral grounds.


Your argument is akin to saying that an Amish person could work at a computer store, not do any work since it is against his beliefs, and that person would be exempt from being fired


The Amish person wouldn't get hired in the first place. The pharmacist is qualified to do his job and legally entitled to not perform tasks that violate his morals.

[EinzingerIsGod]

They weren't hired to violate their religious standards.

They signed the contract with the company that already distributes the product in the first place.

[SubtleDagger]

The Amish person wouldn't get hired in the first place. The pharmacist is qualified to do his job and legally entitled to not perform tasks that violate his morals.
A pharmacist's job is to distribute drugs

If the pharmacist has beliefs that conflict with that he is not qualified to be a pharmacist

[Steerpike]

That doesn't reflect on what you do. Many states have a conscience law that entitles medical professionals to opt out of procedures and processes that they object to on moral grounds.

They work the counter a Walgreens pharmacy! Give me a break.

We have a family physician whom I trust to advise me on medication. If they're this hard up about violating company policy because they cry inside when people have sex, they should be working in a small, independent pharmacy that lets them say whatever the hell they want.

But when you work for a secular company, your religious views should not enter the equation at all.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

So then the pharmacist says, "we believe that the morning after pill destroys a human life, and that violates our code of ethics."


"Science says you are wrong which you are, since the morning after pill doesn't work like that

"It prevents ovulation and is no different ethically to the use of condoms

"you're clearly not intelligent enough to be in charge of giving me medicine"

[SubtleDagger]

I would also like to know why the Amish person wouldn't get the job, since by your own argument that's obvious religious discrimination

[EinzingerIsGod]

I have moral objections to diverting money to dictatorships, and worked in a shop this summer that stocked goods made in China. At times I was the only person running the front desk. Do I have a right to refuse to allow someone to buy goods made in China from that shop?

On another note, how about GM food? Lots of people have problems with that, and selling the goods diverts money towards companies that sell the GM food. Is it OK for a cashier in a supermarket to refuse to sell it? How about alcohol, for that matter, as that's something that ruins millions of lives worldwide every year.

As much as I would agree with the reasons behind these things, I would still have to say no to all of these questions.

[Hababi]

I would also like to know why the Amish person wouldn't get the job, since by your own argument that's obvious religious discrimination


They're not qualified. The pharmacist is, and the fact that they disagree with one thing shouldn't preclude them from being hired. Otherwise you're just targeting Christians and enforcing an athiest agenda. A medical professional should never be compelled to act against his/her moral code.

[SubtleDagger]

They're not qualified. The pharmacist is, and the fact that they disagree with one thing shouldn't preclude them from being hired. Otherwise you're just targeting Christians and enforcing an athiest agenda. A medical professional should never be compelled to act against his/her moral code.
The Amish person can't do what he was hired for and neither can the Christian

Disagreeing with one thing is more than enough to disclude you from getting hired somewhere, that's why you don't see nudists bagging your groceries

[Steerpike]

They're not qualified. The pharmacist is, and the fact that they disagree with one thing shouldn't preclude them from being hired. Otherwise you're just targeting Christians and enforcing an athiest agenda.

Or they don't want to lose business from people who may not like to be bossed around by fundies with dellusions of grandeur.

If the pharmacist is using the Bible/Quran/other scripture instead of science to do his job, he is not qualified as a medical professional. It's as simple as that.

That's like signing up for the military and then refusing to shoot because it violates your ethics.

[Hababi]

The Amish person can't do what he was hired for and neither can the Christian


They shouldn't be hired at "Morning after pill centers." Other than that, you're talking about roughly 1% of the overall daily flow of traffic, and thus your point is void.

[Steerpike]

They shouldn't be hired at "Morning after pill centers." Other than that, you're talking about roughly 1% of the overall daily flow of traffic, and thus your point is void.

If he is disobeying company policy, he should be fired. He does not have the authority at that station to call the shots.

[Hababi]

If he is disobeying company policy, he should be fired. He does not have the authority at that station to call the shots.

So what if company policy is to burn Bibles in the back room? Should he be forced to do that, too?

[SubtleDagger]

They shouldn't be hired at "Morning after pill centers." Other than that, you're talking about roughly 1% of the overall daily flow of traffic, and thus your point is void.
Not really

If a person can't perform a daily function of his profession his superiors have every right to fire him

Religious discrimination comes down to being fired because the superior has specific bias towards that religion, and believe it or not there are plenty of other Christians who will give a customer some morning afters

[drewhet]

If i worked at a convienent store but refused to sell alchohol to anybody based on religioun, i could be fired, and it wouldn't be religious discriminatin. The same would go for this situation.

[Steerpike]

So what if company policy is to burn Bibles in the back room? Should he be forced to do that, too?

If you're going to make an analogy, try one that wasn't pulled out of someone's ***.

But I'll humor you. If such an absurd and cartoonish thing were taking place, the nature of American employment means he can leave whenever he wants. In fact, he would have been briefed about this during orientation, and therefor would probably never have taken the job anyway.

[Hababi]

If you're going to make an analogy, try one that wasn't pulled out of someone's ***.

But I'll humor you. If such an absurd and cartoonish thing were taking place, the nature of American employment means he can leave whenever he wants. In fact, he would have been briefed about this during orientation, and therefor would probably never have taken the job anyway.

So he should be forced to leave his employment and seek a new job because his employer is forcing him to burn Bibles?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

They're not qualified. The pharmacist is, and the fact that they disagree with one thing shouldn't preclude them from being hired. Otherwise you're just targeting Christians and enforcing an athiest agenda. A medical professional should never be compelled to act against his/her moral code.

can I please hear if it for the HYPOCRATIC OATH people





FFS this whole thing was covered on neighbours

Karl Kenneddy broke his oath by telling susan that her manfriend was dieing of leukimia and that was a tough moral decision because he had 2 conflicting ethics

[Steerpike]

So he should be forced to leave his employment and seek a new job because his employer is forcing him to burn Bibles?

Um... yeah. But it's a moot point considering your analogy is horrifically asinine and unrealistic to begin with.

[Hababi]

Um... yeah. But it's a moot point considering your analogy is horrifically asinine and unrealistic to begin with.

It's not at all, you're sanctioning religious persecution.

[Steerpike]

It's not at all, you're sanctioning religious persecution.

No. You're still free to worship however you choose. But if you try to impose it on me, then we have a problem.

[Hababi]

No. You're still free to worship however you choose. But if you try to impose it on me, then we have a problem.

You're trying to impose your code on everyone else and allow religious persecution in the workplace.

[SubtleDagger]

You're trying to impose your code on everyone else and allow religious persecution in the workplace.
Believe it or not part of having a job is doing what people tell you to do

I'm actually amazed at how liberal you're acting on this issue, it's ridiculous

[Mr. Ron]

You're trying to impose your code on everyone else and allow religious persecution in the workplace.

Religion really has no place in a public workforce.

[SubtleDagger]

Religion really has no place in a public workforce.
Exactly

Most workplaces can and will fire you for mouthing off about religion in the first place

[Hababi]

Serenity, respond to my analogies that actually represent similar situations without religion being involved at any stage please. Compelling people to burn Bibles as part of a job that somehow isn't related to book disposal is quite clearly nothing to do with the function of the job. Selling the morning after pill and condoms in a pharmacy is. Your analogy is utterly ridiculous.

There's a significant difference of jobs and fields there.

[drewhet]

If i was the owner of a pharmacy and one of my employees refused to sell the morning after pill, i have every right to fire him. I don't care why he didn't, he is hired to sell medication and he refused to do so.

[Amit]

Serenity, respond to my analogies that actually represent similar situations without religion being involved at any stage please. Compelling people to burn Bibles as part of a job that somehow isn't related to book disposal is quite clearly nothing to do with the function of the job. Selling the morning after pill and condoms in a pharmacy is. Your analogy is utterly ridiculous.

123 its interesting how the zmeister has completely ignored you med you know i love you like a bro at least =(

[SubtleDagger]

There's a significant difference of jobs and fields there.
A retailer distributes merchandise, a pharmacist distributes drugs

There's not really that much of a difference given his analogy

[Mr. Ron]

All in All zero, you just want to further the idea of your socio religious agenda with this story.

[Hababi]

There's not really that much of a difference given his analogy

The medical profession deals with ethics on a daily basis, in a major way.

When cashiers take a formal oath of ethics in order to be licensed as a cashier, get back to me.


All in All zero, you just want to further the idea of your socio religious agenda with this story.


I'm trying to advance religious freedom. The other side is advancing religious persecution and intolerance. The outcome would be a workplace that formally discriminates against Christians, Muslims and Jews, basically a corporate state like China.

[Steerpike]

You're trying to impose your code on everyone else and allow religious persecution in the workplace.

No, I just want people to do their job. I expect the Jesus freak to sell me a morning after pill, the Hindu to sell me the flank steak, and in my grandmother wants to buy a copy NewsMax, the hippie at the counter still has to check it out for her.

Also, my agenda can hardly be labelled atheist. It's more agnostic.

Religion really has no place in a public workforce.

DINGDINGDING!! We have a winner!

[SubtleDagger]

The medical profession deals with ethics on a daily basis, in a major way.

When cashiers take a formal oath of ethics in order to be licensed as a cashier, get back to me.


And when a physician's ethics get in the way of his professional responsibilities, then he should take his practice elsewhere

[Amit]

more like not be a physician at all

[SubtleDagger]

That's basically what I meant

I mean I'm sorry, if your ethics keep you from doing your job correctly then you're in the wrong field

[Hababi]

And when a physician's ethics get in the way of his professional responsibilities, then he should take his practice elsewhere


Right so those doctors in the Nazi prison camps had an OBLIGATION to do their experiments. Screw ethics.

[Mr. Ron]

Right so those doctors in the Nazi prison camps had an OBLIGATION to do their experiments. Screw ethics.

lol wut

[SubtleDagger]

Right so those doctors in the Nazi prison camps had an OBLIGATION to do their experiments. Screw ethics.

That doesn't even make sense

[italic zero]

Is there some kind of restriction we can put on his account to prevent him from using analogies?

[Hababi]

That doesn't even make sense

Yes it does. If ethics have no role in being a doctor, and a doctor no longer is a physician when his/her ethics interfere with their job, then the doctors at the Nazi prison camps were obligated to conduct their experiments, and if they refused, then they had no business being doctors.

[SubtleDagger]

Yes it does. If ethics have no role in being a doctor, and a doctor no longer is a physician when his/her ethics interfere with their job, then the doctors at the Nazi prison camps were obligated to conduct their experiments, and if they refused, then they had no business being doctors.
Yeah, they had no business being doctors for the Nazi regime

That was my whole point

[Mr. Ron]

Yes it does. If ethics have no role in being a doctor, and a doctor no longer is a physician when his/her ethics interfere with their job, then the doctors at the Nazi prison camps were obligated to conduct their experiments, and if they refused, then they had no business being doctors.

Sweet sassy molassy....

[Hababi]

Yeah, they had no business being doctors for the Nazi regime


No, you said ethics has nothing to do with being a doctor. So they should've followed orders, or they didn't deserve to be doctors, by your own words.

[SubtleDagger]

No, you said ethics has nothing to do with being a doctor. So they should've followed orders, or they didn't deserve to be doctors, by your own words.

Actually what I said was that if their ethics conflicted with their duties then they should practice somewhere they don't

Meaning if a Nazi doctor has a moral objecion to killing people he should probably stop being a Nazi 9_9

Not a very good analogy on your part though

[Hababi]

I mean I'm sorry, if your ethics keep you from doing your job correctly then you're in the wrong field


That's what you said. So, if a doctor in a Nazi death camp finds his job offensive, then he is in the wrong field, that field being medicine, and he ought to be a cashier.

[SubtleDagger]

Field was relative to being a pharmacist

Don't jump to conclusions please

[Hababi]

Doesn't matter. Your lack of emphasis on medical ethics is the mindset that led to the atrocities committed by Japan and Nazi Germany.

[drewhet]

That's what you said. So, if a doctor in a Nazi death camp finds his job offensive, then he is in the wrong field, that field being medicine, and he ought to be a cashier.

No, he isn't in the wrong field, he is in the wrong place. If a pharmacist's boss tells him he has to sell morning after pill, but he refuses to, then he can go find a job at a pharmacy where he is allowed to refuse.

[SubtleDagger]

Doesn't matter. Your lack of emphasis on medical ethics is the mindset that led to the atrocities committed by Japan and Nazi Germany.

Refl no it's not

My whole point was that if a doctor's ethics get in the way of effectively practicing he should probably practice something else

Which really has nothing to do with mass genocide

[spitfirejunky]

The answer is really quite simple ... if they own and operate their own cabs, it's fine. If it contradicts company policy, it's not.

Yes.

[Iskandar]

Religion really has no place in a public workforce.
That would only be jobs in the public sector, though. The vast majority of jobs are private.*

*this will change after the glorious revolution, however

[Mr. Ron]

That would only be jobs in the public sector, though. The vast majority of jobs are private.*

*this will change after the glorious revolution, however

Not if Samuel Adams has anything to say about it!


*POW!*

[Iskandar]

Not if Samuel Adams has anything to say about it!


*POW!*
I think he's dead ... but I, however, am not.:cool:

[Mr. Ron]

I think he's dead ... but I, however, am not.:cool:

I used alternative medicine to raise him. HAVE AT YOU!

[Iskandar]

I used alternative medicine to raise him. HAVE AT YOU!
All right, it's on. Samuel Adams vs. Karl Marx, cagematch, now.

[Mr. Ron]

All right, it's on. Samuel Adams vs. Karl Marx, cagematch, now.

Wait....whats this? They're......calmy debating political theory over tea....


God damnit.


-_-

[Scythe404]

Oh my God. This is the most hilarious thread de-rail I've witnessed here in some time.

No, please. Keep it up with the analogies. This stuff is gold. :)

And to hell with me if I didn't instantly start imagining a practicing Satanist working at a Religious bookstore refusing to sell me Bibles.

EDIT: How about the Hindu at the steak shop? Oh, oh! The Jew selling Christmas trees!

[SubtleDagger]

It's all Zero's fault 9_9

Btw he should change his avatar to yours

[Scythe404]

It's all Zero's fault 9_9

Btw he should change his avatar to yours

Hell, no. I've had mine since the movie came out in theaters. That bandwagoneer can keep his oversized blimp of a Firefly box. :p

[Steerpike]

EDIT: How about the Hindu at the steak shop?

I beat ya to it.

[SubtleDagger]

Jews selling Christmas trees is a good one, I would have gone for the Jehova's Witnesses though

[Futue te Ipsum]

Yes it does. If ethics have no role in being a doctor, and a doctor no longer is a physician when his/her ethics interfere with their job, then the doctors at the Nazi prison camps were obligated to conduct their experiments, and if they refused, then they had no business being doctors.Put in that position, I would refuse to work for the camps. I wouldn't attempt to keep my job there whilst refusing to do what they tell me to.

Actually, put in nazi germany I would probably be thrown into the camp seeing as I was born Jewish, but anywho...

[Cain]

Likewise, the left wing anti-Christian forces out there shouldn't object to Christian pharmacists refusing to stock and/or disperse the morning after pill, because it, too, violates their religious beliefs (and ethical beliefs, for those that understand what it is and what it does and the nature of life).

Actually, this is a case of:

ITT: Zero disguises the real purpose of his useless, overdone thread by pretending to defend another group he regularly attacks for similarly stereotypical and xenophobic reasons.

Just stop already. You lose every single argument you start.

[Hababi]

Put in that position, I would refuse to work for the camps. I wouldn't attempt to keep my job there whilst refusing to do what they tell me to.


Too late, you let ethics get in the way of your decision making. Time to find a new career, because medicine ain't made out for you.

Also: Most pharmacists worked at their jobs before the morning after pill (an extension of the genocide that is abortion) came around. Thus, they're in the same position as you, if you worked for the German government at a normal prison camp, documenting TB cases or whatnot, and then one day it became a prison camp for Jews and you were told to see how twins behave to being beaten to death.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Too late, you let ethics get in the way of your decision making. Time to find a new career, because medicine ain't made out for you.Here you can abstain from performing an abortion on the basis of disagreeing with it. That's fine. What you can't do is tell somebody that they can't have one because you don't agree with it. It's not about refusing to let ethics get in the way; it's about using professional opinions to make professional judgements.

To allow an abortion in Britain, legally, it has to be for a valid reason. This means that doctors can and do say "no" on the subject, but it has to be stressed that this decision cannot come from the doctors own prejudice. This goes both ways, and there's currently a problem with doctors (notably in private practice) interpreting the laws too liberally. For the record I would also disagree with doing that.

[SubtleDagger]

Too late, you let ethics get in the way of your decision making. Time to find a new career, because medicine ain't made out for you.


Maybe you should actually think about what I said before coming up with straw men

I said nothing not practicing medicine, I actually deliberately said that if your ethics conflict with your responsibilities you should let your ethics lead you to a better profession

That doesn't exclude a profession in medicine 9_9

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Too late, you let ethics get in the way of your decision making. Time to find a new career, because medicine ain't made out for you.

Also: Most pharmacists worked at their jobs before the morning after pill (an extension of the genocide that is abortion) came around. Thus, they're in the same position as you, if you worked for the German government at a normal prison camp, d0cumenting TB cases or whatnot, and then one day it became a prison camp for Jews and you were told to see how twins behave to being beaten to death.

You still haven't dealt with my point that the morning after pill isn't the same as abortion at all and simply prevents ovulation

[Amit]

its ok man

zero has absolutely no idea about human physiology

[Hababi]

You still haven't dealt with my point that the morning after pill isn't the same as abortion at all and simply prevents ovulation

It can act as an abortive agent.

That being said, I'm not personally extremely against the pill--I'm even voting for a guy (Bob Casey Jr.) who supports it (but he's pro life beyond that, just my kind of Democrat).

[Jharaski]

How is the morning after pill murder. It just prevents the egg from getting fertilized.

YEah yeah don't spew **** at me about how it "kills" it if it already did get fertilized. My first point is logical.

[Hababi]

tbh I'm much more interested in arguing against removing ethics from medicine than the pill itself, which I don't feel particularly strongly about.

[Jharaski]

Well I agree that ethics belong to a degree in medicine. Just not very much.


I used to agree with you on a lot. Now we rarely see eye to eye. :(

[Hababi]

Well I agree that ethics belong to a degree in medicine. Just not very much.


I used to agree with you on a lot. Now we rarely see eye to eye. :(

:lol: What did you agree with me on?

[Jharaski]

:lol: What did you agree with me on?

Israel, Fox, fagdom (to a degree) and various other things. I'm not as conservative as you though... so how the hell am I a Republican and you're a Democrat?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It can act as an abortive agent.

That being said, I'm not personally extremely against the pill--I'm even voting for a guy (Bob Casey Jr.) who supports it (but he's pro life beyond that, just my kind of Democrat).

No it can't? That's why its the "72 hours afterward" pill and not the "past 72 hours, once the egg is fertilized" pill?

At this point it stops being like forcing a christian to burn bibles and more like forcing a christian to burn satanist books and him objecting because they have the word 2god" somewhere in them; ie, irrational.

[Hababi]

Israel, Fox, fagdom (to a degree) and various other things. I'm not as conservative as you though...


No but much more than I thought you were :p

Anyway though I'm liberal on taxation, the environment (very green), health care, and moderate on gun control and unions. So I'm no arch conservative :cool:


so how the hell am I a Republican and you're a Democrat?

I'm a registered Republican. But I voted for Kerry in 04. I'll be voting for Casey for Senator and Swann for governor. In 08 I'll probably vote republican for president. I like splitting my votes close to 50/50 though--I'd say I'm the most non partisan person on here :cool:

[Amit]

No but much more than I thought you were :p

Anyway though I'm liberal on taxation, the environment (very green), health care, and moderate on gun control and unions. So I'm no arch conservative :cool:



I'm a registered Republican. But I voted for Kerry in 04. I'll be voting for Casey for Senator and Swann for governor. In 08 I'll probably vote republican for president. I like splitting my votes close to 50/50 though--I'd say I'm the most non partisan person on here :cool:

people confuse you for an arch conservative for your complete lack of understanding in anything to do with science

[Jharaski]

No but much more than I thought you were :p

Anyway though I'm liberal on taxation, the environment (very green), health care, and moderate on gun control and unions. So I'm no arch conservative :cool:



I'm a registered Republican. But I voted for Kerry in 04. I'll be voting for Casey for Senator and Swann for governor. In 08 I'll probably vote republican for president. I like splitting my votes close to 50/50 though--I'd say I'm the most non partisan person on here :cool:


Ah. If I had FINAL say in who'd win in '04 I'd have gone for Peroutka. The uber-conservative Constitution Party guy. I think he'd save America a lot of money. Or Badnarik - who said he'd blow up the UN if he won and believes every citizen should have AK47's.

I'm afraid of what'll happen if Lois Murphey wins. Ever see the negative campaign ads against her? They're delicious.

[Hababi]

people confuse you for an arch conservative for your complete lack of understanding in anything to do with science


Oh I understand much more than you think--that's why I've produced scientific studies backing every single disputed claim I've ever made on here.

Heck I'm even thinking about switching to pre med. Or pharmacy :D


Ah. If I had FINAL say in who'd win in '04 I'd have gone for Peroutka. The uber-conservative Constitution Party guy. I think he'd save America a lot of money. Or Badnarik - who said he'd blow up the UN if he won and believes every citizen should have AK47's.


Ah see you're actually more conservative, overall, than me :p

[Amit]

Oh I understand much more than you think--that's why I've produced scientific studies backing every single disputed claim I've ever made on here.

posting links doesn't equal understanding or knowledge sorry z

Heck I'm even thinking about switching to pre med. Or pharmacy :D

you would never make it past even genchem

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Oh I understand much more than you think--that's why I've produced scientific studies backing every single disputed claim I've ever made on here.

Heck I'm even thinking about switching to pre med. Or pharmacy :D


I think we could organise a whip-round to pay you not to.

karma and all

[Amit]

Tell me you're kidding. The scientific studies you cite tend to either be out of date or misrepresented. And I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that HIV positive people shouldn't work in restaurants really shouldn't go into medicine. I'm still trying to come up with an ideology that goes with your beliefs, but I struggle with it.

misguided and misinformed foolishness is a good ideology for z i think

[Hababi]

Tell me you're kidding. The scientific studies you cite tend to either be out of date or misrepresented. And I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that HIV positive people shouldn't work in restaurants really shouldn't go into medicine. I'm still trying to come up with an ideology that goes with your beliefs, but I struggle with it.

Conservative Green?
Vatican liberal?

[ATC]

Uh no, if they're unwilling to perform their job, they should be replaced or given training until they can. Here's an analogy - you're a random person. A black/white supremacist waiter decides not to serve you because it goes against their beliefs. Or your car broke down but the mechanic won't serve you because you've got The calgary flames logo on your car, but his personal religious beliefs involve the Vancouver canucks being god. There's really no difference between those examples and the ones you're citing, so yea, they should be given training until they can put their beliefs aside and do their job, or be fired.

[Scythe404]

No, really. I liked my analogy quite a bit.

Say that you go into a Christian bookstore. A man who is working there refuses to sell you a New Testament because he is a practicing Satanist, and has a moral disagreement with the teachings of Jesus Christ. What's wrong with this?

He applied to work - and more importantly, agreed - to work at a place where he knew he would have to be the proprieter of materials that personally offend him. Regardless of this he still took the job, fully knowledgeable that his duties would include selling someone books containing the teachings of Jesus Christ. Can you see the conflicts here?

This is no different. If you're a pharmacist, you have a job to perform: to provide people with the medications that your pharmacy's manager/supervisor/owner/etc chooses to provide. If you're too dim to realize that and you still take the job, you don't deserve the job. If you take the job knowingly and you refuse the duties you were aware you would be employed to do, you deserve to be fired, and called a hypocrite at that.

You may consider the morning-after pill murder. That's fine; that's your right. But you do not have any constitutional right whatsoever to be allowed to hold a job in a place where you refuse to do that job. If it offends you, you shouldn't work there. This is why vegans don't often seek employment in slaughterhouses.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Well I agree that ethics belong to a degree in medicine. Just not very much.Ethics, psychology and sociology are as much a part of pre-clinical medicine as anatomy, physiology and pharmacology.

I fail to see why they shouldn't be.

[shaqadelic]

For Muslim cab drivers who do not allow dogs onboard, if the passenger is in a time of emergency that could bring harm then serving the person comes first and I believe Islam allows it. But heck if it is against company policy, then it should be up to the employer to take action whether to allow them to be selective of their customers or not in the first place.

For the morning after pill, if a pharmachist does not agree to sell then one can go to another or a different pharmacy all together. In fact, most pharmacy I have been to have two people handling over the counter drugs, asking the next person can be a simple solution. As for time of emergency, IMO there really shouldn't be a time of emergency cause if you wanna have sex, then you should be prepared if anything goes wrong (broken condoms and etc) and buy morning after pills beforehand.

[Chameleon]

I believe that what this ultimately comes down to is the organisation a person works for.

Somebody working for a Pharmacy must server what they are told to serve, to whoever they are told to serve.

A man who owns a book store, wouldn't have to stock Christian texts if he did not want to. An employee in that store, would.

With taxi services, it's a little different, since a taxi driver (in the UK) is licensed by his/her local council/government, so I don't know "how" you get licensed, but I presume you're not a public service, as such.

At any rate, an independent cab driver (still licensed by the government, obviously) should be allowed to refuse whoever he likes. But an employee for a company should conform to company policy. Eg, they don't have to pick up drunks if they could spew all over the car, etc.

In addendum to the Pharmacy thing, that one is actually a bit tricky (hence the legal conflicts in the UK a while ago, possibly still ongoing) since they are probably actually a public service. But I don't really know that much detail about the situation, but that seems to have been the problem in the UK - as a public service, are pharmacists obliged to serve the morning after pill?


In fact, in addendum to the Pharmacy thing AGAIN, after reading shagedelic's (good) post: If a person applying for employment in a pharmacy could potentially refuse to serve *product A* to somebody due to their religious beliefs, then their religious beliefs should become a matter of interest to the employer.

And in reality, that stems out to all employment. If people should be allowed alter their job specification based on belief, then personal beliefs (would it be too outrageous to include changes of belief, as being a matter of interest to the employer?) should be declared upon application, and should be enough of a reason not to hire a person.

It is foreseeable that these kind of petitions for 'equality' can lead to further segregation.

[shaqadelic]

And in reality, that stems out to all employment. If people should be allowed alter their job specification based on belief, then personal beliefs (would it be too outrageous to include changes of belief, as being a matter of interest to the employer?) should be declared upon application, and should be enough of a reason not to hire a person.

Good communication between employer and (potential) employees can make reaching a middle ground for both parties an easy task. For example, my college employs several Muslims as security personnel and a matter of interest is how will they attend Friday prayers each week (which is a must for Muslim males) and still serve their job. The solution was that they alternate who within the staff will go and who will stay each week. It is not the perfect solution but it was the best given the circumstances.

It is foreseeable that these kind of petitions for 'equality' can lead to further segregation.

That's true. But as long as employer don't reject a potential employee just by one glance at their beliefs without discussion then things won't go that out of hand.

[Chameleon]

Good communication between employer and (potential) employees can make reaching a middle ground for both parties an easy task. For example, my college employs several Muslims as security personnel and a matter of interest is how will they attend Friday prayers each week (which is a must for Muslim males) and still serve their job. The solution was that they alternate who within the staff will go and who will stay each week. It is not the perfect solution but it was the best given the circumstances.



That's true. But as long as employer don't reject a potential employee just by one glance at their beliefs without discussion then things won't go that out of hand.

That will all work with reasonable employers, but for employers who have racial prejudice, this could potentially give them grounds for racial/religious dismissal.

I just think it's a risky road to walk on. They don't want discriminated against just because their beliefs require special accommodation in the workplace, yet by petitioning for special treatment, a pharmacist (for example) should have every right to ask about their beliefs and reject them based on this. I'm not saying that's the way this will go, but it's a vaguely possible outcome.

[shaqadelic]

That will all work with reasonable employers, but for employers who have racial prejudice, this could potentially give them grounds for racial/religious dismissal.

I just think it's a risky road to walk on. They don't want discriminated against just because their beliefs require special accommodation in the workplace, yet by petitioning for special treatment, a pharmacist (for example) should have every right to ask about their beliefs and reject them based on this. I'm not saying that's the way this will go, but it's a vaguely possible outcome.

Ya know, this is a founded concern as recent research suggests that Muslim job applicants in UK are less likely to be called back for interview despite on having the same level of qualifications on paper.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/07_july/12/minorities_survey.shtml

Quite a finding. If there is really discrimination then certainly employers with prejudice will definitely use religous interest to reject applicants without even attempting to discuss the issue.

[Chameleon]

Hmm, good find!

I didn't realise it was as serious a problem a the moment, but I agree any form of segregation (including special treatment for religious beliefs) could lead to further discrimination.

[Amit]

Ya know, this is a founded concern as recent research suggests that Muslim job applicants in UK are less likely to be called back for interview despite on having the same level of qualifications on paper.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/07_july/12/minorities_survey.shtml

Quite a finding. If there is really discrimination then certainly employers with prejudice will definitely use religous interest to reject applicants without even attempting to discuss the issue.

thats why all muslims around the world should do more to condemn and prevent terrorism by islamic extremists

[shaqadelic]

Well it does take two to tango. Same with getting rid of cultural differences.

[Amit]

you don't hear anything about hindu job applicants being less likely to be called back

but i bet things would change pretty fast if hindus started killing innocent civilians in the UK

[shaqadelic]

Well collective discrimination is not gonna solve anything.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm going to get a job as a doctor and then convert to Jehovah's Witness and refuse to give any medical attention to anyone.

Cushiest job ever.

[Amit]

Well collective discrimination is not gonna solve anything.

collective discrimination is only reinforced when terrorists kill people

without terrorism or crime, that inherent distrust fades away

[Hababi]

I'm going to get a job as a doctor and then convert to Jehovah's Witness and refuse to give any medical attention to anyone.


You just couldn't give blood transfusions.

Anyway jw's discourage higher education because THE WORLD IS ENDING VERY SOON, GO SPREAD THE WORD!

My cousin could've easily had a full scholarship to Pitt for whatever he wanted, he had the grades and the intelligence. But his jw leaders told him to forget about it so he took one semester at a local jc and then dropped out to go door to door full time.

[shaqadelic]

collective discrimination is only reinforced when terrorists kill people

without terrorism or crime, that inherent distrust fades away

Well, avoiding or decreasing collective discrimination/punnishment/abuse is known to stop new extremism. This is a true fact.

Extremism must be fought from both sides and I can tell you many Muslims are doing what they can. Look at Mahmoud Abbas and etc.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Hey, I wanna be a psychiatrist then become a scientogist.

[SubtleDagger]

Supposed to do it the other way around

Either way that's a huge sacrifice -_-

(Not that being Christian/Amish/whatever is any better 9_9)