Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 70: Line 70:     
::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
 +
(Unindent)
 +
 +
"Irrespective" or "regardless," please.  "Irregardless" isn't a word.
 +
 +
You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems.  Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions. 
 +
 +
A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.''  He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own.  When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful.  Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets? 
 +
 +
Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own.  If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud?  Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253

edits

Navigation menu