Latest Dispatches from Jesusland: Revolt of the Fundie Pharmacists!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Agathon
Seen it ages ago.

Dumb fundies should be shot.

[Pekka]

What about customers rights, who have a freaking prescription?? I didn't know pharmacists had THAT kind of rights.

THat's like saying 'No I won't give you the medication ordered by a real doctor, because your a gay homosexualists, and your AIDS is the result of your own sinning.".

Maybe the analogy isn't accurate, but it's pretty damn close. This is, once again, a fundie affecting other peoples lives based on their own personal belief, that is not even shared by many, making other peoples lives more difficult. With pharmacists like this, the sun would still circle earth.

[chequita guevara]

I have no problem with pharmamists who won't sell such medication provided they clearly state that beforehand. I don't find a compelling interest to force these pharmacists to act against their morals.

[Pekka]

If there's a possibility of doing against your morals in a job, maybe you shouldn't get that job to begin with.

[Odin]

If I was these people's boss they would be fired if they even thought about doing this.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I have no problem with pharmamists who won't sell such medication provided they clearly state that beforehand. I don't find a compelling interest to force these pharmacists to act against their morals.

Except wherein it's a national chain and the pharmacist is charged with following the policies of his employer. The initial case last year was at an Eckert pharmacy where the pharmacist refused to fill an order or even release it. They canned him, and the RR threw up a fuss.

Even so, like doctors, pharmacists are licensed to give a standard of care and service. I would think that any pharmacist who refused to dispense legal medications to people with a valid prescription from a doctor would be liable to lose their license.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Except wherein it's a national chain and the pharmacist is charged with following the policies of his employer.

In that case they are working for someone else, and refusing to do their job would be breaking their contract. I guess I should have specified pharmacists who own their own pharmacy. There still are one or two I hear.

[Last Conformist]

Aren't the RR supposed to be Republicans, and thus in favour of letting employers fire whomever they want?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Aren't the RR supposed to be Republicans, and thus in favour of letting employers fire whomever they want?

Not if doing the opposite helps get the Fundies to the polls on Election Day... (see Terri Shiavo thread)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Pekka
What about customers rights, who have a freaking prescription?? I didn't know pharmacists had THAT kind of rights.

They don't. I'm sure Republicans who want to pander to religious fundimentalists no matter what the law says will try to give them that right just as they tried to break the constitution's seporation of powers in the Terri Shiavo case but thankfully the US has a legal system to review such abuses.

[Ben Kenobi]

Um, chances are highly likely that this is a Catholic.

What makes the beliefs of this likely Catholic pharmacist fundamentalist?

Y'all should get your terminology straight.

[Ben Kenobi]

What about customers rights, who have a freaking prescription??

How hard is it to take your business elsewhere? That is your right as a customer, to take your business where you will be treated with the respect you deserve.

The right of a businessman is to refuse service for whatever reason. This includes respecting the religious beliefs of your pharmacist staff.

Look at it this way, would you ask a member of any other religion to perform duties contrary to their religious beliefs just to satisfy your request as a customer?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


In that case they are working for someone else, and refusing to do their job would be breaking their contract. I guess I should have specified pharmacists who own their own pharmacy. There still are one or two I hear.

"

Yeah, a poker buddy of mine owns one in Pittsburgh. And if he wanted to simply not carry birth control pills, you're right: that's his decision. But if he wants to carry them but only supply them to married women, then he'd still be in the wrong.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Look at it this way, would you ask a member of any other religion to perform duties contrary to their religious beliefs just to satisfy your request as a customer?

if their religious beliefs are preventing them from doing their job, they should be fired

[Ben Kenobi]

Except wherein it's a national chain and the pharmacist is charged with following the policies of his employer. The initial case last year was at an Eckert pharmacy where the pharmacist refused to fill an order or even release it. They canned him, and the RR threw up a fuss.

Such policies are the same as barring all members of one religion from working there.

Would it be right for an employer to specify that no black people were to work there and to can a worker just because they were black, and that violated the policy of the company as a whole?

Or would the company be forced to revise their policy?