Posted on 01/27/2006 12:56:47 PM PST by wagglebee
Reasonable accomodation might apply if they only sometimes sell alcohol. But if drinks are always on the menu, there would be no reasonable accomodation. Or in the case where no alcohol was served at all, if the waitress gave a lecture on the evils of drink to anyone who asked for a glass of wine, she would be fired. That seems to be a more suitable analogy to the Target case. They didn't even carry the medicine in question. She could have simply stated that. That would not be the same as participating in abortion. If asked where the prescription could be filled, she could have said that she was not familiar with the policies of her company's competitors and she didn't know where it was available.
Simple and obvious market response of pro-lifers: don't shop at Target.
Ever.
Even if it's the only store open and you really want something.
Otherwise, you are supporting an institution that actively discriminates against pro-lifers.
No, she was fired because she didn't do her job. Please, don't cloud the issue. She shouldn't be in that line of work if some of what she must do is against her religious beliefs. That is her right, but that doesn't mean her employer must put up with it...you know that.
I did not get the sense that she lectured a customer.
What I read was that in December Target sent around a statement that each pharmacist, wherever he or she worked, had to sign which affirmed that he or she had no objection to dispensing such drugs. The woman wouldn't sign it, and so she was fired, even though the pharmacy at which she worked didn't carry the drug in question.
It doesn't look to me like there was any insubordination here, nor any customer complaint (maybe I missed it).
The best analogy is this: Hillary Clinton is elected Commander in Chief. She reverses Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military, with a strong policy statement that the military welcomes homosexuals, and that the military will punish anyone who discriminates against gays. She then requires all serving officers of whatever rank to sign a statement that they will support and execute her policy.
And then fires any officer who refuses to sign.
That's the apt comparison.
No, an apt analogy would be a restaurant waitress refusing to serve anyone Pork because it's against her RELIGOUS BELIEFS. When someone goes to work at a Restaurant, they know that there is a chance that, because pork is not outlawed, they will have to serve it at some point. If they feel so strongly that nobody should eat pork, THEY SHOULD NOT WORK AT THE RESTAURANT...what is so hard to understand? In this case, not only would the waitress NOT serve pork, but she wouldn't allow any other waitresses to serve the pork. It's a simple concept. And you all know it.
Let's assume that a pharmacist was licensed to practice twenty years ago, before this drug was even developed, what then? This is a NEW policy for Target, she had worked there for five years before this came up (it was introduced in December, 2005). She was refusing to go along with a NEW policy based upon her religious beliefs. So, I don't think I'm "clouding" the issue.
Sorry. I was relying in part on what a friend told me about this case - he was right that the store didn't even carry it, but left out some other details and my understanding was wrong. My analogy is not so relevant.
However, if she were to sue in Missouri courts, case law is not in her favor. I'm not certain about federal case law, but after a quick review of the Fair Labor Standards Act, I can't find anything to demonstrate she would have much of a case on the federal level.
Hmm. So, in your mind, bookstore=pharmacy and book=death-causing drug. Hoo-kay.
Now, then. Behold, I am Phil, Prince of Insufficient Light, and I hereby Darn you to Heck for your ill-constructed analogy.
None of my dollars will ever go to Target coffers.
If anything, she should have seen the hand writing on the wall when Target went into anti-Christmas mode.
Exactly how do you witness that and NOT see this circumstance barrelling down the pike straight at you?
If she's guilty of anything, it's blindness to her employer's true nature.
Murdering babies in the womb is evil and you're an ass.
It's a mischaracterization to define this in terms of 'whether to dispense or not to dispense'.
Killing babies in the womb is evil and that pharmacist refused to be part of the evil.
God bless her.
God help Target.
>>You must be reading a completely different article than the one posted. The one posted doesn't say that she's suing anyone at all simply that "she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Missouri."<<
Are you serious? She's filing with the EEOC to appeal to have the EEOC sue. Given that we all read the article, I wasn't so careful to spell everything out.
Just another reason to BOYCOTT TARGET!
Bump that.
Exactly my point. Given the infrequency of the issue it's hard to imagine Target couldn't have accomodated her religious beliefs. Amazingly, the issue never even came up. She was fired because she refused to comply with a *hypothetical* situation.
Yes, actually it is a foolish reply.
Pharmacists are relied upon to exercise professional judgement as to the drugs they dispense or do not dispense. If they have reason to doubt the order, question the patient for any reason, they -- I belive this is true -- are obligated by license to make their best decision in filling or not filling an order.
The argument that a pharmacist MUST fill an order for anything is not supportable, I also believe, by law or by conscience as a licensed professional.
I do believe that as an aspect of her conduct, she is actually exercising her professional ethics in her decision to both withhold filling a prescription and in providing any activity in ensuring access.
Any individual is certainly capable of going to any other business (and that includes pharmacies) if/when they are refused to be served or serviced by any business.
It's not the "fault" of any business who simply says to anyone else that they are not going to assist them (implying, please go elsewhere for your needs).
The pharmacist here is not the busines owner, I realize. However, I believe her licensing requirements demand of her that she use her best judgment given her qualifications to fulfill or refuse to fill an order.
Clerks in book stores are not licensed in states nor are required in states as are pharmacists. They are employees just as are pharmacists, yes, and their employers are engaged in commerce, but, pharmacists as employees are licensed by states before they can perform their work and are required by the licensing to maintain certain standards. A pharmacist is required to make certain ethical and to a great degree, "moral" evaluations as to what they do and do not fill as to orders.
Is there some legal requirement that a pharmacist provide another pharmacy location to anyone to whom they've refused service? I don't know. If that's the case, then the pharmacist here violated some requirement but I didn't read that that was the case in the article (perhaps I missed that?).
No, there has to be some condition, cause, not mere personal opinion, but PROFESSION opinion, involved in what is filled and what isn't. I'd think that any pharmacist who took to referring to random drugs as offensive due to "religious" reasons who could not provide substantiation as to the religion and principles involved in those specific drugs, would be discharged for incompetence (or similar), if not lose a license.
There is recognized moral difficulty and offense associated with birth control and/or abortion-inducing medications. They are readily identifiable to most reasonably intelligent people as being capable of terminating human life, or, as some claim, "removing tissue".
I believe there'd be a strange circumstance if a Scientologist was licensed as a Pharmacist (or would they ever pursue that profession, I don't know, and doubt it) and then refused all medication orders based upon thier "religious" objections, in which I just don't know how that would be handled other than they'd face an argument with the licensing board, certainly their employer.
However, that's not the case here. This Pharmacist only objected to birth-affecting, life-terminating medications and it's not at all the same thing as if she'd just randomly named a drug or drugs with no recognition of controversy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.