Posted on 01/27/2006 12:56:47 PM PST by wagglebee
No physician should be required to perform an abortion, and no pharmacist should be required to dispense abortificents.
No one is saying they should be required to. However if they choose to work for a private corporation that decides to engage in legal activity, they are required to follow those rules.
Unless like most 'conservatives' you believe private corporations don't have a right to conduct their business as they see fit.
Mistake #1. Common among 'conservatives'. The Constitution was intended to be a list of limitations on the federal government, and the rights that the citizens of the respective states have when dealing with said government. Nothing more. What the supposed right and left have done with it over the years is activism, pure and simple.
Not to mention, also, state constitutions, codes that identify individual rights and wrongs.
Yes....and the state constitution, and the laws found within the state's code, have stated that it is the right of the private company to sell the product. If you choose that you cannot sell the product the company requires of you, the private corporation is not beholden to keep you on if you refuse to do the job you are hired to do.
The only 'free enterprise' and "private enterprise" that I am aware of that is, literally, answerable to no one is criminal activity. The rest of are governed by laws. This is a situation where there are gray areas governed by laws.
Ah, no belief in free or private enterprise. Who said Republicans still believe in capitalism eh? There is no gray area.
Ultimately, yes, I agree that business is 'free' to hire and fire whoever they want to do what. But how they do all that isn't as "private" and modifiable as some suggest.
So much for freedom of association. And I see some are even glad about it...
As much as I agree with her, she has no right to decide what prescriptions she will or won't fill. If she has moral problems with it, she should have quit, not refused to fill prescriptions.
But the pharmacy sells prescriptions, so it is safe to assume that any new drugs that come along will be stocked by the pharmacy. She can't claim she did not expect the pharmacy to offer this drug. I sympathize with her moral objection, but Target has a right to provide it's customers with whatever drugs are prescribed and as an employee she does not have the right to pick and choose which prescriptions she will personally fill. If she has that much of a problem with it she ought to quit.
That's over the line. No one is talking about being pro abortion here. We are discussing a complicated issue of the rights of an employer versus the rights of an employee. I can be as anti abortion as they come (and I am) and still believe this woman has no right to decide what prescriptions she will or won't dispense. What if the clerk at the register decided she would not ring up condoms, or spermacides because as a Catholic she could not condone birth control?
It sure would. We can have stores that sell only free range chickens, but when it comes to abortion a veil of silence takes over.
Re-read the article. She NEVER refused to fill any prescriptions.
Did you read the story? There was no customer interaction. She was fired for refusing to sign the "Must dispense" agreement.
Do you propose withdrawing the pill from the market? I mean regular birth control pills.
If I own a restaurant and hire a chef who specializes in French cuisine, and then decide to change the menu to fast food, the chef can remain at his or her current rate of pay, or decide to move on if he or she doesn't want to accept the new environment. I am the boss.
You agree to do what the employer needs done within the boundaries of local, federal, and state law. That is what you agree to when you accept employment. If your conscience dictates to you that you can no longer provide the services that an an employer provides, be it the same services as you have always performed, or new services that are required, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
when they work at all. >>
there isn't much success using these drugs?
You can make all the judgemental arguments you want, the fact of the matter remains that the pharmacist was not performing her job. That is the root cause of her dismissal. I said once before, I don't want a sermon with my prescription, I just want my prescription. She needs to find another job if she can't fullfill the requirements of the present one.
Would a Mennonite pacifist working at Wal-Mart be required to sell firearms?
Actually, it is not a silly extrapolation. I do believe that in the United State any and and all religions/faiths are equal under the law.
I do believe that there is a little itty bitty difference between someone who works on the floor at Wal-Mart, and someone who has a college degree, is licensed from the state to dispense and advise patients on pharmaceuticals and works in the Wal-Mart pharmacy.
But then again, its been ages since I have been inside a Wal-Mart. Do they now require their Sporting Goods employees to be licensed?
"No Irish Need Apply"
Guess I won't be shopping at Target anymore.
Licenced physicians are generally not performed to perform procedures they are ethically opposed to, even if they work in a private hospital. And it should be pointed out that this woman had worked at Target for five years before this new policy was enacted. And Target claims to adhere to the non-discriminatory EEOC policies as required by law.
http://target.com/targetcorp_group/diversity/commitment.jhtml
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.