No, it's about each job having a description and if you won't do the job described then you should get a different job.
I'd bet if an Wal-Mart employee refused to sell guns, he'd be labeled a left-wing hero!
>> No, it's about each job having a description and if you won't do the job described then you should get a different job. <<
"Williams said that Target forced pharmacists state-wide to sign a “conscience clause” last fall agreeing to dispense the abortifacient or refer to another pharmacy that does. She wrote the chain a letter December 1 telling them she could not sign the clause. “We had to make sure it was in stock, and even give directions to the store,” she said. “I would be a participant.”"
Sorry, but the early Christians were willing to die rather than sign such "conscience clauses." Sad to see Target aspires to become Imperial Rome.
Yes, but this particular "job" was amended after she was already on the job, from what the story says. She also has her licensing to consider and if a pharmacy/employer asks her to do something that poses a problem to her licensing, then a Pharmacist has an issue there that has to be raised, one way or another. Yes, she/he can get another job somewhere else, but, before that occurs, if there is some ethical quandray, I believe it's commendable, even, that someone in that situation speak out.
I think this is a case that is probably not as simple as many here are trying to make it so. It's not a simple matter of a basic employee refusing to 'do the job.'