I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics0 min ago
I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?
248 Answers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm
I find this absolutely shocking!
No question just a bit of early morning venting!
I find this absolutely shocking!
No question just a bit of early morning venting!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if you don't like the shops near where you live, travel to a shop further away, open a shop yourself, or move. Shopkeepers cannot be compelled to serve you. It's not crazy, ganesh, it's the law. You think you can just sit there and demand that everyone do your bidding? Have you not spotted yet that the world doesn't work that way?
TCL Mumping, so you support her deceit? And before you come back on that, if her employer had been aware that she would refuse to serve contraceptives, it stands to reason that in a pharmacy there would have had to have been another member of staff available who was willing to do the job that this woman was employed to do. Yes, I did say you were a bigot, and I did say you favour discrimination. Our previous discussion confirmed that. Just like jno, it appears you champion religion regardless of the principles involved and regardless of the harm it may bring to others. You still haven't answered my question though. Odd that.
jno, insults? No concern. Surely no one can be so obsessed with religion that they would support putting someone elses well-being at risk for it? Incidentally, shopkeepers may not be obliged to serve customers, but pharmacies under contract are obliged to dispense NHS prescriptions. As for losing arguments, do bear in mind that it isn't me who continually disappears.
My patience with this nonsense is rapidly diminishing. I'm going to bed. Night all.
jno, insults? No concern. Surely no one can be so obsessed with religion that they would support putting someone elses well-being at risk for it? Incidentally, shopkeepers may not be obliged to serve customers, but pharmacies under contract are obliged to dispense NHS prescriptions. As for losing arguments, do bear in mind that it isn't me who continually disappears.
My patience with this nonsense is rapidly diminishing. I'm going to bed. Night all.
jno - "Shopkeepers cannot be compelled to serve you."
Actually they can. These people refused to serve a couple because of their religious convictions and they're now being investigated by the police. Presumably jno and TCL would like to voice their support for guest house owners in this case. I mean what's the big deal, if the guest house you wanted to go to won't serve you, stop whinging and go somewhere else right?
http://www.guardian.c...le-refused-hotel-room
Actually they can. These people refused to serve a couple because of their religious convictions and they're now being investigated by the police. Presumably jno and TCL would like to voice their support for guest house owners in this case. I mean what's the big deal, if the guest house you wanted to go to won't serve you, stop whinging and go somewhere else right?
http://www.guardian.c...le-refused-hotel-room
The real issue is that the chemist will not be able to dismiss an employee who refuses to deal with a prescription because that would be seen as religious discrimination.
I believe that a person who cannot do the job should find other employment that does not conflict with their "morality".
How would it be if a muslim or jew got a job in a butcher's shop and then refused to serve pork?
I believe that a person who cannot do the job should find other employment that does not conflict with their "morality".
How would it be if a muslim or jew got a job in a butcher's shop and then refused to serve pork?
Agreed beso. If you're not prepared to serve all the products that are on sale in the shop, you should be working in a different shop.
Also, if your religious convictions mean you are going to turn certain types of people away from your hotel that you don't approve of, you shouldn't be running a hotel.
Also, if your religious convictions mean you are going to turn certain types of people away from your hotel that you don't approve of, you shouldn't be running a hotel.
ludwig, as I understand it you can refuse to serve any individual you want; you cannot refuse to serve a whole class of people on, for instance, the grounds of their sexual orientation. A publican can throw individual drunks out; he can't bar all Jews. That seems fine to me.
But since you ask, yes, I'd go somewhere else if a hotelier told me he didn't want my sort in his house.
"TCL Mumping, so you support her deceit?"
Naomi, you just made that up. You haven't the faintest idea whether there was any deceit or not, you'd just like to think there was. Another 'debate' in which the facts are simply invented.
But since you ask, yes, I'd go somewhere else if a hotelier told me he didn't want my sort in his house.
"TCL Mumping, so you support her deceit?"
Naomi, you just made that up. You haven't the faintest idea whether there was any deceit or not, you'd just like to think there was. Another 'debate' in which the facts are simply invented.
Jno- yes I do expect shop assistants to serve me with the items in their shop-it doesn't sound unreasonable to me. The world SHOULD work that way,and I'm surprised that anyone would defend someone who wouldn't serve me! 'demand that everyone do my bidding' ... er..yes,if I go into a shop to buy something I would expect to be served,why should I move house?
jno, please don't judge me by your own dubious standards. I detest lies and I don't make things up. You accuse me of having invented facts before so let me see your evidence. And you talk about insults? Clearly you are the expert in that field.
This from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain whose ruling in this instance has been maintained by the newly formed General Pharmaceutical Council.
//before accepting employment pharmacists must disclose any factors which may affect their ability to provide services. Where pharmacists religious beliefs or personal convictions prevent them from providing a service ..... they or a member of staff must advise the patient of alternative sources for the service requested.//
Since the woman in question didn't offer that information, and there was no other member of staff available to offer it, I can only conclude her employers were unaware of her religious convictions. If they had been, apart from the likelihood that they wouldn't have employed her at all, in order to conform to regulations, they would have been obliged to ensure that another member of staff who was willing either to serve the customer, or to offer the required information, was on duty with her.
cont...
This from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain whose ruling in this instance has been maintained by the newly formed General Pharmaceutical Council.
//before accepting employment pharmacists must disclose any factors which may affect their ability to provide services. Where pharmacists religious beliefs or personal convictions prevent them from providing a service ..... they or a member of staff must advise the patient of alternative sources for the service requested.//
Since the woman in question didn't offer that information, and there was no other member of staff available to offer it, I can only conclude her employers were unaware of her religious convictions. If they had been, apart from the likelihood that they wouldn't have employed her at all, in order to conform to regulations, they would have been obliged to ensure that another member of staff who was willing either to serve the customer, or to offer the required information, was on duty with her.
cont...
...cont
Beso and Ludwig, I think Lazygun hit the nail on the head when he said //By putting their religiously derived morals first, they denied a patient prescribed medication. This is unprofessional. The GphC have weaseled out of challenging this, and allowed this ridiculous situation to continue.//
This 'get out' should be challenged in the strongest terms, and abandoned immediately. The public see a pharmacist as a trusted professional, but if one member of staff is so arrogant as to assume that her religious convictions override a doctor's prescribed treatment for a patient, and take precedence over that patient's well-being, then they have no business doing the job. I made the point about dismissal in my first post. People like this woman are holding employers to ransom. As you say Ludwig, they do expect the rest of the world to work around them, and that's not only wrong, it's very wrong of the rest of the world to pussyfoot around them and let them get away with it.
ganesh, jno has it the wrong way round. It's people like this woman who demand the world do their bidding.
Beso and Ludwig, I think Lazygun hit the nail on the head when he said //By putting their religiously derived morals first, they denied a patient prescribed medication. This is unprofessional. The GphC have weaseled out of challenging this, and allowed this ridiculous situation to continue.//
This 'get out' should be challenged in the strongest terms, and abandoned immediately. The public see a pharmacist as a trusted professional, but if one member of staff is so arrogant as to assume that her religious convictions override a doctor's prescribed treatment for a patient, and take precedence over that patient's well-being, then they have no business doing the job. I made the point about dismissal in my first post. People like this woman are holding employers to ransom. As you say Ludwig, they do expect the rest of the world to work around them, and that's not only wrong, it's very wrong of the rest of the world to pussyfoot around them and let them get away with it.
ganesh, jno has it the wrong way round. It's people like this woman who demand the world do their bidding.
Naomis last point reinforces the original point that sherminator made, which was that, by refusing to fill a prescription on religious grounds, the pharmacy assistant was assuming the "insult" to their own religious convictions outweighed the need to fulfill legally prescribed medical prescription the patient was hoping to have filled. This is clearly imposing their religous convictions on others, at the expense of others.
TCL and jno have successfully erected a strawman, that the pharmacy assistant was within their rights to do so. That is possibly the case, but irrelevant to the argument, which was the original observation and comment by Sherminator regarding those with religious convictions imposing said values onto others.
It is irrelevant whether such a thing is legal or not,whether it is traditional or not - the only groups in this country that get a legal pass to discriminate against the legally held beliefs or actions of others are the religious, and its long past time that such unfairness should be abolished.The only reason that they still exist is that successive governments are equally timid when it comes to challenging faith based activities.
TCL and jno have successfully erected a strawman, that the pharmacy assistant was within their rights to do so. That is possibly the case, but irrelevant to the argument, which was the original observation and comment by Sherminator regarding those with religious convictions imposing said values onto others.
It is irrelevant whether such a thing is legal or not,whether it is traditional or not - the only groups in this country that get a legal pass to discriminate against the legally held beliefs or actions of others are the religious, and its long past time that such unfairness should be abolished.The only reason that they still exist is that successive governments are equally timid when it comes to challenging faith based activities.
naomi24 said "“I detest lies and I don't make things up. You accuse me of having invented facts before so let me see your evidence.”
Let’s go through the “facts” then.
"FACT" 1“Since the woman in question didn't offer that information”
TRUTH the customer was advised to return to the pharmacy the following day and Lloydspharmacy confirmed “,the pharmacist acted in accordance with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's Code of Ethics and Standards, which makes provision for individual pharmacists to refuse to provide services that are contrary to their religious or moral beliefs."
"FACT" 2 “and there was no other member of staff available to offer it, I can only conclude her employers were unaware of her religious convictions.”
TRUTH There is no evidence is there that they were unaware of her religious convictions?
"FACT 3" “If they had been, apart from the likelihood that they wouldn't have employed her at all,”
TRUTH The Code of Ethics allows pharmacists to hold religious or personal convictions which prevent them from providing a service so where is your evidence that they would not have employed her?
"FACT" 4 “in order to conform to regulations, they would have been obliged to ensure that another member of staff who was willing either to serve the customer, or to offer the required information, was on duty with her.”
TRUTH I have been at chemists where I have not been able to have a prescription dispensed owing to the fact that the pharmacist was on his or break, where then, does it say there must be at least two pharmacists on duty?
Let’s go through the “facts” then.
"FACT" 1“Since the woman in question didn't offer that information”
TRUTH the customer was advised to return to the pharmacy the following day and Lloydspharmacy confirmed “,the pharmacist acted in accordance with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's Code of Ethics and Standards, which makes provision for individual pharmacists to refuse to provide services that are contrary to their religious or moral beliefs."
"FACT" 2 “and there was no other member of staff available to offer it, I can only conclude her employers were unaware of her religious convictions.”
TRUTH There is no evidence is there that they were unaware of her religious convictions?
"FACT 3" “If they had been, apart from the likelihood that they wouldn't have employed her at all,”
TRUTH The Code of Ethics allows pharmacists to hold religious or personal convictions which prevent them from providing a service so where is your evidence that they would not have employed her?
"FACT" 4 “in order to conform to regulations, they would have been obliged to ensure that another member of staff who was willing either to serve the customer, or to offer the required information, was on duty with her.”
TRUTH I have been at chemists where I have not been able to have a prescription dispensed owing to the fact that the pharmacist was on his or break, where then, does it say there must be at least two pharmacists on duty?
'The 38-year-old was taken by the woman into a private room and told she was not willing to dispense the tablets on religious grounds.
Janine was told she could go to another chemist, or come back the next day when a different pharmacist would be on duty.
Furious Janine, from Wybourn, told The Star today: "She said she'd got my medications, but that she wasn't going to give me the contraceptives.
"I asked her, 'Why not?' and she said it was because it was against her religion.
"She said I could either go to the other pharmacy around the corner or come back the next day. She refused point blank to give it to me.
"I just couldn't believe it. The best bit of it is I've been prescribed the Pill not for contraception but because I've got endometriosis - but that's not the point. I shouldn't have to explain myself to her.
"I was so angry I didn't really know what to do. I think it's absolutely disgusting."'
Not even the customer has alleged that the pharmacist's views were being forced upon her
Janine was told she could go to another chemist, or come back the next day when a different pharmacist would be on duty.
Furious Janine, from Wybourn, told The Star today: "She said she'd got my medications, but that she wasn't going to give me the contraceptives.
"I asked her, 'Why not?' and she said it was because it was against her religion.
"She said I could either go to the other pharmacy around the corner or come back the next day. She refused point blank to give it to me.
"I just couldn't believe it. The best bit of it is I've been prescribed the Pill not for contraception but because I've got endometriosis - but that's not the point. I shouldn't have to explain myself to her.
"I was so angry I didn't really know what to do. I think it's absolutely disgusting."'
Not even the customer has alleged that the pharmacist's views were being forced upon her
@ TCL - What?
Which part of this narrative you quote
"Furious Janine, from Wybourn, told The Star today: "She said she'd got my medications, but that she wasn't going to give me the contraceptives.
"I asked her, 'Why not?' and she said it was because it was against her religion.
"She said I could either go to the other pharmacy around the corner or come back the next day. She refused point blank to give it to me"
How is this action NOT forcing your religiously derived moral worldview on others?
Which part of this narrative you quote
"Furious Janine, from Wybourn, told The Star today: "She said she'd got my medications, but that she wasn't going to give me the contraceptives.
"I asked her, 'Why not?' and she said it was because it was against her religion.
"She said I could either go to the other pharmacy around the corner or come back the next day. She refused point blank to give it to me"
How is this action NOT forcing your religiously derived moral worldview on others?
This society (and others) force their religeous views on people. We have religeous holidays, Sunday opening (closing) laws. I am not sure whether the conscience clause applies to prescribed medicine as distinguished from those items that can only be sold in the presence of a pharmacist....does anyone else know?
Did the pharmacist express anything about her religion other than it prevented her from dispensing contraceptives? I have not read anything that suggests she did. Did she criticize the other customer? If she were trying to force her views, why did she say go somewhere else or return to-morrow? Surely if the views were being forced, NO other option would have been offered?
ganesh, yes, you can 'expect' shopkeepers to serve you. But you need to be prepared for your expectations to be disappointed, because they don't have to. That's the way it is. Lobby your MP if you feel hard done by. Why should you move? You don't have to - unless you want to be closer to shops that suit your purpose. Totally your choice.
LazyGun, you may think the law is unfair to you (though, again, I wonder if you've ever actually experienced any of this unfairness); but I think it's fair to shopkeepers. They're people too.
LazyGun, you may think the law is unfair to you (though, again, I wonder if you've ever actually experienced any of this unfairness); but I think it's fair to shopkeepers. They're people too.
@ the mere fact that she denied a patient treatment there and then, causing embarassment ,inconvenience and frustration for the patient, as a direct consequence of their own religious convictions means they were placing the insult to their religion above the patients needs.
That, by anybodies definition is imposition of a religious worldview, and it is this sort of nonsense that needs to be ended.
That, by anybodies definition is imposition of a religious worldview, and it is this sort of nonsense that needs to be ended.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.