Shopping & Style3 mins 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.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Sorry to digress from the current, I went away for a bit and I have to answer a point jno made about 40 replies ago.
//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//
But they are discriminating against a whole class of people. The class of people who want to buy birth control products. Effectively what they're saying is, 'I don't approve of what you're going to do with this product, so I'm not going to let you have it'.
In exactly the same way as the hotel people are saying 'We don't approve of what you might get up to in that double bed, so we're not going to let you have it'.
I think if the shop has something on sale, then it should make sure that that there is always someone available who is prepared to serve the product.
Or if not there should at least be fair warning of the possible offense you are about to suffer - a sign on the door saying 'Please be aware this shop may decline to serve certain products at certain times depending on the moral convictions of the staff'.
Surely neither of the above would be unreasonable, and preferable to the current situation where people can be refused prescription medicine for no good reason.
//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//
But they are discriminating against a whole class of people. The class of people who want to buy birth control products. Effectively what they're saying is, 'I don't approve of what you're going to do with this product, so I'm not going to let you have it'.
In exactly the same way as the hotel people are saying 'We don't approve of what you might get up to in that double bed, so we're not going to let you have it'.
I think if the shop has something on sale, then it should make sure that that there is always someone available who is prepared to serve the product.
Or if not there should at least be fair warning of the possible offense you are about to suffer - a sign on the door saying 'Please be aware this shop may decline to serve certain products at certain times depending on the moral convictions of the staff'.
Surely neither of the above would be unreasonable, and preferable to the current situation where people can be refused prescription medicine for no good reason.
birdie if you were a devout jew, then this would probably be made clear in your application, then the question would be asked, would you handle/sell pork to customers. if no, then you don't get the job because it would be a job specific requirement.
if you don't state your religious beliefs and the implications of that to the role then any claim based on those grounds afterward, would be disregarded and you would be dismissed.
i feel that you are probably also missing tcl's musings and sadly this lkike many other threads in r+s is descending into the ususal 'answer my question' crap and general insults/put downs and dismissive statements as a way of counter-debate.
if you don't state your religious beliefs and the implications of that to the role then any claim based on those grounds afterward, would be disregarded and you would be dismissed.
i feel that you are probably also missing tcl's musings and sadly this lkike many other threads in r+s is descending into the ususal 'answer my question' crap and general insults/put downs and dismissive statements as a way of counter-debate.
TCL Mumping, let's stop beating around the bush here and get to the real issue. As far as I recall, I've had two conversations with you - this one, and one concerning banning the burka in security situations to ensure that Muslim women are not afforded the preferential treatment they currently enjoy, but are subjected to the same rules as the rest of society. On both occasions you have vehemently defended the religious. In fact the last time you had the audacity to raise a sickeningly nonsensical argument regarding the disabled, as though their genuine special needs in everyday life are in some way equivalent to the choices made by the burka shrouded ladies (and it is a choice since they are not required by their religion to cover their faces, so religion is actually no justification). Now, I don't know if your determined defence applies only to Muslims, or whether it extends to other religions too, but I've asked you several times to tell me why anyone should concede to someone else's religious convictions, and you've consistently ignored me.
The fact is - and it is a fact - no one should be affected in any way whatsoever by someone else's religious beliefs. On this occasion, if the patient's doctor prescribed medication that the customer was happy to take, then no one had the right to deny her that medication - for any reason.
continued...
The fact is - and it is a fact - no one should be affected in any way whatsoever by someone else's religious beliefs. On this occasion, if the patient's doctor prescribed medication that the customer was happy to take, then no one had the right to deny her that medication - for any reason.
continued...
...continued
From reading your posts I'm led to believe that your real problem is that you object to anyone criticising religion in any way whatsoever. Well, all I can say is tough, because religion, especially when taken to these extremes, deserves to be criticised. How dare you assume that anyone's religious convictions take precedence over the wishes and requirements of another human being? If you want to believe in fairies, that's your choice - but don't expect everyone else to respect that belief, and certainly not to the extent that it affects their own lives. No one should be inconvenienced in any way by another's religious beliefs and you have no right whatsoever to demand it. To do so is arrogance in the extreme.
Now tell me why anyone should concede to someone else's religious convictions.
From reading your posts I'm led to believe that your real problem is that you object to anyone criticising religion in any way whatsoever. Well, all I can say is tough, because religion, especially when taken to these extremes, deserves to be criticised. How dare you assume that anyone's religious convictions take precedence over the wishes and requirements of another human being? If you want to believe in fairies, that's your choice - but don't expect everyone else to respect that belief, and certainly not to the extent that it affects their own lives. No one should be inconvenienced in any way by another's religious beliefs and you have no right whatsoever to demand it. To do so is arrogance in the extreme.
Now tell me why anyone should concede to someone else's religious convictions.
If a person’s beliefs and practices are such that Parliament has not decreed that they are of such extremity that they are unacceptable to those in this country, why are you not able to tolerate those beliefs and practices?
We all have a belief in something, religious or otherwise. We use that belief in order to establish what is right, wrong or tolerable. In the case of two opposing views, a decision has to be given as to which has the greater justification. In the case in hand, a customer was prescribed a medicine which would help her condition. The pharmacist refused to issue that medicine as it went against her strong religious beliefs. Parliament and the society representing that pharmacist have decreed that her beliefs take precedence over the need of the customer.
If a person has strong beliefs but encourages another to contradict those beliefs, is that not hypocritical?
As for thinking that "an individual's religious convictions trump all legal and moral codes." the fact of the matter IS that the legal code confirms the pharmacist's right of refusal.
We all have a belief in something, religious or otherwise. We use that belief in order to establish what is right, wrong or tolerable. In the case of two opposing views, a decision has to be given as to which has the greater justification. In the case in hand, a customer was prescribed a medicine which would help her condition. The pharmacist refused to issue that medicine as it went against her strong religious beliefs. Parliament and the society representing that pharmacist have decreed that her beliefs take precedence over the need of the customer.
If a person has strong beliefs but encourages another to contradict those beliefs, is that not hypocritical?
As for thinking that "an individual's religious convictions trump all legal and moral codes." the fact of the matter IS that the legal code confirms the pharmacist's right of refusal.
After the recent occurences of nurses being suspended for offering to pray for patients and other incidences of people being reprimanded for wearing religious items (cross and sikh bracelets). These people were not harming others but a pharmacist has a duty of care to their patients and by not supplying certain medication to patiens they are not fulfilling this duty of care.
TCL Mumping, so your answer to my question is 'because the rules say so'. Well, I can't help feeling you're ducking the real issue again, but you're wrong to say that the rules give religious beliefs precedence over the needs of a patient. They don't. Common sense should tell you that such a ruling would be simply ridiculous, not least because it would contravene the law of the land. If, indeed, our lily-livered rule makers were to issue such a decree, it would have to be done with complete disregard for the Human Rights Act - and even they aren't stupid enough to do that.
The ruling does not give the religious carte blanche to refuse to serve a customer. It carries with it certain conditions, and here are some of them.
//Ensure that if your religious or moral beliefs prevent you from providing a particular professional service, the relevant persons or authorities are informed of this and patients are referred to alternative providers for the service they require.
Recognise diversity and respect the cultural differences, values and beliefs of others.
Make sure your views about a person’s lifestyle, beliefs, race, gender, age, sexuality, disability or other perceived status do not prejudice their treatment or care.//
You ask why I am unable to tolerate those beliefs and practices. I'm tempted to ask 'why should I?', but since I know I'm not going to get an honest answer from you, suffice to say that as a Godless atheist, I have principles and a human moral and ethical code that involves caring for others, and protecting their interests as well as my own. I know you won't have a clue what I'm talking about, and I know that my irreligious philosophy is not going to get me a pass into paradise, but from what I've seen of religion and the callous and selfish attitudes of those who defend it so arrogantly, I think I can live very happily with that pleasant notion.
The ruling does not give the religious carte blanche to refuse to serve a customer. It carries with it certain conditions, and here are some of them.
//Ensure that if your religious or moral beliefs prevent you from providing a particular professional service, the relevant persons or authorities are informed of this and patients are referred to alternative providers for the service they require.
Recognise diversity and respect the cultural differences, values and beliefs of others.
Make sure your views about a person’s lifestyle, beliefs, race, gender, age, sexuality, disability or other perceived status do not prejudice their treatment or care.//
You ask why I am unable to tolerate those beliefs and practices. I'm tempted to ask 'why should I?', but since I know I'm not going to get an honest answer from you, suffice to say that as a Godless atheist, I have principles and a human moral and ethical code that involves caring for others, and protecting their interests as well as my own. I know you won't have a clue what I'm talking about, and I know that my irreligious philosophy is not going to get me a pass into paradise, but from what I've seen of religion and the callous and selfish attitudes of those who defend it so arrogantly, I think I can live very happily with that pleasant notion.
Ankou, as usual your reasoning is at fault. Yes, after a long battle I got Boots to stop selling magnetic bracelets (after stocks run out) because it seemed to me a con of the customer for a respectable pharmacist to sell quackery. This had nothing to do with my "conscience", but simple scientific fact: the claims made for the bracelets were false.
I would never have accepted a job which required me to be a charlatan. Your image of my waving fists at customers is just daft. There are no double standards here.
I agree that good manners and concern for one's fellow humans should overcome religious prejudices - especially when, like this one, the prejudice has no basis in the scriptures.
I would never have accepted a job which required me to be a charlatan. Your image of my waving fists at customers is just daft. There are no double standards here.
I agree that good manners and concern for one's fellow humans should overcome religious prejudices - especially when, like this one, the prejudice has no basis in the scriptures.
There are a lot of posts here about the legality of the situation and the pharmacist staying true to her conscience - but surely that sums it all up. Most decent people of whatever religious belief wouldn't in all good conscience, apply for a job they were not prepared to do. Surely her conscience towards helping her fellow man should come ahead of her conscience serving her god? Or am I just being naive....?
You said you protect the interests of others as well as your own which implies they are not always shared interests. A man needs £50,000 to pay for a private operation for his wife, without the operation she will die and he has no immediate resource to that money. You work in a bank and are close friends with the man and his wife. You know a fool-proof way of obtaining the money from the bank with no risk to you whatsoever. Would you take that money?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics18 mins ago
News29 mins ago
Crosswords33 mins ago
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.