Technology1 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.
The fact of the matter is that, as an assistant in a pharmacy she would have known that she would have to sell contraceptive medication from time to time. She would have known this when she accepted the position. She clearly did not make her moral and/or religious objections known to her employers. If she had done, this situation would never have arisen.
Therefore she failed to disclose a material fact that affected her ability to carry out the duties for which she had been employed.
Not only is this dishonest, it could also be argued that she has committed fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. For the last 4 years it has been a criminal offence to obtain a job by either telling lies to a potential employer or failing to disclose to a potential employer that you are unwilling or incapable of carrying out the duties for which you obtain pecuniary reward.
The people on this thread who agree with this woman's actions clearly believe that deliberate dishonesty is something that should be supported and even celebrated.
By the way, I am curious to know what religion this woman is shacked to. Can anyone tell me?
Therefore she failed to disclose a material fact that affected her ability to carry out the duties for which she had been employed.
Not only is this dishonest, it could also be argued that she has committed fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. For the last 4 years it has been a criminal offence to obtain a job by either telling lies to a potential employer or failing to disclose to a potential employer that you are unwilling or incapable of carrying out the duties for which you obtain pecuniary reward.
The people on this thread who agree with this woman's actions clearly believe that deliberate dishonesty is something that should be supported and even celebrated.
By the way, I am curious to know what religion this woman is shacked to. Can anyone tell me?
Naomi – Give it up. You're wasting your time and probably ruining your keyboard on a person who, in an attempt to declare that religion is entitled to impose its will on others, has lost touch with the difference between right and wrong and cannot differentiate between honesty and dishonesty.
TCL-MUMPING – I've just had the misfortune to read your “Theft vs Life Saving Operation” dilemma. You really don't understand a thing Naomi writes; a conclusion she has also arrived at.
I wonder why you're so willing to defend this person's actions. Could it be that you both share the same religious belief, necessitating your unflinching defence?
I suspect that the answer is yes.
That being the case, it's probably reasonable to assume that you feel that you have no choice but to defend her and you will do so regardless of all facts, logic, morality and legal arguements.
TCL-MUMPING – I've just had the misfortune to read your “Theft vs Life Saving Operation” dilemma. You really don't understand a thing Naomi writes; a conclusion she has also arrived at.
I wonder why you're so willing to defend this person's actions. Could it be that you both share the same religious belief, necessitating your unflinching defence?
I suspect that the answer is yes.
That being the case, it's probably reasonable to assume that you feel that you have no choice but to defend her and you will do so regardless of all facts, logic, morality and legal arguements.
The lady (and in this case I use that term loosely) behind the counter is refusing to provide a service that any customer would reasonably expect to be provided and which is indeed a service customarily provide by reasonable people in her position. But this particular 'lady' who is apparently suddenly overcome with guilt at the prospect of doing her job sees fit to impose her beliefs and subject this customer to the whims of her invisible friend discretely concealed within the pages of her black book of grim fairy tales. Let's all just face the facts here. There's no argument to be won here when the standard by which the truth of this situation must be ascertained is to be oblivious to the absurdity of it all.
At this point we can only hope that those placed in the position of resolving this ridiculous matter are not now thumbing through the pages of their black book of grim fairy tales in search of guidance, a possibility I am not prepared to wager against.
At this point we can only hope that those placed in the position of resolving this ridiculous matter are not now thumbing through the pages of their black book of grim fairy tales in search of guidance, a possibility I am not prepared to wager against.
birdie, I believe the woman in question is Muslim.
I find it quite incredible that any human being can smugly say, albeit wrongly, that //Parliament and the society representing that pharmacist have decreed that her beliefs take precedence over the need of the customer//, as though that somehow validates his argument and vindicates this woman. I'm convinced he hasn't the foggiest idea what it means to possess decent human values, but if that's the impact that religion has on the human intellect, then all I can say is 'thank God(?) I'm Godless!'
I have given the argument up, Birdie. As Mibs says, there is no argument. I only hope for TCL Mumping's sake that Buddhism doesn't turn out to be the one true religion, because if it does he has a long and arduous road ahead of him. ;o)
I find it quite incredible that any human being can smugly say, albeit wrongly, that //Parliament and the society representing that pharmacist have decreed that her beliefs take precedence over the need of the customer//, as though that somehow validates his argument and vindicates this woman. I'm convinced he hasn't the foggiest idea what it means to possess decent human values, but if that's the impact that religion has on the human intellect, then all I can say is 'thank God(?) I'm Godless!'
I have given the argument up, Birdie. As Mibs says, there is no argument. I only hope for TCL Mumping's sake that Buddhism doesn't turn out to be the one true religion, because if it does he has a long and arduous road ahead of him. ;o)
Arguing with the religious is futile because the premis of their philosophy is that ther values are beyond question. They seek guidance from a God they belive an be contacted by internalising their search for truth.
Of course they are actually consulting with nothing more than their entrenched beliefs which is why religious beliefs are unavoidably stangnant and prone to fascist interpretation. The doctrine proliferates by being inflicted upon children and throughout history to this day has frequently asserted itself through violence against all doubters.
Of course they are actually consulting with nothing more than their entrenched beliefs which is why religious beliefs are unavoidably stangnant and prone to fascist interpretation. The doctrine proliferates by being inflicted upon children and throughout history to this day has frequently asserted itself through violence against all doubters.
ludwig, if you're still around: 'People who want birth-control products' aren't really a class of people, at least not in the eyes of the law. The groupings the state wishes to see protected are generally along the lines of race, religion and sexual orientation. While it might be reasonable to have a notice saying 'You might not get birth-control products here', that would be a courtesy rather than a necessity, since it's what the law allows anyway.
Some posters here are insisting it's 'not about the legality' of the issue. But it is: the law allows the assistant to act as she did, and they say this should be banned. In other words, they want the law changed. Specifically, they want it changed to enforce their own views rather than the assistant's. They're welcome to argue this line, but the law has actually considered the matter and come down on the other side.
Some posters here are insisting it's 'not about the legality' of the issue. But it is: the law allows the assistant to act as she did, and they say this should be banned. In other words, they want the law changed. Specifically, they want it changed to enforce their own views rather than the assistant's. They're welcome to argue this line, but the law has actually considered the matter and come down on the other side.
jno, I don't know if there is actually a 'law' that states that this woman acted within her rights, as you claim, but I have my doubts because whilst such a law would protect the rights of the pharmacist to act upon her religious convictions, it would at the same time deny the rights of the patient to obtain the medication prescribed by her doctor. However, the governing body has certainly laid down regulations that allow this woman to refuse to serve a customer, but on condition that she conforms to certain provisos. If she did indeed conform to those provisos, and carried out her duties as her employer, a major high street pharmacy, was aware she was going to, then I have to ask why the patient had cause for complaint, and why the company has launched an investigation that is still on-going? Something is very clearly wrong here. Anyway, that aside, what you and TCL Mumping are determined to fail to acknowledge is that this isn't about the legality of the issue. If the law were genuinely the yardstick by which you set your principles, which is what you're clearly saying here, then you two would no doubt have supported the law that sentenced children to death for stealing a loaf of bread even though that was morally wrong too. I think you are very well aware that this is a question of morals, and that this is precisely what the people here are talking about, but you've consistently and purposefully evaded the fundamental issue by focussing your argument upon a perceived 'law'. I've asked a similar question to the one below several times, but since I've received no response, I'll ask it again.
Tell me why, morally, anyone should be denied prescription medicine, or inconvenienced in any way at all for that matter, because of someone else's religious convictions?
Tell me why, morally, anyone should be denied prescription medicine, or inconvenienced in any way at all for that matter, because of someone else's religious convictions?
Once again, jno is arguing a straw man. Dont let him get away with it. The Original post was " Ithought the religious dont force their views on other people?". Brought about by the story that the pharmacy assistant had refused to fill part of a prescription because it violated the pharmacy assistants religious convictions.
This absolutely is ( and don't let jno or TCL tell you otherwise, or deflect you from this central point) puttiing the religious sensiblilities of a shop assistant ahead of a legally prescribed medication of a patient, causing stress, frustration, embarrassment and no small amount of irritation to the patient in the process.
Shame on the GphC for allowing such an outmoded and ridiculous clause to continue.
This absolutely is ( and don't let jno or TCL tell you otherwise, or deflect you from this central point) puttiing the religious sensiblilities of a shop assistant ahead of a legally prescribed medication of a patient, causing stress, frustration, embarrassment and no small amount of irritation to the patient in the process.
Shame on the GphC for allowing such an outmoded and ridiculous clause to continue.
“I find it quite incredible that any human being can smugly say, albeit wrongly, that //Parliament and the society representing that pharmacist have decreed that her beliefs take precedence over the need of the customer// “
I am wrong am I? Are you sure about that? With regard to the legality, this is what the Code states, “The Code of Ethics sets out the principles that you must follow as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician. The Code is the Society’s core guidance on the conduct, practice and professional performance expected of you. It is designed to meet our obligations under The Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 and other relevant legislation.”
“The principles of the Code of Ethics are mandatory. As a registered pharmacist or pharmacy technician your professional and personal conduct will be judged against the Code. You must abide by its principles irrespective of the job you do.”
On previous occasions, pharmacists have refused to issue a prescription before due to religious beliefs, if it's illegal, how many successful prosecutions have there been as a result?
I am wrong am I? Are you sure about that? With regard to the legality, this is what the Code states, “The Code of Ethics sets out the principles that you must follow as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician. The Code is the Society’s core guidance on the conduct, practice and professional performance expected of you. It is designed to meet our obligations under The Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 and other relevant legislation.”
“The principles of the Code of Ethics are mandatory. As a registered pharmacist or pharmacy technician your professional and personal conduct will be judged against the Code. You must abide by its principles irrespective of the job you do.”
On previous occasions, pharmacists have refused to issue a prescription before due to religious beliefs, if it's illegal, how many successful prosecutions have there been as a result?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV12 mins ago
Is Technology Ruining The Game Of...
Sport17 mins ago
What Standard Of Football Does The...
Sport19 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.