I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?

[sherminator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm


I find this absolutely shocking!

No question just a bit of early morning venting!

[naomi24]

It is absolutely wrong for anyone to impose their religious views on others. This is a very quick way to lose customers, and if I were the owner of the pharmacy I would refuse employment to anyone holding such opinions - and then I expect I'd be prosecuted for religious discrimination.

[lotsafun]

thats absolutley shocking!!!!!!!! can you imagine if someone needed to get something such as the morning after pill where there is a tight timeframe to get it and being refused? what next......doctors who refuse to treat you because your fat/ too thin/ugly/smelly??????

[Kakurol]

"I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?"

What planet have you been living on?

[jno]

shops can refuse to serve anyone they want. This isn't forcing anything on anyone. If they overdo it they may find themselves going out of business, but no doubt they'll have thought of this and decided the risk is worth it - in other words they're prepared to suffer for the sake of their principles.

In an age where so many people will abandon any principles in the pursuit of money (MPs, for instance), this is obviously rather unusual.

[naomi24]

This has been discussed elsewhere recently, and as I said then, no one has the right to play God with other people's lives- and they don't!

[Davethedog]

Very competative out there - Can't see it ever happening at Boots or Lloyds pharmacy.

Small business allow it they get what they deserve.

[naomi24]

jno, it isn't the shop owner's principles we're talking about - it's a staff member's principles - and now the owner has no option but to concede to those principles - and that is wrong not only for his business, but for his customers too.

[jno]

protests have of course come from the Secular Society, but I don't see a list of chemists up in arms at the idea, so I won't put on a show of outrage on their behalf. Customers will have to do what they always have to do if a shop won't sell them what they want: go to another shop.

[naomi24]

No, I'm sure you won't jno. Of course your solution completely disregards the basic principle involved here, but that aside, and looking at the practicalities of this, have you thought about people in rural areas where their nearest shop may be 5 or 10 miles away, and their next nearest 20, 30, or even more miles away? (I actually live in such a place).

It's the height of arrogance to impose personal religious views on others, especially to the extent that those views directly affect people's personal lives - and in this instance could have damaging and lasting effects. If the woman who began this had any semblence of grace, she would resign. What makes her opinion more valid than the rest?

[sherminator]

Mypoint is that forever religous nutters have claimed its their 'personal' belief and you have to respect them for it! I dont respect ANYONE that forces their questionable beliefs on other people and hers all the prrof that it still happens.

Oh and for all the religious who don't join me in condenming them for this practise, they're just as bad because they allow it within their religion.

[jno]

If people choose to live far from shops, then that's their choice. There's no law that says anyone has a right to be served by shops providing everything they want and situated within half a mile. Soviet practice might have provided for this; capitalist practice does not.

What the free market does allow for is that if there's a demand, there's an opportunity for supply; so you could open a shop selling things your fellow villagers want. What you can't do is force a chemist to sell you something he doesn't want to.

[LazyGun]

I take a diametrically opposite position to jno on this.The GphC have meekly allowed the so -called "conscience clause" to continue, whereby a pharmacist or their assistants are allowed to refuse to fill a prescription if it conflicts with their religious beliefs - in effect allowing their moral code, derived from their religious beliefs to override the medical needs of the patient.

This is unacceptable. If you are religious, then bully for you - but stop inflicting your views, opinions and morality on anyone who comes into your orbit. Your faith based opinions are anyway devalued, since, had you been brought up in a different part of the globe, you would very likely have a completely different set of evidence - free beliefs for a very different deity.
Centuries old, faith based opinion and morality is no more worthy of deference or respect than the imperious pliants of a child demanding attention, and any modern, professional body of scientists should recognise this.

[jno]

LazyGun, any shop can refuse to serve anyone, any time. Shopkeepers have rights.

[LazyGun]

@jno - There is a big difference between refusing to sell someone a screwdriver say or a can of beans, because you dont like they way they look ,or act, or smell, or perhaps you are just feeling bilious at that particular moment, and a health professional, your "friendly trusted scientist on the high street" as they like to present themselves, refusing to provide someone with the contraceptive pill or the morning after pill because your religiously derived moral code disapproves of their lifestyle.

[mike11111]

Precisely! Shopkeepers have rights as well as customers, and if a shopkeeper wishes to promote his principles against the potential loss of custom, then that is up to him. I am always amazed at the 'self-righteous' approach of the National Secular Society, which seems to direct its venom solely against the Christian religion. I have never yet seen it argue in print that Halal or Kosher butchers should be forced to sell pork. Anyone smell the whiff of hypocrisy here??

[naomi24]

jno, considerate as always, I see.

Mike, the incident that led to this wasn't down to the shopkeeper's principles, but he is now obliged to abide by the principles of any member of staff who thinks the same way as the woman who refused to serve the prescribed medication. If he fires her because she refuses to fulfil the duties she was employed to carry out, there is every possibility that he will be accused of unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination. Quite frankly, everyone must be aware that working in a pharmacy involves selling contraceptives, or in the case of a qualified pharmacist, filling prescriptions for contraceptives. Therefore, if this woman's religious convictions were so strong, then she should never have applied for a job in a pharmacy in the first place. I wonder if she came clean about her attitude to contraception at her job interview? Somehow I doubt it. The fact is, if the customer had needed her contraceptive pills urgently, then the action of that member of staff could have affected her life - and possibly the life of an unwanted child - for all time - but that wouldn't have been the shop assistant's problem would it? People have no right whatsoever to impose their religious beliefs on anyone - regardless of what they happen to believe.

[Ankou]

well put mike.

the conscience clause has been around for years and is aimed at 'conscience' so it relates to any objection whethe faith based or not. its a bit like saying all the conscientious objectors who had any religious affiliation wre just cwards who deserved to be court marshalled and shot.

"Conscience" is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect, that distinguishes whether one's prospective actions are right or wrong by reference to norms (principles and rules) or values.

[jno]

LazyGun, in the eyes of the law there is no difference. A shopkeeper can refuse to sell anything to anyone for any reason and he doesn't have to say what the reason is. Ankou's summing up of 'conscience' - particularly the point that it need have nothing to do with religion - seems perfectly fair, and I'm happy that shopkeepers and their assistants are allowed to have one and to act on it.

After all, I wouldn't want to force my religious views on anyone.

[naomi24]

jno, no you don't force YOUR religious views on people - you simply support anyone else who does.

[TCL-MUMPING]

"It's the height of arrogance to impose personal religious views on others, especially to the extent that those views directly affect people's personal lives - and in this instance could have damaging and lasting effects. If the woman who began this had any semblence of grace, she would resign. What makes her opinion more valid than the rest? "

Are you not seeking to impose your own opinion on religion by suggesting she resign? The point is that personal religious beliefs are allowed and even if there were transport problems, the internet could be used.