David Freddoso notes that a federal judge in Washington state has suspended the law mandating that pharmacists sell the "morning-after" pill, which can be abortifacent in that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus. If you believe human life and moral personhood begin at conception, this pill causes the moral equivalent of an abortion. Some Christian pharmacists prefer not to sell it for that reason. Washington state wanted to take away that option.
That anyone should be forced by the government to sell anything — even aspirin — seems an extremely difficult argument to make. But this sort of compulsion is required in order to drive all believing Christians out of the medical professions, and this is the goal of some liberals. Recall Mayor Michael Bloomberg's push to make all medical students at New York City hospitals perform abortions as part of their training — it's nothing short of a filter for certain kinds of people.The push to guarantee continued unlimited legal abortion and "reproductive rights" comes only at the expense of property rights and freedom of conscience (or in this case both). If you don't care about this issue now, you should think again.
I think this is exactly right. Would you support a state law forcing an observant Muslim or Orthodox Jewish shopkeeper to sell pork and alcohol, two legal products? I wouldn't -- even though in neither case would the hypothetical shopkeeper be compelled to participate in what he believed to be the taking of a human life. I don't think a teetotaling merchant should be compelled to sell alcohol. Nor a hardware store owner who objects to handguns be forced by law to sell handguns. Nor a merchant who wants a Free Tibet be forced to sell Chinese merchandise, though how on earth he would stock his shelves, I don't know.
The point is there's an important principle of conscience at stake here. Can anybody think of another product that a merchant is compelled by law to sell? Are we really so dead-set on protecting the sexual revolution that we are willing to run roughshod over a merchant's freedom of conscience? Given that this is a matter of life and death to pharmacists who believe life begins at conception, I would favor a law protecting their freedom of conscience, actually. But inasmuch as that law is not on the books now, I see nothing to compel a pharmacy owner from firing an employee who refused, on conscience grounds, to sell the morning-after pill. But that's a different issue from a pharmacist being compelled by law to commit an act that violates his conscience.
Let me ask ye who disagree: should there be a law compelling bookstores, even Islamic, Jewish or atheist ones, to stock the King James Bible on their shelves?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I notice Scrappy seems to have bowed out of the conversation. I wonder why?
"To what degree do are people allowed religious accomodations when it comes to intrinsic, and forseeable elements of their job?"
It should be complete, no one should be forced within a job to do anything against their religion. And now the other shoe drops: a company should be allowed to reassign or release someone who can not perform the position necessary if those requirements are there. A person gets to determine what job they take, this isn't the only job out there, there should not have to be compunction on either side. Using your example, would you find a Muslim or Hindu working in a butcher shop? This was a gut reaction and would be happy to reevaluate on the basis of additional insight.
"By the way, yes, the STATE did say those cabbies HAD to transport customers as long as what was in their baggage was legal. Same goes for cashiers."
I think we're confusing that the State isn't going to be right about everything. A cab driver should be allowed to refuse passage to a person. It is then up to the cab company to determine if the person's actions are acceptable to the company's policies. Those policies are to be in compliance with the law, and then to the company's best interests (namely, creating value). If the company determines that the cab driver's individual policy, much like poor driving or inappropriate language, is bad for business, why should they not be allowed to redirect or release the employee?
We talk about making exceptions within a framework for a person's religion...shouldn't the person's religion dictate that they can't do something?
Again, I'd be very happy to hear more about this.
It should be complete, no one should be forced within a job to do anything against their religion.
First, barring drafting, nobody is compelled to do anything in any job. They aren't compelled to do that job at all. It is expecting to keep the job and to keep getting paid while not doing what they were hired to do that is at issue.
And now the other shoe drops: a company should be allowed to reassign or release someone who can not perform the position necessary if those requirements are there. A person gets to determine what job they take, this isn't the only job out there, there should not have to be compunction on either side. Using your example, would you find a Muslim or Hindu working in a butcher shop? This was a gut reaction and would be happy to reevaluate on the basis of additional insight.
Well, Hindus, no. Muslims, yes. If they are 'halal' (Kinda like 'kosher'. Indeed, there'd be no halal meat if SOMEONE Muslim didn't work in a butcher shop.) This isn't a butcher shop, though. This is a job in which there are elements that are not contrary to their faith, but there are regular elements to the job that ARE. Not exceptional, not unforseeable.
If the deal was 'you don't want to do the whole job due to your qualms', then don't take the job or take another', then there'd be no argument. The issue is people who want exceptions to their job descriptions based on their personal beliefs. And to use their beliefs to deny other people legally available goods and services. While continuing to keep their job and draw their paycheck, and be protected from any recourse from either employers or customers.
I think we're confusing that the State isn't going to be right about everything. A cab driver should be allowed to refuse passage to a person. It is then up to the cab company to determine if the person's actions are acceptable to the company's policies. Those policies are to be in compliance with the law, and then to the company's best interests (namely, creating value). If the company determines that the cab driver's individual policy, much like poor driving or inappropriate language, is bad for business, why should they not be allowed to redirect or release the employee?
That was the point. The State was saying they DO have that right. And to refuse to transport customers for not conforming to their religious beliefs was discriminating against the CUSTOMER based on religion. It is the same as refusing to transport, for instances, female customers, or customers of a particular race. The whole case was based on could the COMPANY tell the cabbie they had to transport or.. lose their job.
So, based on your own definition, no force was used. The only consequence is.. not getting paid. Which seems fair if you are NOT doing your job.
We talk about making exceptions within a framework for a person's religion...shouldn't the person's religion dictate that they can't do something?
Absolutely.
It is demanding to get paid in the meantime, while NOT doing something you were hired to do, that is the issue.
KHC,
"It should be complete, no one should be forced within a job to do anything against their religion."
Hmm, I can't think of one religion that teaches it is "immoral" to dispense pharmaceuticals and medical devices. I know some religions that forbid a person using them (eg. birth control) but that reverts back to who's freedoms are (or are not) being abrogated. If a person, because of his/her beliefs, thinks using BC is "immoral", then that person should not use BC. They cannot, nor should they be allowed to, make that decision for other people.
"A cab driver should be allowed to refuse passage to a person."
Based on what, exactly? I think you answered it yourself with your words: "It is then up to the cab company to determine if the person's actions are acceptable to the company's policies. Those policies are to be in compliance with the law".
I don't think any cab company has a policy that forbids a passenger from carrying a bottle of alcohol or a package of pork. Such "policies" would definitely NOT be in compliance with the law.
"shouldn't the person's religion dictate that they can't do something?"
Absolutely - when it comes to their own actions (eg. USING BC). That person's religion cannot "dictate" what other people, specifically (but not limited to) people of OTHER religions. It is NOT against my religion to consume (or even carry) alcohol. No cab driver is ever going to tell me I can't. It's none of his business.
An interesting take. Let's move this to the next level. To me, the war in Iraq is a moral issue. It conflicts with the tenets of my religious beliefs. Yet the government forces me to pay taxes to support that war effort.
Rod, should I be able to avoid paying taxes to support the war in Iraq? I mean, if a pharmacist cannot be forced to sell a pill that he/she believes might end a life, why should I be forced to work several months of my life to pay the taxes that support the guaranteed ending of many lives?
Or am I stuck, unlike the pharmacist in your example, with either obeying the law or finding another place to live?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.