May 05, 2006
"The customer's always right", or not
This is based on a true story although a few of the details have been changed: When a diner at a Seattle restaurant ordered a New York Strip Steak from the menu, the waitress refused to serve him. Why? She is an animal rights activist and member of PETA and insisted that she is morally unable to serve meat. Instead, she referred the customer to another restaurant.
The waitress' union is not only defending the waitress in this instance, but also insists generally that restaurant wait staff should have the professional discretion to refuse to serve menu items that they find morally objectionable.
UPDATE: As I wrote at top "This is based on a true story although a few of the details have been changed". As many of you figured out, there is no actual case involving a waitress refusing to serve steak (at least none that I'm aware of), this is really about the controversy involving pharmacists refusing to fill certain prescriptions. Naturally, many readers find the actual pharmacists' moral objections more compelling than those of the hypothetical waitress. I'm inclined to agree with those who commented that if a customer seeks to purchase a legal product that the vendor wishes to sell, the vendor's employees are obligated to sell the product. An employee who is morally unable to serve her customer a legal product owes it to everyone involved to get a different job.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 05, 2006
10:26 AM | Email This
Let's all go out to eat today and order a steak on behalf of PETA. In fact, I think I'm going to order the surf and turf so I can sample the best of land and sea meat.
PETA is a bunch of environmental, anti-human crazies. They want nature as long as it does not include human beings and our enjoyment. It's OK when a frog eats a mosquito, but not OK when a human eats a cow. Just like it's OK when Patrick Kennedy has an accident, but it's not OK when Dick Cheney has an accident.
Let's keep exposing these monsters for what they are, anti-human Marxists that are bent on destroying capitalism and the individualist American spirit.
2. You are kidding. No?
I would have refered the waitress to another employer.
If she does not want to serve what is on the menu then she can open her own place.
4. This is a tounge-in-cheek jab at pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, you dolts, not a news item about hippie waitresses.
5. I suspect we're really talking about pharmacists here.
1. The "waitress" (I bet she's really into her
job) certainly has the right to act like an idiot.
2. The employer certainly has the right to dismiss her on the spot.
3. Unions are the handmaiden's of the devil
7. 1 Only in Silly Seattle will the ludites say this w/ a straight face
2 Based upon this logic pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions, and we can refuse to work w/ individuals and groups we "find morally objectionable".
She doesn't have to serve it, and the restaurant doesn't have to keep her as an employee, and you don't have to go there.
People should be allowed to do whatever they want.
What restaurant is this? I am never going to it.
"For every animal you don't eat, I am going to eat 3"
There is this great website that sells a great T-shirt with this logo on it.
Interesting.the same people who defend her would think nothing of complaining about a pharmacist who didn't "Feel comfortable" selling an abortion pill to a 'patron'.
In fact, in each example, it really depends on what the OWNER thinks. If the OWNER of the restaurant wants to sell meat, then this gal should find work elsewhere.
If a drugstore owner wants to sell the abortion pill, then an employee who objects ought to find work elsewhere, too. The union is wrong to defend this gal. THEY are wrong. When she starts signing the checks to pay workers at the restaurant, then maybe I'll care what she thinks!
10. Put the name of the supposed biz out here or the baloney flags will waive. Who gives a rats patoot about the union. I would have contacted the owner and DEMAND her big bleeding PETA butt be FIRED!
11. A liberal cousin of mine recently asked my opinion on the whole pharmacist thing, and I'll say here basically the same thing I told her.
The "waitress" has the right to take whatever moral stand she wants. However, there may be consequences of that moral stand (such as losing one's job) and she most certainly does not have the right to be free of said consequences.
To respond more directly to the proposed scenario, I would also add that the union has no right to decide what "waitresses" are allowed to do or not do in the course of performing their job. That right belongs to the employer. If the employer says they have the right to exercise their "professional discretion" at will, then they do. And if customers have a problem with it, they will go somewhere else.
The analogy between someone dispensing medication intended to kill a human and someone serving the flesh of a dead animal really doesn't hold in my opinion. It's not even as close as an analogy between hunting animals vs. hunting humans would be.
That said, I conclude that in both cases, just as Jason Woodruff said above, she is free to work somewhere else, the owner/manager should be able to get rid of her, and of course any patron could take their business elsewhere.
13. Non-Beef eaters can join the non-smokers out in the beer garden. See you there, with my double bacon cheese and camel straight.
Reminds me of the pharmacists who don't want to prescribe some medicines due to "ethics."
It would seem like she would get fired from her job though if the manager was called over. And if not, why would anyone go there.
The only way you can legitimately compare the two is if the are both employees or both business owners.
Employees should be fired for not doing their job. If they are the owners, take your business elseware.
Seems pretty simple to me.
16. In fact, in each example, it really depends on what the OWNER thinks. If the OWNER of the restaurant wants to sell meat, then this gal should find work elsewhere.
Yes, and if the owner allows her and others to do this....well I guess they don't really have meat on the menu. However, it doesn't sound like a real story.
When I was working as a cook at a certain locally based chain-restaurant with a big red bird as it's mascot while going to college, I had a coworker who was an ardent vegan/animal rights/PETA type. One day he started picking my brain about my views and kinda started going off about animal testing and treating animals humanely and eating meat is bad and all that... all the while laying down about a half dozen raw burger patties on the broiler. I looked at him and asked if he felt so strongly about it, didn't he feel the least bit hypocritical by the fact that he was doing the very thing he preached against.
"Yeah, well, it pays the bills."
If this "waitress" had issues serving "meat" and she got another "waitress" to help the customer and the "restaurant" owner was okay with it, more power to her. Otherwise, as much I may agree with her, unless she owns the "restaurant", she works for someone else, and if part of her job description when she was hired was to serve "meat", then if she doesn't like, she needs to either open her own place up or go work for a place that won't require her to serve "meat".
18. Back in the days of the fur warehouse protests the gals that were arrested would not even use toothpaste in jail 'because it had been tested on animals' and they were content to sit it out. The guys on the other hand were only too happy to bail out as soon as their mommy or daddy threw bail. They were not at the protests to further any cause other than to get some easy ____.
Oops, that should have read:
"...as much I may or may not agree with her..."
Hey, this is just the beginning. Somehow (ok it's our education system and newsmedia) these morons got the idea that the have a RIGHT, "to not be offended". This is just the latest incident to make it public.
I was looking for a mole trap. I wanted the scissor type one, like my parents have, since I know it works. This salesperson (male) said to me, "You don't want that one, it is too cruel." I told him, "No, I did want that one. Since my wife bought the one that someone here recommended and it don't work!". It was nice to watch his face turn red.
21. It would be OK if the owner of the restaurant refused to put steak on the menu because of his personal beliefs. It is not OK for one of his employees to refuse to take orders for what is on the menu because of her personal beliefs. It is also straightforward to apply this logic to pharmacists. If the pharmacist is the head-honcho person in charge of the phar.macy (which they usually are because of their training and licensing) then they can decide what to sell and what not to sell based on their personal/professional beliefs. A clerk in the phar.macy that works for the pharmacists has no such right to make these choices.
22. And lest I be accused as a hypocritical neocon wingnut by a moonbat commenter, I'd say the same thing if this were about pharmicists. PETA and the Anti-Abortion crowd are aligned. In both cases, they want to use the government to limit humans. Some may disagree with abortion, but for now it is legal, and a business has a right to sell steak or abortion pills and to hire people who will do so gladly.
23. Maybe, just maybe, union waitresses, the ones with functioning brains, will unceremoniously DUMP their beyond idiot union. We can only hope 3rd grade reasoning skills prevail......
24. this really happened? where? i want to go in and order a damn steak there. breathtaking.
This would help to explain why Seattle is ranked 101st in Forbes recent "Best Places for Business". Hoo-Rah!!!
Suddenly I feel like a steak for dinner!
26. Umm...isn't it the job of a "server" to serve? Or did I get this wrong when I worked for a well known Italian restaurant chain? Because if this is the case now, I am definitely going back into the industry to vent my anger and frustration at the customers. One more AVENGING WAITER!!! Now what shall I refuse to serve to customers...how about food in general? Maybe even water...no...here we go...If I find it morally detestable that someone is living, can I deprive them of oxygen? PLEASE!?!?!?!
If you have a moral objection to anything that a majority of the population doesn't (and you'd know if you did), you had better check your objection at the door of your employer OR find out if there are moral conflicts within your profession before you start taking checks. Simple as that in my mind. An employee works at the pleasure of the employer. We seemed to have forgotten that. When I work for somebody, I consider it my duty to improve his or her bottom line to the best of my ability. I want them to wildly succeed because their success is my success.
Tell that to the UAW as GM and Ford fade to black.
28. There is one major difference between the restaurant scenerio and a pharmacist... when you go into most restaurants, unless they advertise otherwise, one can assume that well over half of the stuff they sell probably has meat in it. I don't know of too many pharmacies that have half their sales come from contraception/birth control items. It's far harder for a waitress at Applebies or Anthony's to do her job if she refuses to serve meat than it is for a pharmacist who refuses to sell birth control pills.
29. To play along with the analogy: Well, did the waitress know what was on the menu when she took the job? Was it a different kind of restaurant and then added this menu item?
Pharmacists are a specialized medical field. If an individual believes that dispensing a certain abortifacient is morally objectionable, and was doing the job before the introduction of this new item, why doesn't he have the right to act according to his own conscience? He didn't go to work in an abortion clinic, he went to work at an apothecary.
30. To add to the above: You might consider that no doctor is coerced to perform abortions. If she doesn't want to do them, she is not at risk of losing her career. Therefore, to expect a pharmacist to shut up and dispense no matter what is to demean her role as a health professional.
Bhc - as someone pointed out above it is up to the owner. It is unreasonable that any owner of any business needs to ask all their employees for approval for the owner to change its offerings or owe them a pay-off for them to leave if they object.
The only time this is acceptable is if the Religion of Peace decides that they will not serve pork or alchohol.
Sorry, doesn't wash.
The Meat on the menu is not designed to kill a living thing. In fact just the opposite. The meat is designed to help a human LIVE.
The RU-86 is designed to KILL a living thing. It is NOT meant to help a human live.
If you want to have an accurate analogy, then the waitress must morally object to serve meat in a heavy ARSENIC sauce. Because that Arsenic will kill a human. And I whole-heartedly agree she has every right to do so.
Bhc - I can assure you if a doctor is an employee, which most are not, and there was a woman dying in front of the doctor and an abortion was required to save the woman, he would be fired for letting the woman die - never mind prosecuted and the employer sued.
Admittedly it is not as clear cut as doctors are usually specialists and their 'shingle' specifies the services provided. If a doctor goes to work at a place where abortion is provided and s/he does not perform the procedure on the shift, I would also assume the s/he would also be fired.
34. Greg - there is a distinction. A heavy arsenic sauce is not legal, RU-86 is. There may be disagreement as to which if either should be legal, but at this point RU-86 is legal.
35. Any one remembers the indicent few years ago when a waitress, while serving beer to a pregnant woman upon the woman's request, adviced the customer to read the Government Warning label on the bottle. That's all she did. She didn't refuse to serve the beer. She was fired anyway - unjustly, in MHO.
36. EW - I do not think that anyone would want their employees lecturing their customers. Especially in a social environment where customers come to enjoy themselves, not be lectured.
37. The biggest problem we are facing here is that people feel it is their responsibility or duty to tell other people what they think is wrong. Letting someone know about the possible problems of drinking and being pregnant...NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!! It was that womans decision AND right to have a beer or whatever. Just like it was the customers decision and right to eat the steak. The fact the woman did not agree with his EATING habits is immaterial. Just because I like meat doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell me I am wrong or immoral or anything because I eat meat. People that impose their personal moral beliefs on others in a close minded situation is (1) stupid and (2) ignorant. In an open situation such as this where people are free to read and respond, it is an open invitation to conversation and debate. That "waitress" held people hostage to her beliefs. Anyone ever do that and a place where I am paying them to serve me and I will ask the manager to fire the person or I will never return. Especially since I have been a waiter before. Moral judgment must NEVER be passed because someone disagrees, IN A RAPTURED environment.
38. The label on the beer bottle [and the sign on the mini-bar, and the poster at the restaurant bar] shouldn't warn pregnant women not to drink ... it should TELL alcoholic women not to get pregnant.
Yeah, we should tell them not to drink, just like we should tell people not to use guns because guns kill people not people. Or, we shouldn't let people drive cars because they kill people. Or people that are alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to drink because they could kill someone driving. How about this, we tell people they can not do anything that could endanger the lives of anyone around them. That would solve all the problems in the world. Real smart. What do you do "wrong" that COULD be hazardous to your health? Should we make laws that tell people similar to you not do to whatever that action is?
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. -- Thomas Jefferson
You were on a roll, but the quote is from Benjamin Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson. I heard Ben really liked a big burger.
Franklin...huh...my research says otherwise...can you send me your source?
yep eat elsewhere...get your death pill elsewhere-yep the seller made a decision based on more than money!!....either we are going to force everyone to do others bidding or allow businesses and ourselves to choose what and who we sell to...sure it is bad for business monetarily but this is getting crazy....and will start cutting the other way......You weigh too much no burger for you...oh wait we already have done that you own the bar but you can't decide who smokes in it!!!
Does Bartellís have to start carrying porn? Christian bookstores carry Harry Potter and porn stores start carrying bibles? After all it is not your business to run but my feelings and convenience that should rule! State of Washington Damn that business to hell for not doing my bidding!!!
Ya liberals and leftists and moderates have no agenda, no paradigms...yep.....so afraid killing babies may be stopped.....no wonder we need illegals we are short 43 million 'Americans since 1973....if you were born after í73 and can read this is that not freaky you survived and right now children are being killed at an insane rate.
Should Goldy be banned from blocking and deleting comments after all it impinges on my "free speech"??!?!?!
We all gotta leave well enough alone and roll with it when you gotta go down the road to planned death and get your pill. After all that guilty feeling should be telling you something.
An employee has an obligation to serve the interests of the employer. If those interests are morally in conflict, the employee should either quit or take the issue to the employer. If the employer fails to change, then the employee has a responsibility to obey policy.
The waitress didnt have to kill it, cook it or eat it. SHe ahd to serve it. For her to pull an attitude is ridiculous, Why become a waiter in a place that serves meat if that's an issue for you?
An employee in this case is a agent of the business and their personal feelings are irrelevent. She was being asked to break no laws, just serve food, provide customer service.
Kinda like the guy who got canned in Seattle for closing the resturant for the may day march. He violated the owner's wishes on his own principle, in an action that created a direct financial loss to the business. And he paid for it. He was responsible and he was fired.
He got what he deserved, and likewise she should have been canned too. On the spot.
But no doubt Ron Sims would have intervened to get her job back like he did the painters in Fife. I wonder if he has contacted Vance Wolf yet?
44. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
45. If you are looking for a good Jefferson quote, here goes:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
Here is the ultimate quote of both this conversation and Thomas Jefferson.
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
47. That lady should be shown the door. I were her employer and she let a few dollars walk out the door because of her moral issues, Then I will walk her out the door for my own moral issues with dollars. ;-)
48. Fine, that happens, and then customers go to a different place. Others who are sympathetic to the cause continue patronizing the establishment. Other places offer the requested item, no great loss for anyone. Unless you are really upset that you have to go to the next corner, which in case you need to get a clue.
The analogy doesn't completely hold up: there are cases where pharmacies don't want to sell the abortion pill, but they are being told that they must. That would be like telling a vegetarian restaurant that it must have meat on the menu.
I would agree, though, that if an establsihment that empolyees a pharmacist chooses to sell the pill, then the pharmacist should keep his mouth shut on the moral issue.
50. In order for this analogy to work we must know whether the restaurant is forced to offer steak to it's customers. That is the real issue.
It should be between the employer and employee. The employer must be free to fire an employee in such a situation.
But based on the link, it sounds to me like what's going on is that the leftists are attempting to force pharmacies to distribute the abortion pill.
The proper analogy would then be that some "restaurant board" is trying to compel vegan restauranteurs to sell meat.
This, of course, would be an intolerable imposition upon liberty.
This is about pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions? What an idiotic comment. The example will be applicable when you need a prescription for a steak...
53. To me, if the customer was a black person and the waitress said we don't serve meat to black people this would be a simple case of discrimination pure and simple which should not and would not be tolerated. But, with the pharmacist, not wanting to sell a certain drug to someone of a different religion is not discrimiation but ethics or morals. WHY?
54. Complain to the management about the trollup waitress and tell them you'll go elsewhere unless she is gone - or unless there was something you really liked about.Tell your friends about the PETA garbage. The rest of it is her problem.
55. But, with the pharmacist, not wanting to sell a certain drug to someone of a different religion is not discrimiation but ethics or morals. WHY?
Steve, there is a world of difference between not wanting to sell a steak to someone because you think that because of the color of their skin that they are somehow inferior, and not wanting to sell birth control pills because you believe that doing so is helping to kill innocent life. The two aren't even comparable.
56. Or, to put it another way, if I go into a restaurant wanting a bacon burger and a beer, but the owner refuses to sell them simply because he is a muslim, am I being discriminated against? No, of course not. Even though I'm a Christian and have no problem with bacon and beer, I can't force the owner to go against his religious beliefs to serve it.
Nice try on the analogy, Stefan. I think you know darn well that we're not talking about an employee refusing to perform the duties of his job. We're talking about government enforcing the planned parenthood agenda on businesses (pharmacies) and professionals (pharmacists).
Walmart has already been forced to sell these drugs as a business on the east coast and now they want to do the same here to Walmart and and anyone else who wants to excercise their right to not take part in killing innocent human life.
To compare a pharmacist choosing not to participate in the killing of an innocent HUMAN life to a PETA waitress refusing to sell what's on the menu to save a COW is either completely dishonest or you really do think there's a moral equivilence in killing cows for food and killing innocent humans for convenience. So which is it?
58. So which is it?
I think you miss the point of the analogy, Michelle. He wasn't saying there was a moral equivalence between killing a cow and killing an unborn baby. He was making the point that there are people who have deeply held moral, almost religious beliefs about killing animals and hold their lives to be as precious as that of human life.
If that person can be fired for refusing to partake in the end result of killing that cow, even if their job requires it, how is it then okay to not be allowed to fire a pharmacist for refusing to dispense birth control because their deeply held religious beliefs hold that that sperm and egg that hasn't even formed into an embryo yet is still a human being and using that birth control pill will kill that human life, even though their job requires it.
The arguement isn't about what the government is forcing employers to do, but about the rights of employers vs. the moral/religious beliefs of their employees. To bring up government forcing Wally World to sell the Pill is not part of the argument and thus completely beside the point.
59. Actually, comparing the PETA member to a pharmacist is like comparing apples to oranges. The PETA member took the job, knowing that they would be serving up delicious parts of animals. Most pharmacist took up their profession, knowing that they would be dispensing life saving medication, not a baby killing cocktail.
What if you ordered steak and were told that the resteraunt was out and had to order something else? If you really had to have steak, you would go somewhere else and wouldn't be such a crybaby about it.
(And we know what we do to crybabies, don't we.)
What if you ordered steak and were told that the resteraunt was out and had to order something else? If you really had to have steak, you would go somewhere else and wouldn't be such a crybaby about it.
(And we know what we do to crybabies, don't we.)
(Please note, apparently I am being censored from using the word that starts with "ph" that means place where pharmacists work. I was not able to post this until I removed that word.)
I got the point alright. He was comparing the deeply held beliefs of PETA members who equate cows with humans and pharmacists who are skilled in the medical profession and believe that the union of a human sperm and a human egg form a human life and therefore morally object to participating in killing that human life. This is not limited to a religious belief.
Perhaps you haven't been following this debate and can only go by how its framed in that "sound institution?"'s rag, The Stranger. I've been following it since it started. The phar***y association (a private trade organization) put forth a conscience clause for its members that allows pharmacists and drug stores (is that better?) to refuse to supply drugs that violate their moral, religious or philosophical beliefs. Planned Parenthood got wind of this and immediately lobbied their gal pal Christine Gregoire to take immediate action. She responded to their plea by urging her appointed phar***y board (government agency) to take urgent action. This is the stage it's in. The government agency is now considering the phar***y association's own conscience clause and whether pharmacists/drug stores can excercise their right or if the board will make it state policy to require all pharmacists/drug stores to dispense all drugs perscribed (leaving no room for these professionals to excercise their conscience).
So the Walmart case has everything to do with this debate. What happened to Walmart on the east coast will happen to them here as well as any other drug store owner or employee wishing to excercise their conscience.
The fact is this debate is not about employer vs. employee. It is about government vs. employer and government vs. those who would stand in the way of the planned parenthood agenda.
So why do we and/or or legilature pass laws against discrimination if you can pick and choose which ones to follow.
Are you saying it's ok to not sell drugs to another person because you think his religion is inferior.
Is discriminating one's religious beliefs less offending than discriminating one's color.
64. This is based on a true story although a few of the details have been changed: When an Islamic parent brought his daughter to a Seattle physician for a medical procedure (female circumcision) the doctor refused to perform it. Why? The Doctor believed that the practice was female genital mutilation. He was a Christian and a member of the American Medical Association and said that he was morally unable to mutilate women. Instead, she referred the customer to Islamic Planned Parenthood.
Numerous medical associations are not only defending the doctor in this instance, but also insist generally that medical personnel should have the professional discretion to refuse to take part in practices that mutilate and kill people if they find them morally objectionable. They call it pro-choice.
65. Numerous medical associations are not only defending the doctor in this instance, but also insist generally that medical personnel should have the professional discretion to refuse to take part in practices that mutilate and kill people if they find them morally objectionable. They call it pro-choice.
Uh-oh! Somebody better alert PP and NARAL to come up with a new euphemism besides "pro-choice". We don't want phar***..er..drug stores to have choice.
Perhaps it might be useful to interject this here.
If we talk to an old-hand ONB/GYN as I did, we'd find out that human reproduction isn't so cut-and dried a thing.
Seems, fertile women don't drop one lone egg per cycle, they drop 16-18-20-24 or so. If there's active sperm around, lots of them get fertilized. Then it's a race to the finish line, the uterine wall. As soon as one ovoblast (fertilized ovum) implants, a shower of hormones are triggered that prevent further implantation. IOW, mom and kid conspire to abort any other fertilized ova.
A photofinish produces fraternal twins.
Get that: Mom and the first kid hormonally function to abort all the slow ones. So every pregnancy has destroyed lots of potential lives.
The morning-after pill just reduces the implantation number from one (and occasionally two) to zero. Nature does that quite often.
Don't believe me? Sit your OB/GYN down and make him/her tell you how it really works.
"P ha r ma cy" is a word that shows up in a lot of spam.
Although it let me use "pharmacies" in my post.
68. Steve, explain to me again how not selling birth control to anyone because it's against your religious beliefs is discriminating against someone elses. The pharmacist who refuses to sell birth conrol isn't being discriminating in who he refuses to sell to, because he won't sell it to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe. That is not the same as a waitress not selling a steak to a black person because he is black and the waitress is a racist. Now, if the pharmacist refused to sell to someone simply because they were, say, a Jew and he was an anti-semite, then that would be discrimination. But that's not the same as refusing to sell to anyone.
69. Meat consumption and birth control have both been around for a long, long time. Both the waitress and the pharmacist, if they truly hold personal beliefs regarding same, could have chosen another profession, or chosen to work at an establishment that is more in line with their beliefs, i.e. a vegan restaurant or a drug store that does not sell the morning after pill. It seems to me that this part of the discussion has a lot to do with whether the pharmacist considers using the morning after pill abortion. Some do, some don't. However, I would hope that we still honor personal choice, both for pharmacists and their employers. The state has no business mandating any establishment to sell the morning after pill, unless it is a state agency. That should be the entire point of this issue.
As I see it,
Company "A" sells food
Company "B" sells pills
Company "A" refuses to sell food based on skin color = Discrimination
Company "B" refuses to sell pills based on religion = Discrimination
I think what your not seeing is that its not what your selling, its who your not selling to, whether its based on religion or color. In your analogy all someone would have to say is its against their religious beliefs not to sell something to a person based on ones skin color. Is that what your saying? Could a whole new religion be started on this concept of yours and be ok to you.
Now as far as your other argument as to selling something that may kill innocent life. Then that pharmacist should not sell other drugs, for example, ones that may cause drowsiness, as the patient may drive a car, fall asleep, and kill not only himself but other innocent life as well yey they still sell these drugs.
71. The long and the short of it is if the pharmacist is the owner/manager I think he should be able to refuse any non lifesaving drugs he wants and risk losing sales other then the ones he doesn't carry. If the is an employee he has a right to look for a drugstore that doesn't carry the drug and suffer the consequences of not finding a job as quickly and/or take a job that pays less. He doesn't have the right to refuse to sell his companies products without being fired.
72. For those of you who are promoting the idea that pharmacists surrender their constitutionally protected right, using your own opinions and criteria,
rest assured that someday; somebody will use their own criteria to demand that YOU surrender your rights also.
PP and NWLC are making this demand as we speak.
Steve, with all due respect, that is both an idiotic, and dangerous arguement.
Refusing to sell a product to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe, because that product violates your religious beliefs, by definition is not descrimination. By definition, discrimination means you are choosing one group of people over another, or choosing not to deal with one group, but dealing with another. If I choose not to sell a product at all to ANYONE, who am I descriminating against? Is it possible to descriminate against every person on the face of the planet?
So my question is, are you saying that people are not allowed to make business decisions based on their religious principles? That a Christian owner of a gas station must sell porn on his magazine rack, even though it's against his religion? Because by your standards, non-Christians are being descriminated against. If a Muslim owner of a deli refuses to sell pork because it violates his religion, is he descriminating against non-Muslims who have no qualms with a ham sandwhich?
If a family of Hassidic Jews (I know I misspelled that) open an store that sells professional electronics, and they operated their business very much in accordance with their religion, and shut the place down every Saturday for the Sabboth, and closed the place for every Jewish holiday you can think of... going so far as to not let their employees show up to work on those days, would those employees be descriminated against? Because they shut down on Saturday and numerous holidays, am I being descriminated because I can't buy something I need to run my side business on those days?
By the way, you can't just start a religion to discriminate against black people, or Jews, or whomever. It would never hold up in court as being a real religion, but a sham and a fraud. And the idea that a pharmacist that won't sell a bith control pill shouldn't sell other drugs that might kill someone because all drugs are dangerous is asinine. All drugs, when taken properly, help you, not kill you. If you get in a car crash because your driving right after taking sleeping pills and going to a bar (Rep. Kennedy), it's because you were reckless and didn't follow instructions. That is a long way from forcing someone to sell a pill they feel is designed for the specific purpose of ending an innocent life. By your standards, because my religious beliefs hold that killing innocent life is sin, should I then give up all my guns and my SUV? Lord knows those are potentually deadly.
What's wrong with his argument?
The pharmacist who had his job for years before this pill came out, and spent years before that studying for his profession should not be asked to give up his pension and other accrued benefits, as well as his salary, to appease those who want to kill a baby.
If the pharmacist took a job without asking if he'd be required to dispense the pill, that would be different. He should ask and look elsewhere if it would be required. But these people had this sprung upon them after they were in their careers for years.
And to equivocate the death of an innocent human baby with that of a dumb cow which was raised for one purpose is reprehensible.
Also, a waitress job doesn't even require a High School diploma in most cases. Your argument and moral equivalence are so thin they're transparent to any who would take a serious look.
And one other thing, for those of you who equate the abortion pill with a contraceptive, your argument is as thin as the waitress/cow idea. A contraceptive PREVENTS conception so that no new life begins. Once that life begins it is no longer 'birth control' but the termination of a life.
It's like the twisting of the word 'choice' to fit your own ends and make what you're supporting sound morally superior. The choice comes when someone chooses to have sex. Pregnancy is a consequence of a choice, not a choice. If someone wants a choice about pregnancy, they need to make it before they jump in the sack. After that the choice is made and what follows are consequences.
And don't give me that 'what about rape and inc**t' meme. a) That's a separate issue. b) The frequency of it is far, far less than pregnancies that result from promiscuous and unprotected sex. c) The moral equivocation of the two also shows that your arguments are so flimsy that you have to grasp at straws and distort reality to find any support for your position.
76. Mike H,
Where did I say any of that. Now, someone selling something that is in stock and just because of a customers belief you refuse to sell it to them, then that is discrimination pure and simple and that is what i'm saying.
As for the Republican (by default),
Keep grasping them straws.
So, what if the restaraunt itself chose to become a vegetarian diner, and refused to serve any meat at all? Would the customer then have the right to sue them for discrimination and try to have the government obligate them to violate their principles?
It seems to me that the pharmacies themselves are being held responsible for choosing not to carry these drugs. I believe it was either Wal-Mart or Walgreens who were recently sued for this very thing. So how does the analogy above relate to this legal travesty?
I think you misunderstood your OB-GYN. It is typical for a woman to release one egg (ovum) during ovulation, however sometimes more (as in 2) and this is one way that multiples are potentially produced if they each get fertilised. The other way is for one ovum to split into 2 or even 3 producing identical twins or even identical triplets.
"The race to the finish" is not referring to the fertilised ova to implant in the uterine wall (that actually happens quite peacefully without a "race"), but is probably referring to the many sperm of which only one can fertilise an ovum, but obviously the more ova there are, the more the likelyhood of producing multiples.
But the release of "16-18-20-24 or so" is simply not natural. This can be the case however, if you are referring to in-vitro fertilisation or a woman who's taking fertility drugs which does unnaturally stimulates the release of more eggs. Which brings up a very good point in whether these practices are ethical. But save that for another discussion.
So to claim that "nature does this quite often" is simply false.
Yes, there is such thing as miscarriage just as there is such thing as early death in post-born children or adults with terminal illnesses. But this does not justify voluntarily destroying their life simply because their not convenient to us.
Shark - Would you serve a customer who you knew was buying a keg of beer for some teens?
Well, I suspect that pharmacists who refuse to serve expectant mothers poison with which they will kill their babies are acting with a similar mindset.
Shark, how many more Mexican illegals will it take to replace the 50 million Americans that we have butchered in the last 33 years? Answer: Only about 30 million more.
If pharmacies want to fire a pharmacist for not filling a prescription, fine. But what about the independents, eg. Parks Pharmac(y) in Greenlake. What if they don't fill a prescription to murder? The state will force them too, right?!! And those who hold life lightly will jump on the bandwagon.
For one who will not buy into the lies of the King County elite you sure have bought into the much bigger lie of 'choice'
One in three Americans under the age of 33 is dead.
I doubt as a Jewish man that you support Nazis who killed one in three Jews. Hence the growing hatred of youth toward those who have murdered them. The baby boomers are passing on Shark. No burning of draft cards will save them from the grave. And when they are old, having taught the young that life is what man (or the men in power) define it to be what will those young then having come of age define your life to be?
How about this for a slogan?: Every senior should be a wanted senior.
Babies in the womb don't eat like me, they don't move about like me and they don't talk. Guess what Shark, my occasions of work with the aged have taught me that the aged often don't eat like me, they don't move about like me, and they often don't talk.
You need Christ, Shark. You drip hypocrisy.
That you might be able to respond directly if you so desire it is firstname.lastname@example.org
81. "You need Christ....."
And you need therapy...badly....soon!
Alphabet Soup - And what do you believe? That you evolved from slime? What does that make you worth there buddy?
Like the kid who wanted to shoot up Rogers High School, under your world view, 'you are nothing.' Statistically isn't that correct? What value does your d.n.a. have under your world view? Nil, or so close to nil as to be nil. This is the nihilist Nietchze style thinking that leads to mass slaughers, Soup and to a King County elite that just knows better and those the election ends justify the means.
Under my world view Alphabet you are so valueable that God would rather die than live without you. The reason that you don't see this is that you currently chose to close your eyes to that truth. And the reason for that, is that you do not sin, you are wise in your own eyes, you do not miss the mark (the definition of sin), you set the mark - hence King County elites are wrong, but you are not. Your mistreatment of your closest loved ones is justified because you set the standard Your mistreatment of street people is justified because you set the standard. Your mistreatment of lowly clerks is justified because you set the standard.
And when you set the standard Mr. Soup the standard is whatever you do. Get off God's throne Soup, it didn't work out so well when Satan tried to sit on it. But of course you don't believe in Satan either. No, the evil in the world is because the world is not living according to Soup's standard, there is no leading Being of evil leading the willing such as yourself (currently) to rebel against God and God's standards.
Who is it that needs therapy Soup? The guy who thinks there is a God greater than himself who sets standards such as the God given right to life, or the man who thinks that standards such as life are subjective? There is a way out Soup. Christ wants none to perish, but all to come to truth. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And the wages of sin is death. But while you were still a sinner Christ died for you, that whoever would believe in him would have everlasting life.
Choose life and live Soup.
83. Like the song says; "Thank you Lord, for thinking about me, I'm alive and doing fine!"
You've got it Jericho. Yes all of us who believe in God and seek to please Him are in serious need of "therapy" or brainwashing so we can let loose of our "hang-ups".
All those who don't are "doing fine".
I guess in your simple world of views, babys in the womb breath air just like you.
So far all of your comments have attempted to pick an argument with others based on nothing they actually said. So it's interesting that you accuse someone of holding a "simple world of views" since you fail to understand what anyone here is saying.
As Jericho said, babies in the womb ( nor even aged people) don't eat, move about or talk like him, so why would it be logical that he thinks they breath air like him? News flash: at conception (fertilisation), the baby has all of the DNA that it will have in his/her life. The sex, hair and skin and eye color are already determined and at 8 weeks they have a heart beat like you and me.
87. Steve, do you breath air while your swimming under water without any snorkling gear on?
Someone as well educated like you should know the answer to that question.
I was just wondering why he left out the breathing part. C'mon, walking, talking, eating. Why not compare something that actually is required to live on this beautiful planet of ours.
He did. Eating is required to live. But in the mother's womb, breathing is not, miraculously. So Jericho was right on target. Pre-born babies get both nutrition (which born people get from eating) and oxygen (which born people get from breathing) from their mother's umbilical cord. So eating and breathing are not necessary for the pre-born baby, but like us nutrition and oxygen are.
So if it isn't yet living, why does it need nutrition and oxygen? And if it isn't yet a human person, then please tell, what species is it? If you answer fetus or zygote, keep in mind that these are not species of their own, they are stages of life just as infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult.
Michelle, Steve is an idiot. His reasoning abilities would earn him failing marks in the fourth grade. I believe that he may have a point hidden there somewhere, but his abilities to express himself are so stunted that it typically comes out as gibberish.
Sometimes people argue just to be contentious....
Isn't this drug designed to prevent the zygote from reaching the uterus where the placenta will then connect to the unborn and bring the nutrients and oxygen to the undeveloped embryo thus destroying your argument.
But thanks for seeing my logic on including breathing to Jericho's remarks.
Oh, is that what it will take for you to approve of abortions is a new species name.
The placenta is formed by an intricate working between the baby's and mother's hormones (the baby even has those) once the baby is implanted. But no, this doesn't blow MY argument out of the water. You're the one hinging your argument on what a person needs to live.
We all need different things at different stages. An infant only needs milk for nutrition, but if an adult or even a child past the age of 2 were to attempt to live on milk alone, he wouldn't last too long and he certainly wouldn't thrive the way an infant does. A zygote does not stay in that form for very long. If all goes well in pregnancy he naturally makes his way to the source of nutrition and oxygen he will need to survive for the duration in utero.
Interestingly enough though, I've seen photos of babies removed from ectopic pregnancies that have the appearance of a tiny baby rather than a clump of cells. So even without being implanted, they are technically still a zygote, yet have the ability to form and grow into an identifiable baby, though without the oxygen and nutrition they need, they cannot survive long.
Oh, and yes that's what the drug is designed to do, which essentially kills the baby.
And no, I'll never approve of abortion just because somebody comes up with a new species name.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."
I was just pointing out that zygote and fetus are just stages of life, not species other than human. I stand by my position that it's never OK to intentionally kill innocent human life, no matter what stage.
Try this instead Soup.
Thank God I think about Him, for He is alive and doing fine.
95. Michelle - thanks for the support.
96. No thanks jericho. You see, God and I have a mutually satisfying relationship right now. You would do well to mind to yours....