On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:13:34 -0800, Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to
reply wrote:

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:58:02 -0800, Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to
reply wrote:

Yup, Christian Reconstructionists at work again. Why should an employee
who does not observe Christmas be potentially required to wish everybody
a merry one?

Because it's their ******* job, that's why.

My point, dear Sir, was that it is *considerate* to people to not
require them to be hypocritical or to violate their consciences.

What planet were you originally from?

This isn't your native planet, is it?

If they understood the terms of the job when they took it, it's their
****ing job to do as the company requires.

You sound like you would sympathize with those Muslim cab drivers in
Minneapolis (and other airports) who refused to take passengers to
establishments that served alcoholic beverages, or passengers who were
even "suspected" of having alcoholic beverages on their person, or
refused to pick up passengers who had dogs, even *service* dogs(!)
with them, (because dogs are deemed "unclean," don't you know).

It's called the Tyranny of the Minority, and you can probably tell
where I stand on that particular subject, right?

They accepted the job, they knew in advance that they would be
required to put their personal belief's aside and do what was
considered normal and customary in this country for CAB DRIVERS, and
what had been done for freakin' centuries here, but, nooooooooo, they
had to make a big stink about it.

"I would leave my job, instead of doing something that's not allowed
in my religion," he said.

Good, that a choice that the guy does, indeed have.

And that's the only choice he has, or should have.

To find another ****ing job, one where his religious beliefs don't
conflict with his work requirements, or to just go home.

Period.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

"Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply" wrote in
message ...
Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:58:02 -0800, Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to
reply wrote:

Yup, Christian Reconstructionists at work again. Why should an
employee
who does not observe Christmas be potentially required to wish
everybody
a merry one?

Because it's their ******* job, that's why.

My point, dear Sir, was that it is *considerate* to people to not
require them to be hypocritical or to violate their consciences.


Have you ever had a job in the service industry? Most employee's *need*
that job, and they do as they are instructed to do, regardless.

td



--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

You're pretty much the Paul Schoen of Christian thinking, Mark.

Hmm. I think I'll take this as a compliment.

--
Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm
================================================== =======================
"There is no psychiatrist in the world
like a puppy licking your face." -Ben Williams

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

To find another ****ing job, one where his religious beliefs don't
conflict with his work requirements, or to just go home.

Would it be correct to say that you also believe that pharmacists
whose religious beliefs are against contraception or use of the
morning-after pill should be required to dispense prescribed
contraceptives, the morning-after pill and RU-486, or find a
different line of work?

Just curious.

FurPaw


--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dogs.

FurPaw wrote:
Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

To find another ****ing job, one where his religious beliefs don't
conflict with his work requirements, or to just go home.


Would it be correct to say that you also believe that pharmacists whose
religious beliefs are against contraception or use of the morning-after
pill should be required to dispense prescribed contraceptives, the
morning-after pill and RU-486, or find a different line of work?

Just curious.

I'm not Jack, but yes, you betcha.

"FurPaw" wrote in message
. ..

Would it be correct to say that you also believe that pharmacists whose
religious beliefs are against contraception or use of the morning-after
pill should be required to dispense prescribed contraceptives, the
morning-after pill and RU-486, or find a different line of work?

Just curious.

Pharmacists should be fired if they refuse to dispense a prescribed med *if
that is a job requirement.* They'd be free to get a job in agreement with
their principles, elsewhere.

flick 100785

"FurPaw" wrote in message
. ..

Would it be correct to say that you also believe that pharmacists
whose religious beliefs are against contraception or use of the
morning-after pill should be required to dispense prescribed
contraceptives, the morning-after pill and RU-486, or find a
different line of work?


Damn right. What my physician prescribes is between me and he/she. The
pharmacist is merely there to dispense it. That is their job.


td

FurPaw wrote:

Would it be correct to say that you also believe that pharmacists whose
religious beliefs are against contraception or use of the morning-after
pill should be required to dispense prescribed contraceptives, the
morning-after pill and RU-486, or find a different line of work?

We had a street evangelist (whose mission field was the seaside of
Monterrey, California) who preached a whole message once entitled, "If
your faith has never cost you anything, it isn't worth much," or
something to that effect.

Somewhere there has to be some sort of balance struck. Personally, one
place where I drew the line was when I was asked a while back to write
my politicians to try to get them to revoke the elimination of tax
deductions for parents whose personal convictions kept them from getting
social security cards for their children. A tax deduction is no more a
legal right than some of the other silly things people are protesting as
being their legal right, and this was just one of those things that just
didn't make sense to me. After all, if you legally earn income, you
have to have a social security card, and I didn't see any inconsistency
in it, unless you were to protest that it wasn't that way initially, in
which case Michael Newdow's case shouldn't hold water, either.

--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.

tiny dancer wrote:

What my physician prescribes is between me and he/she. The
pharmacist is merely there to dispense it. That is their job.

Would you also say that any physician should be required to perform any
surgery or procedure they were qualified to perform or else lose their
job, as some people want to force OB/GYNs to do?

If so, I have a friend who had a gatekeeper PCP who had a
one-size-fits-all solution person on in regard to a medical problem she
had, and his own different one-size-fits-all solution was a procedure
she had a problem of conscience with. He would neither consider the
documented-as-successful alternative procedure, nor refer her to someone
who would be willing to consider the alternative procedure -- not even
for a second opinion. Was this the right thing for him to do, or should
he also have lost his job because he refused to be more open-minded for
the sake a a patient who was more conservative with he?

It goes both ways. And like I said, there has a be a balance somewhere.

--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.

In article ,
FurPaw wrote:
Would it be correct to say that you also believe that pharmacists
whose religious beliefs are against contraception or use of the
morning-after pill should be required to dispense prescribed
contraceptives, the morning-after pill and RU-486, or find a
different line of work?

That's really not a good analogy, since pharmacists have a
code of ethics, swear an oath, and are one link in the
healthcare chain. If the rationale for dispensing
prescriptions is that it's their *job*, it's that it's their
job in the broadest sense, and not just because it's what
their employer pays them to do.

Jack may be a buffoon but a bad analogy isn't made better by
using it to put a buffoon in a corner.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community