I'm sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to defend my religious beliefs

Do I get a prize for most quoted person of the day???????


One question, if someone owned a pub, and a person who they believed to be drunk asked for another drink, and they refused would that be wrong too? Beacuse they are making a value judgement, who has the right to decide which values are right and which are wrong?

---

by TNT
One question, if someone owned a pub, and a person who they believed to be drunk asked for another drink, and they refused would that be wrong too? Beacuse they are making a value judgement, who has the right to decide which values are right and which are wrong?

---

No they are not they are actually making a legal judgement.

No they aren't actually, a legal judgement would be based on some defined parameters, not on a persons opinion, which is what they would be doing

It's a legal judgement in that it's illegal for a publican to serve someone who is clearly well beyond their limits. Think that's right.

But if you actually look at that law it states that in the landlords or landladys opinion! Not by some scientific test, but opinion, that is a value judgement

Law isn't scientific. Judges and Juries make decisions based, a lot of the time, on opinion based on evidence.

A Landlord/lady would make a decision, on opinion, based on the evidence they see infront of them.

I'd feel differently if we were talking about a private pharmacy and the pharmacist decided not to stock this product, that's entirely his own business. But it isn't right that someone should go to a chemist expecting to be able to get it to be told that we have that, but I'm not going to give it to you. A Pharmacy is an important service, people should be able to rely on what they can get there, not for it to have to depend on who is working there at the time.

---

by TNT
But if you actually look at that law it states that in the landlords or landladys opinion! Not by some scientific test, but opinion, that is a value judgement

---

It is also against the law to be drunk in licensed premises so the person who would be ordering the drink would already be breaking the law. The publican would be considering the persons safety if they refused to serve them anymore where as the pharmacist wasn't concerned with the persons safety but their own moral/religious wellbeing.

And for the record I have been refused service for being too drunk and I respected that decsion.

(Edited by JtB 05/02/2004 22:50)

Personally i agree with the pharmacist. he/she doesnt have to do anything against their beliefs.

I also read today that CCTV footage showed her being given advice on alternative places to try by the pharmacist.

lets face it, if you sleep around and cant face a pharmacist not serving you, but telling you where else to try, then you still complain to the company, it's your own behaviour you arent comfortable with.

You must think everyone should agree with your behaviour and arent prepaired to be questioned on it.

I have no problem with the morning after pill, but i wouldnt feel offended if someone refused to serve it to me.

I needed it once when i was a teen, i had to make a special appointent with the FPC clinic and go all the way across town for it (which i probably wouldnt have dont had boy'f not worked at the hospital, i got to see him too see!).

I never let him do it again without protection because i coundnt take the time out. I didnt resent the time out, it was my own stupid fault for not insisting he used a condom/giving in because we didnt have a condom.

Sex leads to pregnancy. if any woman doesnt get this and take precautions she's too stupid to be allowed to complain!

---

by Cat
Sex leads to pregnancy. if any woman doesnt get this and take precautions she's too stupid to be allowed to complain!

---

An interesting view.

---

by Cat
You must think everyone should agree with your behaviour and arent prepaired to be questioned on it.

---

But do you have to agree with someone's behaviour to sell them a product? If I worked in a shop I wouldn't refuse to sell cigarettes to people. Besides, you're presuming an awful lot about this woman's behaviour. She might have been a rape victim who was too scared to go to the police for all you know. Would you deny that person because of your presumptions about her behaviour?

The person selling the product is out of the equation as far as I am concerned. If a product is legal to buy then the customer should be able to buy it. If it's against your morals/religion, then you shouldn't put yourself in a position where you might have to sell it.

---

by DJ
But do you have to agree with someone's behaviour to sell them a product? If I worked in a shop I wouldn't refuse to sell cigarettes to people.

---

But i would agree with a Jew refusing to sell Pork, as i would a roman catholic/christian refusing to sell birth controle. Smoking isnt forbidden by the faiths though.

---

by DJ
She might have been a rape victim who was too scared to go to the police for all you know. Would you deny that person because of your presumptions about her behaviour?

---

Perosnally, NO! i'd sell it to anyone. But i can accept people not wanting to because of faith. 99% of cases will be carelessness! Dont forget, a pharmacist is opliged to tell you where else to try (and if anyone told of rape to a pharmacist, i doubt anyone, of any faith would refuse. they'd be a cold hearted b***er if they did but are still obliged to tell the person where else to try by law)

---

by DJ
The person selling the product is out of the equation as far as I am concerned. If a product is legal to buy then the customer should be able to buy it. If it's against your morals/religion, then you shouldn't put yourself in a position where you might have to sell it.

---

They didnt put them selves in that position, the goverment put them in that position, this is very recent legislature! then again for ner pharmacology trainees, what if you can help people? give them prescription drugs they could save their lives? Or prevent them taking over the counter drugs that could cause adverse affects?

I'd rather have concious people as pharmacologists who would care and tell me when something was wrong with my mix of drugs and maybe object on religious issues than one who didnt care at all.

And, let me say again, this woman was offered alternatives!


(Edited by Cat 06/02/2004 00:56)

---

by Cat
Personally i agree with the pharmacist. he/she doesnt have to do anything against their beliefs.

---

Agreed but then surely they shouldn't put themselves in a situation where that might happen?

---

by Cat
lets face it, if you sleep around and cant face a pharmacist not serving you, but telling you where else to try, then you still complain to the company, it's your own behaviour you arent comfortable with.

---

You're making a very big assumption there. How do you know she's been sleeping around?

---

by Cat
Sex leads to pregnancy. if any woman doesnt get this and take precautions she's too stupid to be allowed to complain!

---

Contraceptives are not 100% safe (as we all know) So are you saying no woman should have sex unless we want to have children?


(Edited by Bryany 06/02/2004 00:19)

(Edited by Bryany 06/02/2004 02:27)

(quotes)
Contraceptives are not 100% safe (as as i'm we all know) So are you saying no woman should have sex unless we want to have children?
[/quote]

I think we all know that any woman using a relible contriceptive wouldnt be asking for the morning after pill, dont we?

I've had sex thousands of times, a condom has never broken on me.

and for the few cases where mistakes happen or rape... by law the pharmasist must tell you where to gain alternative advice. as this pharmasist did, as proven by cctv footage

I also feel i must add that this woman doesnt strike me as a victim by her statements.

If she has nothing to hide, why wont she release her name to the press? Perhaps because this isnt a dire emergency, she's done it before, and she could easily have driven to one of the other pharmacies she was told to (which i'm sure she did, she was just indignant at not being served!)

I don't particularly see anything different about my opinion other than the fact that I actually live in Stockport. Firstly, this story makes me scared. Why? Because I'm 17 years old and the thought that I could have been in the same position as that woman (ie potentially pregnant) is my worst nightmare. I can imagine what she would have been going through at that point in time (I've had a scared or two through no fault of my own) and I would probably have burst into tears, had a break down, and caused a scene. Maybe that makes me a wuss but when in need, I don't think anyone should be refused help.
Secondly, I know the town centre very well (duh) and there is a Superdrug and Boots about 5 minutes away (walking) from ASDA but there are so many circumstances that could make the woman unwilling to visit those stores - maybe she knows someone or whatever. Or maybe she was in too much of a state to try anywhere else?
Anyway, it is the responsibility of ASDA to ensure their staff can fulfill their roles. I work around the corner at Matalan and I know my manager would fire anyone in a hot minute who was not able to perform to the required standards (ie if you're not a kiss-ass, you're outta there! ) Not only that but if the store decides to carry a certain product then surely they should have the staff who are able to sell it, otherwise, what's the point in the stuff lying on the shelves? (side note here, this was probably a week day therefore it would've been the FULL TIME pharmacist in charge - the person who spends the most time there - so surely its not right to say "morning after - only availble at weekends from your local ASDA!"
Finally (I think) I know from experience you can't tell jack from CCTV of any detail (unless you see someone slipping a shirt into a bag or whatever) so evidence of him/her suggesting elsewhere? Not sure I believe it 100%.

Rant over I think. I'm gonna try and get the inside story from my friends that work at ASDA now

Sorry, rant not over. I think everyone should remember that no contraceptive is 100%. No pill is thats for sure. One of my close friends became pregnant 7 months ago whilst she was religiously taking the pill - I know, she had a daily alarm on her phone and freaked once when she forgot (months before her pregnancy btw). She's keeping the baby but she had to drop out of college.


(Edited by Emma 06/02/2004 00:42)

---

by Emma
I don't particularly see anything different about my opinion other than the fact that I actually live in Stockport. Firstly, this story makes me scared. Why? Because I'm 17 years old and the thought that I could have been in the same position as that woman (ie potentially pregnant) is my worst nightmare.

---

She's quotes as asking how her teenage daughter would have reacted to her treatment. i can hardly compare your cases.

Lest you forget. 7 yrs ago the morning after pill was still available, but not over the counter. it took me a morning off college, 2 hrs wait, 2 buss journeys (costing a total £2.28) taking 1 1/2 hours to travel there and an interview to get it.

How dare people condem the pharmicist for something the goverment MADE then sell!

Would you agree with a Jewish butcher beign forced to sell bacon?

---

by Emma
Sorry, rant not over. I think everyone should remember that no contraceptive is 100%. No pill is thats for sure. One of my close friends became pregnant 7 months ago whilst she was religiously taking the pill - I know, she had a daily alarm on her phone and freaked once when she forgot (months before her pregnancy btw). She's keeping the baby but she had to drop out of college.

---

The Morning after pill is (i believe) effective for 72 hours, therefor, why would anyone on birth controle ask for it?

I think your friends story proves this, she thought she was safe. the morning after pill is for accidents that in most cases could be avoided!

the barrier method is the only sure way of preventing pregnancy (not to mention STD's, oh, sorry they're STI's now). i cant be the only woman who knows this can i?

---

by Cat
I think we all know that any woman using a relible contriceptive wouldnt be asking for the morning after pill, dont we?

I've had sex thousands of times, a condom has never broken on me.

---

No contraceptive is 100% relaible .... it may not have happened to you but that doesn't mean it never happens.

---

by Cat

But i would agree with a Jew refusing to sell Pork, as i would a roman catholic/christian refusing to sell birth controle. Smoking isnt forbidden by the faiths though.

---

But that wasn't my point, or yours either considering what you wrote. Whether it's forbidden is irrelevant.

If it's forbidden by someone's faith to take the morning after pill then they shouldn't take it. But they shouldn't presume to stop other people taking it. That's a case of imposing your beliefs on other people. If it's against your religion to also provide that pill to other people then I understand why he didn't want to do it and indeed he shouldn't have to, but then I see that as a case of the pharmasist not being able to fulfil his job description.
I don't see why the fact that it's because of religion rather than anything else should make a difference.

Let me give you an example. Imagine you own an off licence and you take on a new member of staff, only to find after their first shift that they're a devout muslim and that they've directed anyone who wanted alcohol to the nearest Victoria Wine. Of course, that employee is well within their rights to refuse to sell anything that's against their beliefs - you've already stated that. So of course you'll be quite happy for your store to be unable to sell the majority of its products whenver she's at work and for you to make a huge loss and have to close down? Possibly not...

You might say it's a different situation as it involves a lot more products and the store making a loss. But it isn't. Why should ethics be decided by monetary factors, which is in itself unethical?

I'm sure that if this person's refusal to sell products resulted in ASDA making a loss then they would have had no problem in laying that person off because they don't fulfil the person spec, just as if they couldn't do part of their job for any other reason, for example a lack of a qualification. Ultimately that's why ASDA are at fault, because they're just going for the easy option.