NationStates Jolt Archive

And it's about damn time, (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F66D4B9D4D4E342E8625710300039083?OpenDocument) I say.

Now, if you read the article, you'll discover that the pharmacist wans't fired just because she refused to fill the prescription. She was fired because she went further and refused to refer physicians and patients to pharmacists who would fill the prescription.

As a part-time pharmacist at a Target store in St. Charles, Williams had refused to fill such prescriptions without incident for the past five years. But she also declined to refer physicians or patients to others who would fill such prescriptions.

“I just can’t be a link in the chain at all,” she said.

We've had this debate around here before, and I imagine this thread will involve some further discussion of the topic, but I'm posting the thread largely to praise Target on this. They did the right thing on a controversial topic in a place where they will probably get a lot of heat--St. Louis isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism, after all.

Take the poll.

Target was in the right. However, I do support a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill any prescription.

I couldn't answer the poll, since both answers are wrong.

Target almost wins, but they have been facilitating the bullshit for five years was it? Too little not soon enough.

Yay Target...now if I could only convince my dad that target isn't evil and one small conflict 5 years ago isn't reason not to shop there.

im glad to see target taking action on this. the various states should yank the licenses of all pharmacists who refuse to fill any legal prescription or to refer the customer to a pharmacy that keeps such medicines in stock (if his pharmacy doesnt stock it)

I wish I could refuse to sell people books the way these pharmicists seem to feel that they can refuse selling prescriptions.

"No, you can't have that Ann Coulter book. I'm sorry. Here's the new Al Franken."

I can't relate. Our government monopoly on pharmacies just has never had these issues, but, then again, we love ourselves our abortions.

However, it is deeply unethical of this person to put her own religious needs before those of the patients. The firing was completely warranted.

I wish I could refuse to sell people books the way these pharmicists seem to feel that they can refuse selling prescriptions.

"No, you can't have that Ann Coulter book. I'm sorry. Here's the new Al Franken."

If you owned your own bookstore, you would have the right to do just that.

If they don't want to do their job or do it only when they want, then its timeto get another job.

They may have no idea why a women needs the pill and it is none of their business why either.

Some women need it to regulate their period, contraception is not its only use.

I wish I could refuse to sell people books the way these pharmicists seem to feel that they can refuse selling prescriptions.

"No, you can't have that Ann Coulter book. I'm sorry. Here's the new Al Franken."

I think you should try it. You'd be doing them a service.

I think you should try it. You'd be doing them a service.

I don't know...they may have dangerously low blood pressure and need something to raise it.

Target almost wins, but they have been facilitating the bullshit for five years was it? Too little not soon enough.
There is something that my friend has started to call "The Denny's Principle." It came about when I was joking about a cultural heritage poster at a Denny's and the great lengths it was going to in order to celebrate Black History Month. I was joking that it was a really concerted effort at damage control, "See, we don't hate black people-African Americans, we don't hate African Amer-...oh god, please forgive us..."

But my friend pointed out, and I have to agree, that we have a responsability in capitulation other than to gloat or continue to harp on past sins. If we just want to be right and smug, that's not constructive and it gives those we'd like to see change no reason to do so. If they can never shake off the taint, why bother trying? We have to give credit where credit is due, and when someone or someplace comes around not to just rub in thier face how they where wrong last year if they are right this year.

So yeah, it did take a while. That's too bad. But better late than never, so congratulations Target. Welcome to the ethical world.

I don't know...they may have dangerously low blood pressure and need something to raise it.

The only thing Ann Coulter could get a rise out of, coincidentally.

pretend i am an orthodox jew and i had a job at, say, jack-in-the-box. being an orthodox jew, i cannot eat or handle, among other things, meat from pigs. this is all fine and dandy, but consider if i did what this pharmacist did...

every time someone orders a ham sandwich, or any burger with bacon, etc. not only do i refuse to complete the order, but i also refuse to direct the customer to a cashier that will fill it out. i'm effectively cutting my work load responsibility by a huge chuck and i'm not allowing the customer to get the order they're wanting.

freedom of religion is a great thing. i have no problem with people following their own beliefs, even if i may consider them antiquated or even downright bizzare. but when someone tries to force their beliefs on me - especially when it's their job not to... i'm sorry, but there's not many better reasons to fire someone that i can think of.

/end rant

every time someone orders a ham sandwich, or any burger with bacon, etc. not only do i refuse to complete the order, but i also refuse to direct the customer to a cashier that will fill it out. i'm effectively cutting my work load responsibility by a huge chuck and i'm not allowing the customer to get the order they're wanting.


Which is why she should have been fired. If she would have had another pharmacist fill it (or owned her own pharmacy) I see no problem in refusing to fill a perscription.

If you owned your own bookstore, you would have the right to do just that.
However, bookstores providing healthcare? Target should sue her for 5 years of back pay.

If she's too wrapped up in being a petty tyrant to help people in need make informed choices about their health and abide by them, then she can find another line of work or kill herself. With the power over the statutory obligation of the consumer comes a responsability to cowboy up and bite her tongue when the consumer makes a safe and legal choice. People who can't accept the freedom and happiness of others deserve none of their own.

pretend i am an orthodox jew and i had a job at, say, jack-in-the-box. being an orthodox jew, i cannot eat or handle, among other things, meat from pigs. this is all fine and dandy, but consider if i did what this pharmacist did...

every time someone orders a ham sandwich, or any burger with bacon, etc. not only do i refuse to complete the order, but i also refuse to direct the customer to a cashier that will fill it out. i'm effectively cutting my work load responsibility by a huge chuck and i'm not allowing the customer to get the order they're wanting.

freedom of religion is a great thing. i have no problem with people following their own beliefs, even if i may consider them antiquated or even downright bizzare. but when someone tries to force their beliefs on me - especially when it's their job not to... i'm sorry, but there's not many better reasons to fire someone that i can think of.

/end rant
That is one hell of a first post. Welcome aboard.

Which is why she should have been fired. If she would have had another pharmacist fill it (or owned her own pharmacy) I see no problem in refusing to fill a perscription.
Target actually has a policy adopted last year that provided that out, and she refused to sign it, which amounted to refusing to abide by the policy.

Target looks to be on pretty solid ground, but sadly, that doesn't always mean anything when it comes to judges these days. I hope they win out.

So do I. I like Target.

I hope the ACLU will step forward and help the pharmicist sue Target for a violation of her rights. Nuf said.

From the article,

Said Williams: “I’m not in judgment of anyone. I want my right not to fill something, much as they have their right to get Plan B filled.”

Contradiction?

From the article,

Said Williams: “I’m not in judgment of anyone. I want my right not to fill something, much as they have their right to get Plan B filled.”

Contradiction?

Nope. But she has to refer them to a pharmacist that will fill it.

I hope the ACLU will step forward and help the pharmicist sue Target for a violation of her rights. Nuf said.

Joke, right?
Is the pharmacist not violating the rights of customers to receive Plan B?
She could have referred them on, if she refused to do it herself.

Nope. But she has to refer them to a pharmacist that will fill it.

Fair point. She really doesn't have a case, does she?

That is one hell of a first post. Welcome aboard.
lol, thanks.

and i just woke up about 30 minutes ago, too...

I hope the ACLU will step forward and help the pharmicist sue Target for a violation of her rights. Nuf said.
No rights have been violated--companies have the right to set terms of employment, and if the employee doesn't like the terms, they walk (or get walked, as the case may be), barring some form of stipulation in a contract that says otherwise.

Which is why she should have been fired. If she would have had another pharmacist fill it (or owned her own pharmacy) I see no problem in refusing to fill a perscription.
Then you have no business working in a corporate ran or supported pharmacy.
I support the right of people not to fill prescriptions.. if they own their own pharmacy.

Joke, right?
Is the pharmacist not violating the rights of customers to receive Plan B?
She could have referred them on, if she refused to do it herself.

No joke. Customer can get information elsewhere so no violation of their rights to get anything.

Which is why she should have been fired. If she would have had another pharmacist fill it (or owned her own pharmacy) I see no problem in refusing to fill a perscription.



Then you have no business working in a corporate ran or supported pharmacy.
I support the right of people not to fill prescriptions.. if they own their own pharmacy.

Isn't that what I said?

No joke. Customer can get information elsewhere so no violation of their rights to get anything.
You clearly live in an area that has more then one drug store. That said, the pharmacist has an obligation to fill the damn prescription, not dick around and claim it's against her moral code. If she doesn't like it, she can quit, she isn't being paid to do refuse to fill orders. If that's against the law, then I've just joined a religion that prevents me from working more then 20 hours a week :rolleyes:.

No joke. Customer can get information elsewhere so no violation of their rights to get anything.

So you would stand for an employee that hurts your profits and undermines the ability to earn them of your other employees?

You clearly live in an area that has more then one drug store. That said, the pharmacist has an obligation to fill the damn prescription, not dick around and claim it's against her moral code. If she doesn't like it, she can quit, she isn't being paid to do refuse to fill orders. If that's against the law, then I've just joined a religion that prevents me from working more then 20 hours a week :rolleyes:.

20 hours a week! That's like slavery! My religion doesn't allow me to leave my bed...

I just assumed CSW became German...

I hope the ACLU will step forward and help the pharmicist sue Target for a violation of her rights. Nuf said.

What right would that be? The right to force her religious/moral views on others?
It is the doctors job to decide what you need. NOT the pharmicist!

I'd probably do the same thing as that pharmacist... but then again, I'd expect to get fired for it. To me, your concience is more important than your job - but I don't expect your employer to have those same priorities.

I just assumed CSW became German...

Germans are industrious. That sounds more like the Spanish.

Target has the complete right to define the paramaters of the pharmacist position as they did. The job of a pharmacist is to dispense medication according to a physician's prescription. Some pharmacists otherwise capable of fulfilling the requirements of that job object to a few aspects (Plan B) that conflict with their religious views. If Target had taken the position of "No, you must dispense the pills and you're fired if you won't," then the pharmacist might have a case, on the grounds that an employer must make reasonable accomodation to the religious views of their employees.
Target made reasonable accomodation to those views by allowing those individuals to not dispense the prescriptions and instead directing the customers to a pharmacist or location that could help, thereby eliminating the need for the pharmacist in question to actually participate in the act they disapprove of. The pharmacist demonstrated unreasonable fanaticism and refused the accomodation, and so Target was entirely correct to fire her for refusal to abide by company policy.
Target would also very probably be within their rights to not make that particular accomodation; the job requirement is filling prescriptions, and if the applicant refuses to sign a statement indicating a willingness to fulfill the parameters of the job, Target is under no obligation to hire them. Directing customers to leave the store could very easily be considered an unreasonable level of accomodation already.

20 hours a week! That's like slavery! My religion doesn't allow me to leave my bed...
Not allowed to leave the bed! Where do I sign up?

No joke. Customer can get information elsewhere so no violation of their rights to get anything.
What right does a pharmacist have to not fill out a doctors prescription? The abortion pill also has other uses.

"Researchers are also studying the effectiveness of RU-486 (the "abortion pill" and "emergency contraceptive"), which is said to dramatically relieve psychotic depression."
http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/depression/psychotic.asp

Read slip, fill prescription, repeat as necessary. That said, there is nothing preventing the pharmacist from calling the person receiving the prescription an evil child of the devil whose soul is as black as Satan's hoof. That's a matter of opinion.

I just assumed CSW became German...
French. Viva la 35-hour work week.

Not allowed to leave the bed! Where do I sign up?

In bed, of course. Duh!

French. Viva la 35-hour work week.

I thought they abolished that.

Yup, they did!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4248845.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7265807/from/RL.4/

As I said, Spaniards are the lazy ones with their siestas and playas and paellas and tortillas.

If she is that religious, she should join a convent.


She cant just refuse to fill a script because of religion. Makes me wonder if she would refuse a cancer patient a marijuana prescription. Or the suicide assistance drugs for terminal patients.

So you would stand for an employee that hurts your profits and undermines the ability to earn them of your other employees?

Well said.

I would have fired her too. There are certain jobs out there that do require moral flexibility. If one can't do their job because of moral objections, then they should be fired, or more honorably, resign. The same rules would apply to:

exotic dancers that refuse to take off their clothes
slaughterhouse workers that refuse to kill animals
police that refuse to arrest people for certain illegal activities
grocery store cashiers that refuse to ring up purchases for objectionable items
healthcare workers that refuse to treat injuries (i.e. joe-shmo's crack pipe exploded on him)
soldiers that refuse to kill people

I have had to do work that would make many people squeemish, such as sticking needles in babies to get blood for laboratory testing, but had I objected to doing so on moral or other grounds, I would have been fired.

No rights have been violated--companies have the right to set terms of employment, and if the employee doesn't like the terms, they walk (or get walked, as the case may be), barring some form of stipulation in a contract that says otherwise.


You know, if Target really wanted to be aggressive about this they could craft their contracts to make the filling of any 'scrips part of the job description. I'm sorry, but this pandering is disgusting. If you aren't willing to do your damn job your company has every right to fire you on the spot with a bad reference. I mean really, if they can make you work on Saturday....

I hope the ACLU will step forward and help the pharmicist sue Target for a violation of her rights. Nuf said.

How is that a "violation of her rights"?

I'd probably do the same thing as that pharmacist... but then again, I'd expect to get fired for it. To me, your concience is more important than your job - but I don't expect your employer to have those same priorities.

Well, you picked a job where you knew you were going to have to do things that went against your conscience. That's your own damn fault.

I don't join the army and then bitch because I have to kill people, you don't bitch about that. I'd be just as pissed at you.

Seeing as I recently worked at target, and they screwed me out of ten hours of pay... I won't be defending them anytime soon.

Lets just say this was an albertsons, hypothetically. I agree with them.

Any pharmacist who refuses to fill any perscription that won't react badly with a patient's other medications and they don't suspect is fradulent should be fired. If you refuse to do your job, you shouldn't have it.

Target actually has a policy adopted last year that provided that out, and she refused to sign it, which amounted to refusing to abide by the policy.

Target looks to be on pretty solid ground, but sadly, that doesn't always mean anything when it comes to judges these days. I hope they win out.

I will admit to not having read the entire article...She's SUEING them for that firing? Sorry lady, if you can't be a "part of the chain" of someone using legal medication, you need to find another damn job.

soldiers that refuse to kill people


Actually, the army will recruit pacifists. It goes in their service contract that they will never be deployed to a combat zone, and they fill certain support positions.

However, I do support a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill any prescription.


So do I.

It also starts with: To whom it may concern, this is my 2 week notice of resignation......

If your conscience is a problem, then get another job.....

So do I.

It also starts with: To whom it may concern, this is my 2 week notice of resignation......

If your conscience is a problem, then get another job.....

If you own your own pharmacy, you should be able to refuse any perscription you want. It's called a free market.

If you own your own pharmacy, you should be able to refuse any perscription you want. It's called a free market.

And nobody is talking about people who own their own pharmacy.

Good job completely losing the point.

Anyone who's ever complained about "Liberal Judges Legislating From The Bench" forfeits the right to defend the woman's behavior as an employed pharmacist.

Well, if you're going be a pharmacist you will run into single women who want the morning-after pill. You'll find funny people wanting funny drugs, that's the business.

If you want to be a pharmacist with "perfect ethics", then go run your own pharmacy.

And nobody is talking about people who own their own pharmacy.

Good job completely losing the point.

Actually, if you read my posts, it was explicit that I was refering to people that owned their own pharmacy, or had an arrangement to refer a prescription they didn't feel comfortable filling to an associate.

It was you, my friend, that lost the point.

Actually, if you read my posts, it was explicit that I was refering to people that owned their own pharmacy, or had an arrangement to refer a prescription they didn't feel comfortable filling to an associate.



No she should get another job. There isn't always multiple pharmacists. Even if she owned her own; she should still get another job and let somebody else who would do the job.

Free market works if there is competition. There isn't always mulitple pharmacists in towns.

Her "religious" convictions would be the same as a doctor refusing to treat a homosexual because the bible says they are icky....

No she should get another job. There isn't always multiple pharmacists. Even if she owned her own; she should still get another job and let somebody else who would do the job.

Free market works if there is competition. There isn't always mulitple pharmacists in towns.

Her "religious" convictions would be the same as a doctor refusing to treat a homosexual because the bible says they are icky....

Um...if you read anything in this thread, it says that Target allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription, but they have to have an assiciate fill it instead.

The problem was that she didn't do that. Not that she didn't fill it.

Actually, if you read my posts, it was explicit that I was refering to people that owned their own pharmacy, or had an arrangement to refer a prescription they didn't feel comfortable filling to an associate.

It was you, my friend, that lost the point.

The line of quotes after post 40(I go by pages of fourty, so somewhere in page 4 for you guys) got me confused. I didn't read the whole topic, but I stand by my point in the line of quotes...

Anyways, it was my fault, though it was an easy mistake.

I don't like target.

Random comment.

I'll stop now.

The line of quotes after post 40(I go by pages of fourty, so somewhere in page 4 for you guys) got me confused. I didn't read the whole topic, but I stand by my point in the line of quotes...

Anyways, it was my fault, though it was an easy mistake.

I don't like target.

Random comment.

I'll stop now.

'Tis cool.

Hug?

Um...if you read anything in this thread, it says that Target allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription, but they have to have an assiciate fill it instead.

The problem was that she didn't do that. Not that she didn't fill it.

I hit the pharmy a few times a year as I have major allergy issues. Rarely do I see mulitple people. It's works if somebody is around.

'Tis cool.

Hug?

Thanks.

:fluffle:

pretend i am an orthodox jew and i had a job at, say, jack-in-the-box. being an orthodox jew, i cannot eat or handle, among other things, meat from pigs. this is all fine and dandy, but consider if i did what this pharmacist did...

every time someone orders a ham sandwich, or any burger with bacon, etc. not only do i refuse to complete the order, but i also refuse to direct the customer to a cashier that will fill it out. i'm effectively cutting my work load responsibility by a huge chuck and i'm not allowing the customer to get the order they're wanting.

freedom of religion is a great thing. i have no problem with people following their own beliefs, even if i may consider them antiquated or even downright bizzare. but when someone tries to force their beliefs on me - especially when it's their job not to... i'm sorry, but there's not many better reasons to fire someone that i can think of.

/end rant

Agreed. I'm a vegetarian for example, but in the same breath, I was quite happy to work in a butchery, helping people to select meat, and even pack the stuff.

It isn't the employers responsibility cater for everyones idiosyncrasies, if you believe a certain thing, then good on you, all power to to you but don't expect the employer to cater for your special lifestyle choice - want to preach your lifestyle choice, then get your own money, open your own shop then you can decide whether or not you wish to serve a certain product.

I wonder if Target would have fired me for refusing to ring up anything religous(or anything Christmas related during christmas!).

I wonder if Target would have fired me for refusing to ring up anything religous(or anything Christmas related during christmas!).

Hell yea! Isn't Christmas where most stores make the most money? ;)

Hell yea! Isn't Christmas where most stores make the most money? ;)

I would have loved to been able to tell of customers with christmas products on christmas eve, which I worked on...

I hope the ACLU will step forward and help the pharmicist sue Target for a violation of her rights. Nuf said.
When you say something like this, perhaps you should outline what rights got violated?

And it's about damn time, (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F66D4B9D4D4E342E8625710300039083?OpenDocument) I say.

Now, if you read the article, you'll discover that the pharmacist wans't fired just because she refused to fill the prescription. She was fired because she went further and refused to refer physicians and patients to pharmacists who would fill the prescription.



We've had this debate around here before, and I imagine this thread will involve some further discussion of the topic, but I'm posting the thread largely to praise Target on this. They did the right thing on a controversial topic in a place where they will probably get a lot of heat--St. Louis isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism, after all.

Take the poll.

YAY FOR TARGET!!! I'm so glad they did this...I was starting to think I would have to add them to my list of boycotted stores, but now I can enjoy writing them a letter of thanks instead. :)

I wonder if Target would have fired me for refusing to ring up anything religous(or anything Christmas related during christmas!).
That was something a friend of my brought up the other day...

Imagine a situation where bookstore clerks in many major chains decided they were no longer going to allow customers to use gift certificates to purchase religious material. Imagine that the clerks would take the gift certificates and then not give them back, and would refuse to allow any other clerk to serve the customer. Imagine if the bookstore chains simply shrugged and said that their employees had the right to express their personal morals.

Imagine how the radical religious right would respond. Imagine the shrieking, the whimpering, the crying, the shouting. And that would be over BOOKS.

This is over women's health. This is about the medical safety of human beings. And there are actually pharmacies that are DEFENDING the "right" of their employees to endanger other people's health for "moral" reasons. And there are actually people who refer to these actions as "pro-life," when in fact they not only directly endanger the health of human beings but also INCREASE the potential demand for abortions.

of course she should be fired, she refused to do her job and refused to let anyone else do it for her

Everything I have to say was said in the first line of the original post.

About bloody time.

to endanger other people's health for "moral" reasons. And there are actually people who refer to these actions as "pro-life," when in fact they not only directly endanger the health of human beings but also INCREASE the potential demand for abortions.

Pregnancy is engdangering to a person's health?!? If that were true we wouldn't be here.

Pregnancy is engdangering to a person's health?!? If that were true we wouldn't be here.
Something be endangering to health doesn't mean that it kills the person...

Excellent work, Target. Philosophical and ethical debate aside, this woman violated company policy and absolutely deserved to be fired for doing so. You don't refuse medication or referals to physicians simply because you don't believe it's right; damn it, filling prescriptions is her job! That's the same principle as a firefighter refusing to save a single mother from a burning building; ethical judgements play no role in you doing the job you are assigned to.

She deserved firing beyond any doubt. "I don't want to be a link in a chain"...WTF? God, I'd hate for my doctor to decide to use alchemy or leeches on me because he doesn't want to be "a link in a chain".

Sure.

But here's how I'd've framed it:

Did this pharmacist choose the proper vocation?

I would have loved to been able to tell of customers with christmas products on christmas eve, which I worked on...

You know what his almost as effective?

Be happy and cheerful! My wife and I go out the day before and do that and you would be surprised at how many people get pissed off by it! :)

Pregnancy is engdangering to a person's health?!?

that wasn't all that bottle was refering to, but yes it is.

Well, good for Target for now. It was the right thing to do legally, ethically and business-wise (sending customers away? bitch cost them money!).

But I'm not ready to let them off the hook until I see consistent reports that they always have at least one non-bible-nut at the pharmacy counter at all times in order to fill prescriptions efficiently. In the US, it's not legal for an employer to inquire about an employee's personal/religious beliefs, so I don't see how they can manage this. Even if they just ask for volunteers, they are still asking people to expose their beliefs in order to work there and this will some day lead to complaints of a hostile or oppressive work environment.

It's better to do what Walgreen's did -- pick a side on the issue and go that way 100%. You won't be able to avoid all trouble, but at least you'll know where that trouble will come from and get ready to meet it.

Let's put it into another perspective. One's individual belief does not trump another's right to health.

Would you want a Jehovah's Witness as your surgeon?

In the US, it's not legal for an employer to inquire about an employee's personal/religious beliefs, so I don't see how they can manage this.


Actually the way around it is to simply ask if they have problems selling condoms, birth control, and the morning after pill.

Actually the way around it is to simply ask if they have problems selling condoms, birth control, and the morning after pill.
True, but that's still a personal beliefs question, even though you're not asking them to label their beliefs. You ask the question, and then you either hire the person or not. How long before someone you don't hire accuses you of discriminating because of their beliefs, whether you did or not? And how is every store manager and assistant manager supposed to know which pharmacist falls into which group if their beliefs are not made plain? Do you issue color-coded badges? Target is trying to please everyone and that's a sure recipe for failure.

Especially when you consider that people really aren't looking for peaceful co-existence on this issue anymore. They are looking for reasons to fight.

True, but that's still a personal beliefs question, even though you're not asking them to label their beliefs. You ask the question, and then you either hire the person or not. How long before someone you don't hire accuses you of discriminating because of their beliefs, whether you did or not? And how is every store manager and assistant manager supposed to know which pharmacist falls into which group if their beliefs are not made plain? Do you issue color-coded badges? Target is trying to please everyone and that's a sure recipe for failure.

Especially when you consider that people really aren't looking for peaceful co-existence on this issue anymore. They are looking for reasons to fight.
The way Target has confronted the issue is that they're not asking for the beliefs of their pharmacists--they've simply made it a policy that their pharmacists have to refer physicians or patients if they're not willing to fill the prescription themselves. If they don't sign the policy, they don't have a job--it's up to them to decide where their beliefs lie.

True, but that's still a personal beliefs question, even though you're not asking them to label their beliefs. You ask the question, and then you either hire the person or not. How long before someone you don't hire accuses you of discriminating because of their beliefs, whether you did or not? And how is every store manager and assistant manager supposed to know which pharmacist falls into which group if their beliefs are not made plain? Do you issue color-coded badges? Target is trying to please everyone and that's a sure recipe for failure.

Especially when you consider that people really aren't looking for peaceful co-existence on this issue anymore. They are looking for reasons to fight.

It is simply a question of whether the person is willing to do the job or not. You either follow company policy or you aren't hired. No discrimination case can be made.

True, but that's still a personal beliefs question, even though you're not asking them to label their beliefs. You ask the question, and then you either hire the person or not. How long before someone you don't hire accuses you of discriminating because of their beliefs, whether you did or not? And how is every store manager and assistant manager supposed to know which pharmacist falls into which group if their beliefs are not made plain? Do you issue color-coded badges? Target is trying to please everyone and that's a sure recipe for failure.

Especially when you consider that people really aren't looking for peaceful co-existence on this issue anymore. They are looking for reasons to fight.

What if the question is just posed as "Will you do the job you're asking for (filling ALL legal 'scripts unless you suspect they are fake)? If not, apply for a diffferent job, you maroon"

Target did right, a pharmacists job is to deliver the prescriptions from a physician, it is not his job to
a) alter a prescription
b) prescribe themselves
c) deny a prescription on moral/religious belief

As I am a doctor (also the one in the last thread) I myself would gladly have sued this pharmacist had I heard about it and if it was my prescription.

Moral and religion can be performed at home as you like it, but if it infringes on your job, you just may loose it...bad world

Target did right, a pharmacists job is to deliver the prescriptions from a physician, it is not his job to
a) alter a prescription
b) prescribe themselves
c) deny a prescription on moral/religious belief

As I am a doctor (also the one in the last thread) I myself would gladly have sued this pharmacist had I heard about it and if it was my prescription.

Moral and religion can be performed at home as you like it, but if it infringes on your job, you just may loose it...bad world

The way Target has confronted the issue is that they're not asking for the beliefs of their pharmacists--they've simply made it a policy that their pharmacists have to refer physicians or patients if they're not willing to fill the prescription themselves. If they don't sign the policy, they don't have a job--it's up to them to decide where their beliefs lie.


Why does it seem that nobody except for The Nazz, myself, and a few others are resonable enough to see the middle ground of this issue?

Why does it seem that nobody except for The Nazz, myself, and a few others are resonable enough to see the middle ground of this issue?
Because the healthcare of another is worth more than the emotional convienece of a person who chooses to put themselves in a position where they are likely to be inconvienced.

It is good to see the route Target has taken in this matter.

I see this like the animal rights activists telling everyone that they must not use animal tested due to moral grounds. (I still get a laugh at how fast they will use it when they need em!) Same in this situation, this woman is in the wrong job if she feels her morals dictate what medicine will be distributed, doctor prescribed or otherwise. As they say, if you can't take the heat GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!

True, but that's still a personal beliefs question, even though you're not asking them to label their beliefs. You ask the question, and then you either hire the person or not.
If they won't do their job, they shouldn't be hired. There is no business ethics problem here except on their end.

If you don't want sell Harry Potter books, don't work at Barnes & Noble. If you don't want to sell people of age violent video games, don't work at Gamestop. And if you don't want to sell behind the counter pharmaceuticals, don't become a pharmacist.

This is no different then getting hired for a construction job and then refusing to pound nails or dig holes for "religious reasons."

Obviously this failed pharmacist needs to find a new line of work.

I hope the ACLU will step forward and help the pharmicist sue Target for a violation of her rights. Nuf said.
The pharmacist has the bloody right to fill out the prescription! She didn't do that or even offer a referral. She lost her protection. She had a job and she didn't fulfill it.

As a repair technician, it isn't my job to decide not to repair a computer on moral grounds. My only choice is who gets it first based on priority. I'm pretty sure I repaired a computer that had porn on it.

Pregnancy is engdangering to a person's health?!? If that were true we wouldn't be here.
Wow. Just wow. The level of ignorance is terrifying.

Wow. Just wow. The level of ignorance is terrifying.
Ain't it though? And that person likely has the ability to reproduce.

Ain't it though? And that person likely has the ability to reproduce.
And millions other who are like that...

And millions other who are like that...

And they all voted for Shrub.

Twice.

It is simply a question of whether the person is willing to do the job or not. You either follow company policy or you aren't hired. No discrimination case can be made.
Hey, I'm on the same side with everyone who has replied to my post. I'm just laying out what the other side is thinking. Target wants to accommodate everyone by drawing a very fine line between what some employees want and what the store promises their customers. Their message essentially was: Our pharmacists have to fill all legal prescriptions unless their beliefs say not to, in which case they can refuse, but only if they refer to another pharmacist who doesn't have that problem.

It's this equivocating, all this "if A, then B, unless C, in which case D" stuff, that creates arguments. The customers can argue that they are being denied medicine if there is no willing pharmacist available when they go to the store. The moralistic pharamacists can argue that the "willing other pharmacist" requirement puts them in a position where they may be forced to violate their beliefs in order to keep their jobs -- if there is no willing other pharmacist on duty. And that seems to be just what this particular case is about.

It may seem this woman has no legitimate argument to make, but she is not attacking it as a mere employment policy issue. She's attacking it as a political and civil liberties issue, and as someone else pointed out earlier, that argument could easily work in the current climate.

My argument is that, if Target had just said, look, Target pharmacists fill all safe, legal prescriptions whether they like it or not, and had offered job placement assistance to anyone on staff who felt they couldn't keep working there, they would be on much steadier ground to fire this woman who stayed on at her job but violated the policy.

True, but that's still a personal beliefs question, even though you're not asking them to label their beliefs. You ask the question, and then you either hire the person or not. How long before someone you don't hire accuses you of discriminating because of their beliefs, whether you did or not? And how is every store manager and assistant manager supposed to know which pharmacist falls into which group if their beliefs are not made plain? Do you issue color-coded badges? Target is trying to please everyone and that's a sure recipe for failure.

Especially when you consider that people really aren't looking for peaceful co-existence on this issue anymore. They are looking for reasons to fight.
Thoes questions DIRECTLY effect my ability to do my JOB
My employer has every right to ask thoes thinks of their workers

Its like me suing because my housekeeping job asks if I can phisicaly move a bed to clean behind it

It directly affects my job performance they have a right to know

Thoes questions DIRECTLY effect my ability to do my JOB
My employer has every right to ask thoes thinks of their workers

Its like me suing because my housekeeping job asks if I can phisicaly move a bed to clean behind it

It directly affects my job performance they have a right to know
You and others here are arguing from the position of logical, ethical people who know how to read a list of rules. You're not arguing from the position of idealogues whose lawsuits are taken up by litigators paid for by political action committees.

it is perfectly and entirely possible for a housekeeper to take a job requiring heavy lifting, then refuse to do heavy lifting, and then attempt to sue for wrongful dismissal or whathaveyou. Whether such a suit would succeed is another issue, but that kind of nonsense goes on all the time.

If the current political climate were different, I'd be laughing this off, saying let the stupid cow sue; she hasn't a leg to stand on. But my point is that, nowadays, we can't rely on the simple logic of "she broke the rules" to carry the day because there are politically connected interests that are trying to change laws. If you want to force legislation, legal precedents are good tools to have on hand. I predict that we will see many such suits. Most will fail, but if a few succeed, then we will likely see them again used to support arguments for new legislation.

You and others here are arguing from the position of logical, ethical people who know how to read a list of rules. You're not arguing from the position of idealogues whose lawsuits are taken up by litigators paid for by political action committees.

it is perfectly and entirely possible for a housekeeper to take a job requiring heavy lifting, then refuse to do heavy lifting, and then attempt to sue for wrongful dismissal or whathaveyou. Whether such a suit would succeed is another issue, but that kind of nonsense goes on all the time.

If the current political climate were different, I'd be laughing this off, saying let the stupid cow sue; she hasn't a leg to stand on. But my point is that, nowadays, we can't rely on the simple logic of "she broke the rules" to carry the day because there are politically connected interests that are trying to change laws. If you want to force legislation, legal precedents are good tools to have on hand. I predict that we will see many such suits. Most will fail, but if a few succeed, then we will likely see them again used to support arguments for new legislation.
True enough :)