Re: Muslim bus drivers refuse to let guide dogs on board

[Stephanie]

Wouldn't that be up to the employer, Terry? Don't business owners have any rights any more?

Where did I imply any differently?

I thought it obvious that it would be the employer firing the employee that refuses to do their job.

Of course the next scream would be about religious discrimination.

Keli thinks that the christian pharmacist SHOULD be able to refuse to do his job. He thinks the muslim taxi drivers that refuse to do theirs should be executed.

No, he hasn't said that, but I think we know the score.

If he supports the pharmacist that won't fill a prescription, he needs to support the taxi driver that won't pick up people with dogs.

Me, I support neither. People that shirk their duties should have those duties taken away.

In earlier discussions I seem to remember you stating pharmacists who refuse to dispense abortifacients should have their licenses pulled. Perhaps I am mistaken. I know you said one of the reasons ALL pharmacists MUST dispense ANY drug, including a drug that induces abortion, is because it may be inconvenient for some patients to go to another pharmacy. I thought you meant that Fruth's Pharmacy must fire any pharmacist who refused to fill such a prescription, or that they must carry the drug even if the owners don't want to.

I disagree with your comparison, btw. Service dogs are invaluable for people with certain disabilities providing them independence. In this nation it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability. Pregnancy is not a disability.

[Ich bin Ala-awkbarph]

LEERDAM, 23/07/10 - Three paintings depicting pigs have been pre-emptively removed from a hospital in Leerdam because they might offend Muslims.

One patient, not actually himself a Muslim, made a complaint about the paintings because he wanted to avoid Muslims having confrontations with the pigs. The leadership of the healthcare institution, the Linge Polyclinic, thereupon decided to remove the paintings immediately, Algemeen Dagblad newspaper reports.

The artist, Sylvia Bosch, is astounded. "One week earlier, I had an e-mail from the clinic saying that they were getting nice reactions. After a single complaint, they had to be taken away immediately."

The Linge Polyclinic has stated that the pictures were removed because "all visitors must feel comfortable in the institution".

[ziggy]

I am curious though Ziggy, under what guise should I or anyone else be responsible for anothers food? Why is it someone elses responsibility to make sure anyone other then those they are responsible for bringing into this world eat?

When a society allows its economy to be manipulated to assure a 5 percent or higher unemployment rate, that society owes that unemployed segment some minimum level of survival "welfare".

Were our economy manipulated to assure a 5 percent or higher unemployment rate, you might have a point.

As it is not, you don't.

Next time the unemployment rate drops below 5 percent, listen to the chairman of the federal reserve start talking about the "overheated economy" and about raising interest rates and otherwise manipulating the economic system to stop the unemployment rate from falling further. That has become the routine.

[Aaron]

How is it routine when the unemployment rate has only been below 5% during 2 of the last 10 years, 6 of the last 20 and 9 of the last 50? That's hardly routine. As I said, you don't have a point.

[TerryRC]

Aren't you a teacher?

No. Aren't you one?

[TerryRC]

If taxi drivers are not employees of the state or regional government, if they are willing to put signs on their cabs stating that they will not carry alcohol or guide dogs, I'm OK with their right to do so.

If they work for themselves. Most don't. Can I fire them if they are one of my drivers? Same for the pharmacist if he is in my employ?

Similarly, a pharmacist who puts up signage that states that he/she will not dispense abortifacients or birth control should be given the right to do so. If folks need birth control so badly, perhaps the feminists would do well to open up or fund a more liberal pharmacy nearby.

Again, if they own their own business. If they work for Wal-Mart, can they be fired?

If you refuse to do the job you were hired for just because you don't like a customer or something they do, you should be fired.

I can't believe you raging capitalists are arguing any differently.

[TerryRC]

I disagree with your comparison, btw. Service dogs are invaluable for people with certain disabilities providing them independence. In this nation it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability. Pregnancy is not a disability.

Tell that to my wife that had to have most of her teeth replaced due to calcium deficiencies after her two pregnancies. She also has sciatica from our second one.

Also, just as guide dogs have given people independence, so has family planning. My comparison is actually good.

In earlier discussions I seem to remember you stating pharmacists who refuse to dispense abortifacients should have their licenses pulled. Perhaps I am mistaken. I know you said one of the reasons ALL pharmacists MUST dispense ANY drug, including a drug that induces abortion, is because it may be inconvenient for some patients to go to another pharmacy.

No. I said it was because they are licensed by the State to dispense ANY drug that a doctor prescribes.

I still believe that, but if a pharmacy refuses to carry that drug (as in my discussion with Sheik, above), pharmacists can't be expected to dispense them.

If the pharmacy does dispense it, pharmacists should be expected to fill prescriptions or the employer is well within their rights to let them go.

[TerryRC]

I have something you both you and Ziggy lack, guiding principles. I make it very clear there are things I won't do or be involved in. If that isn't satisfactory to my employer he/she doesn't need to hire me.

Unlike being gay, religious beliefs are protected to that extent. I can't refuse to hire you solely because you are a raging biblical literalist, for instance.

[Stephanie]

I disagree with your comparison, btw. Service dogs are invaluable for people with certain disabilities providing them independence. In this nation it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability. Pregnancy is not a disability.

Tell that to my wife that had to have most of her teeth replaced due to calcium deficiencies after her two pregnancies. She also has sciatica from our second one.

Should women stop giving birth because of the high probability of some sort of long-term or permanent side effect? Varicose veins, back pain, a weak bladder, and stretch marks........I've got `em all. Pick your poison, evolution or design. Either way, women are built to give birth.

Also, just as guide dogs have given people independence, so has family planning. My comparison is actually good.

Family planning is proactive. Family planning requires taking steps to avoid getting pregnant......like taking the pill, or wearing a condom. Abortion is reactive. There are safer, more effective options than ever before yet abortion continues to be a multi-million dollar industry in this country.

[TerryRC]

Family planning is proactive. Family planning requires taking steps to avoid getting pregnant......like taking the pill, or wearing a condom. Abortion is reactive. There are safer, more effective options than ever before yet abortion continues to be a multi-million dollar industry in this country.

The morning after pill, for instance is NOT an abortion. Regardless, birth control AND abortion, have indeed allowed women to remain independent. Your "proactive/reactive" argument is irrelevant.

You said my comparison is poor because guide dogs allow a group to not be dependent upon others but birth control drugs/morning after drugs do not (because that was the subject, pharmacists that refuse to dispense certain drugs).

You are incorrect, my comparison is spot on. Both the cab driver and the pharmacist are refusing an important service to someone that feels they need it.

Should women stop giving birth because of the high probability of some sort of long-term or permanent side effect? Varicose veins, back pain, a weak bladder, and stretch marks........I've got `em all. Pick your poison, evolution or design. Either way, women are built to give birth.

Regardless, being pregnant IS a disability (possibly a fatal one), even if only a temporary one that may cause permanent ones.

[Cato]

Regardless, being pregnant IS a disability (possibly a fatal one), even if only a temporary one that may cause permanent ones.

Bull Crap

[TerryRC]

Bull Crap

Coming from someone who has never been pregnant. Even if you have been, that would hardly qualify as a witty and fact filled response.

Women sometimes die or, more frequently, suffer permanent damage from childbirth all of the time. My wife was too disabled to drive for the last three months of her last pregnancy - she was too big. I would consider that to be temporarily disabled.

What I said is not, "Bull Crap".

[Stephanie]

Bull Crap

Coming from someone who has never been pregnant. Even if you have been, that would hardly qualify as a witty and fact filled response.

Women sometimes die or, more frequently, suffer permanent damage from childbirth all of the time. My wife was too disabled to drive for the last three months of her last pregnancy - she was too big. I would consider that to be temporarily disabled.

What I said is not, "Bull Crap".

No, it is bullcrap. Your wife didn't know she wasn't going to be able to drive for 3 months. I drove myself to the hospital to have Scott and Leah. The only time I felt "disabled" during my SIX pregnancies was when I was suffered hyperemesis with Katie. Should I have aborted her because I was temporarily disabled?

A person can become disabled or even die while driving a car, or a bike for that matter. That's life, Terry.

You have a fairly safe occupation. However, plenty of occupations are NOT safe. Should deep sea fishermen and coal miners and firemen stop fishing and mining and fighting fires because they could die or become disabled? Life is full of risks and if you're a woman and you're going to have intercourse pregnancy is a risk you take.

I seem to recall reading that the FDA is moving toward allowing the "morning after pill" to be available OTC. I predict very soon our disagreement regarding pharmacists will be moot. However, it does make me wonder..........should all OB/GYN's and all midwives be required to perform abortions on demand or face losing their licenses? Wouldn't they too be "refusing an important service to someone who feels they need it"?

[TerryRC]

No, it is bullcrap. Your wife didn't know she wasn't going to be able to drive for 3 months. I drove myself to the hospital to have Scott and Leah. The only time I felt "disabled" during my SIX pregnancies was when I was suffered hyperemesis with Katie. Should I have aborted her because I was temporarily disabled?

I didn't say that. Thanks for the drama, though. Other women aren't as fit as you, perhaps. On the other end of the spectrum, my sister almost died from bleeding during her last labor (partitioned uterus) and can't have any more kids.

I said that pregnancy could be considered a temporary disability that can cause permanent disabilities. I don't see how ANYONE can deny that.

You have a fairly safe occupation.

Ummm... I drive all of the time and I fly in helicopters and fixed-wing craft on a regular basis.

Should deep sea fishermen and coal miners and firemen stop fishing and mining and fighting fires because they could die or become disabled?

No, they should find a different line of work.

Life is full of risks and if you're a woman and you're going to have intercourse pregnancy is a risk you take.

Except, of course, if you have been raped or molested by a relative or preacher or teacher, or if you are at grave medical risk... or if you use birth control in good faith and it fails.

I seem to recall reading that the FDA is moving toward allowing the "morning after pill" to be available OTC. I predict very soon our disagreement regarding pharmacists will be moot.

Perhaps.

However, it does make me wonder..........should all OB/GYN's and all midwives be required to perform abortions on demand or face losing their licenses?

Ideally, yes. In practice, no. I wouldn't want someone doing surgery unless they were absolutely committed to it. Pharmacists do not have that responsibility.

Let us put it this way - if an OB/GYN knowingly takes a job at a place that performs abortions and knows that it would be part of their duties and then refuses to do so, they should absolutely be fired.

[Stephanie]

Ideally, yes. In practice, no. I wouldn't want someone doing surgery unless they were absolutely committed to it. Pharmacists do not have that responsibility.

Let us put it this way - if an OB/GYN knowingly takes a job at a place that performs abortions and knows that it would be part of their duties and then refuses to do so, they should absolutely be fired.

Your perceived "rights" of a very small percentage of the population puts the rest of us at risk.

Although many areas face critical shortages of OB's and nurses, (I'm assuming you feel the same way about a nurse) and even though the number of pharmacists our aging population requires continues to grow, you would rather have people unwilling to perform abortions or dispense abortificients on demand be fired and/or have their licenses pulled. This discourages pro-life students from choosing careers in those fields, putting the all rest of us in danger of not being able to have the life saving medical professionals we need available to us.

[TerryRC]

Your perceived "rights" of a very small percentage of the population puts the rest of us at risk.

How does the practice of abortion put you at personal risk? More drama. Regardless, our rights are not based on what the majority thinks the minority should do, thank heavens.

Although many areas face critical shortages of OB's and nurses, (I'm assuming you feel the same way about a nurse) and even though the number of pharmacists our aging population requires continues to grow, you would rather have people unwilling to perform abortions or dispense abortificients on demand be fired and/or have their licenses pulled.

Ideally. If I take a job gardening for you and refuse to pull weeds because I have ethical problems with it, should you keep me on the payroll?

As I said, however, in practice, I wouldn't want surgeons to perform procedures unless they were absolutely committed to doing them. There is no such risk with the duties of pharmacists, though.

Do the job you were contracted for or be replaced. Isn't that the essence of capitalism?

[Stephanie]

You win. Fire all the pharmacists who won't dispense those drugs. There'll just be fewer pharmacists. It's no big deal. What's a few less pharmacists?

[TerryRC]

You win. Fire all the pharmacists who won't dispense those drugs. There'll just be fewer pharmacists. It's no big deal. What's a few less pharmacists?

We will graduate more. Perhaps they will do the job they were hired for.

[Stephanie]

Perhaps some students will choose a different career.....

[TerryRC]

Perhaps some students will choose a different career.....

Good. Don't choose a career that you aren't cut out for.

I think all drugs should be OTC, anyway.

[TerryRC]

Perhaps some students will choose a different career.....

I said that all drugs should be OTC. When you have pharmacists like this, they might just as well be:

a series of undercover operations in which officers posing as patients were able to obtain powerful prescription drugs based on obviously questionable notes signed with names including "Dr. Kevorkian," "Dr. Pepper" and "Dr. Dre,"

[ziggy]

I am curious though Ziggy, under what guise should I or anyone else be responsible for anothers food? Why is it someone elses responsibility to make sure anyone other then those they are responsible for bringing into this world eat?

When a society allows its economy to be manipulated to assure a 5 percent or higher unemployment rate, that society owes that unemployed segment some minimum level of survival "welfare".

Were our economy manipulated to assure a 5 percent or higher unemployment rate, you might have a point.

As it is not, you don't.

Next time the unemployment rate drops below 5 percent, listen to the chairman of the federal reserve start talking about the "overheated economy" and about raising interest rates and otherwise manipulating the economic system to stop the unemployment rate from falling further. That has become the routine.

How is it routine when the unemployment rate has only been below 5% during 2 of the last 10 years, 6 of the last 20 and 9 of the last 50? That's hardly routine. As I said, you don't have a point.

Again, that has become the routine when the unemployment rate drops below 5 percent. And I have seen it happen time after time again and again over the past 50 years.

[Aaron]

It's easy to see the 'routine' when you've already made you mind up what the outcome is going to be before you start looking Ziggy.

[ziggy]

After you have watched it for 50 years, Aaron, tell us that again.

[Stephanie]

Aaron,

Ziggy is right about the way the Fed tinkers with the economy. It is how folks like Ziggy think that capitalism is a failure. They view the manipulation of the Fed as a failure of capitalism, when we don't really have an authentic capitalist system.

[Sponsored content]