I'm sorry sir, but god said you can't buy those condoms as every sperm is sacred

I had some devout muslim staff working for me in a nursing home – they did not want to serve alcohol to the residents. There is no way I could or should make them serve alcohol

does this mean i can stop cutting drunks out of cars or just leave druggies houses to burn as i dont believe what they do is right?

Actually, neither of those situations is analogous to the self-employed pharmacist. If you're an employee and you sign up for a job that by its nature involves serving alcohol or cutting drunks out of cars (or, for that matter, a Muslim butcher that works at a pork processing plant) then tough shit – you shouldn't have taken the job in the first place and you can either do it, or stand up for your beliefs and **** off.

On the other hand, if you were, for instance, a self-employed towtruck driver who refused to work for pissheads that had crashed their car, or ran a catering business that didn't do events that served alcohol – well, that's your problem. Same with the pharmacists: if they want to miss out on the business, that's their problem.

these guys must be non-judgemental, contraception is an arkward subject for teenagers both preventative and emergency..sure that a teenage lass who's bricking it about being pregnant needs some religious do-gooder tutting and huffing about supplying the morning after pill

Is tutting and huffing what's going to happen? Or would the pharmacist just say "sorry, I don't sell contraception, you'll need Smith's down the road"?

I'm with Ziggy on this, I am almost tempted to go into the chemists in question to get some condoms & say its my religious belief that I have to wear condoms & they are discriminating against me… total madness, one rule for one etc etc.

I have never read the Daily Mail but I think I may start if this constant duality persists….

Stop persecuting the majority for the lunatic fringe!

Is tutting and huffing what's going to happen?

IME, those devout (read foolish) enough to allow their religious beliefs to affect others, are also more than pious enough to 'tut and huff' about the situation that a vulnerable teenage girl may find herself in. To someone in such a precarious position, such tutting may be seen as a tacit view that she should be ashamed of herself. As such, she may decide not to seek out emergency contraception anywhere else, fearing further 'moral' judgements. Worse, she may not tell her parents about the situation for an increased fear of the same 'moral' judging, until it becomes blatantly obvious she's had unprotected sex three months too late…

What next? Paramedic refusing go into a pig shed as its against his beliefs?

..or a b&b refusing to take a couple of gays because it goes against the beliefs of the homeowner?

Given that every sperm is sacred, surely that outlaws bonking as well as <ahem> self fulfillment. I mean at the absolute best every bonk represents untold millions of the little fellas being wiped out (sorry poor turn of phrase). At the very best only a handful will survive the journey.

So the message to all religious wallers must surely be the "Lord says that shalt not bonk its mass murder"………that should sort the whole issue out fairly quickly!

IME…

Do you have any experience of Catholic pharmacists refusing to sell morning after?

Does anyone? Has there been a documented case of this or is it entirely hypothetical so far?

I have plenty of experience of pious catholics, and I guess some of pharmacists too. It doesn't take much to work out what the two could be like when combined.

And yes, it does appear to have happened, once (at least) resulting in a pregnancy…

These are just the people that come forwards about it. Is a frightened teenager likely to do that?

It seems to be more prevalent in the USA though.

Both of the pharmacists you mention were employees of chain stores. They should both have been sacked by their employer for refusing to dispense emergency contraception.

They should both have been sacked by their employer for refusing to dispense emergency contraception.

Unfortunately, given the de facto backing of their stance by their governing body, can you see a dismissal getting past the cry of discrimination on grounds of religion?

Do you have any experience of Catholic pharmacists refusing to sell morning after?

Does anyone? Has there been a documented case of this or is it entirely hypothetical so far?

It's happened to me in Spain – well, condoms, not the pill.

Aren't they discriminating against people based on their own beliefs
B+B owner did that and she's in trouble with the police.
I'm not entirely sure who i agree with in this i just don't get the double
standard.

Unfortunately, given the de facto backing of their stance by their governing body, can you see a dismissal getting past the cry of discrimination on grounds of religion?

No, and that's the issue here. They should never have been hired. They were not capable of doing the job. Surely the pharmaceutical body's response should have been putting the following in all job applications…

"Please state any beliefs or personal preferences that may prevent you from fulfilling your roles responsibilities to the full?"

given the de facto backing of their stance by their governing body, can you see a dismissal getting past the cry of discrimination on grounds of religion?

The membership rules of their governing body are irrelevant to the employment contract with their employer. They are in the same position as the Muslim dude who didn't want to handle pork products when serving canteen food to swine i.e. they can get ****: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8064474.stm

The membership rules of their governing body are irrelevant to the employment contract with their employer.

Most employers are frightened enough of the cry "RACIST", without the reasons for the dispute apparently being supported by their own governing body.

Samuri has it, but given this strange stance by the governing body, it's not inconceivable that a statement such as that could be challenged as unsafe grounds for not awarding a position to the candidate. Those membership rules would lend credence to an employee screaming discrimination. I don't think there's a governing body for police chefs that states if you believe an animal to be 'dirty' you don't have to cook it. Most staunch vegans simply wouldn't take a job that involved handling meat if they felt strongly enough about it on ethical ground, so why would a muslim take a job where fry-ups are order of the day, then cry because his imaginary friend says bacon is bad?

Indeed, surely someone should be arguing against anti-discrimination on these grounds.

Pharmacist wanted: Must be able to serve customers with all stocked products without bringing any personal or religious beliefs into it.

is no different from

Lorry Driver wanted: Must be able to drive a lorry.

I used to work in a chemsit and we never had any issue with contraception etc however the owners refused to stock and dispense methadone*, purely cos they didn't want "dodgy characters" knocking about the shop. Which ties in with what some are saying about health of the patient, prescribed by doctors for their health etc but something tells me there'll be less people shouting them down for that bit of selective pharmacy.
Private pharmacies can do what they want within the rules (and these examples seem to be within them) Employee refusing to sell a stocked item is between employer and employee [edit- and obviously should be dealt with in one way or another]. A simple "no sorry we don't stock that, try place down the road" should be all that is needed "no my religion is against this" or other bumf, thats your perogative don't preach it from your workplace.

*or syringe/needle exchange etc

Private pharmacies can do what they want within the rules (and these examples seem to be within them)

It's this that i'm taking issue with. Unless the pharmacist has a true medical reason why x can't be dispensed to person y, then they should be obliged to do so by their governing body. Not dispensing, whether it's accompanied by a pious sermon or not, may be misinterpreted by the patient as tacit advice. That's why it's dangerous, and shouldn't happen.

As a research scientist, if I decided it was against my religion to research evolution for example, I suspect I'd be required to find an alternative vocation quite quickly…

Jesus Christ!

I mean wow! One step forward and 20 steps back!

Crazy.

I don't drink alcohol or eat red meat anymore but I'm happy to serve it!

Dark ages…

Private pharmacies can do what they want within the rules

I know what you mean there. The one by us refuses to sell extra small condoms.

Religions are allowed to discriminate – it's the law!

Religions are allowed to discriminate – it's the law!

Quite…

Such tolerance!

Those membership rules would lend credence to an employee screaming discrimination.

It's the employees that the members of the organisation, not the employers.

I could be a member of the Muslim Butchers' Association which had a rule that said I shouldn't be obliged to handle pork, but it's going to be **** all use when I show up for my first day at the Walls meat rendering plant. (Does Walls still exist?)

As a Christian,the nearest teaching on contraception (since it was less of an issue in Jesus's time)is "do not sow your seed on barren ground" I assume that refers to the practise of "jumping off" which is not supposed to be all that reliable,although Hora swears by it. The whole banning of contraception was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to keep the numbers up.I am with the "if this is you job do it" camp on this one.

I could be a member of the Muslim Butchers' Association which had a rule that said I shouldn't be obliged to handle pork, but it's going to be **** all use when I show up for my first day at the Walls meat rendering plant. (Does Walls still exist?)

Frankly I couldn't give two hoots who makes Walls sausages, or what their religion may be. I'm pretty sure my (or anyone else's) health will not be compromised by members of the Muslim Butchers' Association refusing to make sausages. However, as discussed up there, the pharmacists' governing body has a duty of care for patients seen by their members. It's therefore totally inappropriate for them to give out mis-advice (tacit or otherwise).

Most staunch vegans simply wouldn't take a job that involved handling meat if they felt strongly enough about it on ethical ground…

Not surprisingly, this subject gets discussed by vegans occasionally. 🙄
I worked for a truck dealer and would occasionally have to service and repair butcher's vans. It didn't seem worth making a fuss about it. If I had refused, someone else would have done the job anyway.

the pharmacists' governing body has a duty of care for patients seen by their members. It's therefore totally inappropriate for them to give out mis-advice (tacit or otherwise).

The Pharmacists' union doesn't have a duty of care to pharmacy customers (not patients) – otherwise you could sue them every time a pharmacist gave you duff advice. The Pharmacy does, though.

If the pharmacy writes into the contract that the pharmacist is expected to sell emergency contraception and the pharmacist doesn't, then they can be sacked. The rules of the pharmacists' union don't affect that.

And you're still conflating the pharmacist's decision not to sell emergency contraception with bad advice. It's not advice at all. It's a refusal of service. It's a free country. The individual pharmacist is free not to sell things they don't want to and the individual customer is free to go somewhere else. It's not as if there's a shortage of pharmacies in the UK – they're bloody everywhere.

It's not advice at all.

I won't repeat myself again. I'd suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'tacit', then re-read my posts about vulnerable teenage girls.

I won't repeat myself again.

You still had time for a tautology, though! 😆

And you still failed to digest what I'd written without repeating your own diatribe. Never mind eh?

Perhaps it was a deliberate tautology, seeing as I'd already made my point more than once, you just failed to read / understand it…