alternative hippopotamus

On Religious Beliefs in the Workplace

6 Responses to “On Religious Beliefs in the Workplace”

1. KathyF Says:
   June 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 am

   I always wondered if I got a job as a server and then refused to serve meat because of ethical grounds if my job would be protected. I’m thinking yeah, I could definitely win that case.

2. AltHippo Says:
   June 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm

   I say go for it.

3. Thomas Nephew Says:
   June 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm

   I think your example seems to undermine your point. Surely you’d have no objection to a veggie restaurant, a health food store, or Bob’s Cosmic Muffin Shop selling what they want to sell, and more to the point not selling what they don’t want to sell?

   For my part, I don’t support making a given pharmacy sell something the owner doesn’t want to sell, whether that’s because he (or she) refuses to sell something because of religious/ethical beliefs, being as dumb as a rock, or likely both.

   I do support making quote-controversial-unquote but important medical items like birth control medication widely accessible and available. To me, that means allowing them to be sold in other places, at minimum when and where traditional pharmacies are not meeting the need; such places could be doctor’s offices and health clinics. It would also be OK to simply make them over-the-counter items without the need for a prescription; then they could also be sold in vending machines, supermarkets, and convenience stores as far as I’m concerned. Same goes for emergency “day after” contraception.

4. AltHippo Says:
   June 3rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm

   Thomas, always good to hear from you. I have two thoughts on your comment:

   1.) I would argue that what’s going on with the pharmacist, as well as the fictional counter person at Bob’s (this after all was meant as a comic example) goes beyond just acting on their personal beliefs. It’s an effort to change the lifestyles of their customers. It’s not just that the pharmacist doesn’t want to personally be the one to give the customer birth control, it’s that the pharmacist is placing obstacles in the way of the customer. Note the first line of the note the pharmacist gives the customer: “Snyder Drug has decided to no longer carry oral contraceptives.” That suggests to the customer that a moral judgment is being passed on her, and may well give her pause in pursuing birth control.

   If instead the pharmacist had said: “We don’t stock the drug in your prescription, but I can transfer your prescription to a CVS close by,” then I don’t think this would’ve been news.

   2.) I think what you’re saying is that in the cases where dispensing drugs is time critical, then there needs to be some wider means. True, but in cases like birth control, I think the trend is towards making that more difficult.

5. Thomas Nephew Says:
   June 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

   I would argue that what’s going on with the pharmacist, as well as the fictional counter person at Bob’s (this after all was meant as a comic example) goes beyond just acting on their personal beliefs. It’s an effort to change the lifestyles of their customers.

   But that’s OK; we accept it in other circumstances — most boycotts, calls for divestment, or issue-oriented retail stores come to mind. “Because of our principles, we want you to do something different, so we’re going to ask you to buy this, and not that, and/or we’re going to sell this, and not that.” We applaud when we approve of the principles, we’re annoyed when it’s a hot-button issue we feel differently about. What if the pharmacist told you the same thing about cigarettes?

   If there’s a competing right to have access to these medicines — and I think there is — my first impulse is still to think we should be respectful of peoples’ rights not to sell them and to tell you upfront that they won’t. As a matter of his rights, I’d have been OK with the pharmacist in question adding warnings of hellfire and damnation to his notice. I’d think he was a moron, and I’d probably boycott his store, but I think those are 99% of my rights in the situation.

   I suppose the issue I struggle with is whether there’s necessary regulation of pharmacies such that this guy has “crowded out” other pharmacists who don’t share his outlook. I could see public policy somehow favoring “full service” pharmacies over “restricted service” ones, if access to the full range of medicines really suffered otherwise. (Tax/license/fee breaks; prominent display of “Restricted Service Pharmacy” status on the front door; that kind of thing.) I’d prefer “de-pharmacy-professionalizing” the sale of the relative handful of medicines involved, though, as per my prior comment.

   Thanks for your discussion. As the long delay indicates, I was a little apprehensive about reactions to my comment for some reason, and was kind of reading through my fingers at first.

6. AltHippo Says:
   June 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pm

   Thomas,

   Following up on your comment:

   But that’s OK; we accept it in other circumstances — most boycotts, calls for divestment, or issue-oriented retail stores come to mind. “Because of our principles, we want you to do something different, so we’re going to ask you to buy this, and not that, and/or we’re going to sell this, and not that.” We applaud when we approve of the principles, we’re annoyed when it’s a hot-button issue we feel differently about. What if the pharmacist told you the same thing about cigarettes?

   I would question whether a boycott or disobedient protest is the same as a business refusing to do business with customers that they don’t agree with. The difference is one of respective power, and fairness in using that power.

   I understand that you look to Dr. King as an example and inspiration, as do I. So, I’d like to pose two hypothetical responses to discrimination at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, NC, in the year 1960.

   In one response, those who are asked to leave, refuse to do so. They’re sent to jail, even as others replace them.

   In a second response, protesters open a similar business, as close as possible to the Woolworth’s lunch counter. In this new business, only customers who are refused by the Woolworth’s are allowed. Anyone else is asked to leave, and we’ll assume that the law would arrest just as many people as they did at the Woolworth’s.

   I’m reasonably sure that Dr. King would reject the second hypothetical as a tactic. Why? Because the business in the second example is using power meanly, and divisively. In a way that undercuts the community as a whole.

Leave a Reply