Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Padsoc - June 2008

Does asking for tolerance discriminate against Christians?

June 18th 2008 11:35
In the USA some Christian's feel that modern anti-discrimination laws impose on their religious freedom. But what is religious freedom? Religious people should be able to go to work without persecution for their beliefs but does that exempt Christians from having to show respect and tolerance to others in the workplace? Does being Christian exempt health workers from providing timely care?

Some Christian groups oppose the "Access to Birth Control (ABC) Act" as they claim it discriminates against Pharmacists who have religious beliefs which are opposed to dispensing contraception. Under the legeslation, pharmacies would be required to make sure there are no delays in getting birth control drugs or the morning after pill to customers - drugs must be dispensed "without delay." If the pills are out of stock, pharmacies would be forced to order them or refer customers to drug stores that have them on hand. Pro-life groups say the legislation deliberately attacks pharmacists who exercise professional moral judgment and tramples on any professional or ethical concerns. The measure requires pharmacists to not "intimidate, threaten, or harass customers in the delivery of services relating to a request for contraception" or "interfere with or obstruct the delivery of services relating to a request for contraception."


Giving pharmacists the authority not to fill prescriptions based on their personal beliefs could cause hardship for patients because of the limited number of pharmacies in rural areas.

But does requiring pharmacists to dispense medication they find morally objectionable violate their rights to the free exercise of religion? Or are religious objections secondary to a woman's right to receive an approved prescription in a timely manner?


Denton, Texas, Eckerd Corp. fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped. Gene Herr said he declined to fill the prescription for the "morning-after pill" because he believes it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions, it was the first time he had been handed one for a rape victim. The two other pharmacists who were present also declined to fill the prescription. Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons.

Pharmacists for Life president Karen Brauer was fired by a Kmart pharmacy in Ohio for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. She is suing Kmart saying "On December 19, 1996, I was fired from my position as a pharmacist with the KMart Corporation for refusal to dispense Micronor, a progestin-only "minipill", for the purpose of birth control."

Vander Bleek, owner of Fitzgerald Pharmacy in Morrison and part-owner of two pharmacies in DeKalb County, filed a suit 2005, seeking an injunction against Gov. Rod Blagojevich's emergency rule requiring all pharmacies that dispense contraceptives to make Plan B available. He was joined in the petition by his wife, Joan, and three other Illinois pharmacy owners. The suit contends the rule violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act by compelling pharmacy owners who do not want to carry the drug to act against their ethical and moral beliefs in dispensing them.

Conscience Clauses are clauses in laws in some parts of the United States which permit pharmacists, physicians, and other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. Those who choose not to provide services may not be disciplined or discriminated against. The provision is most frequently enacted in connection with issues relating to reproduction, such as abortion, sterilization, and contraception, but may include any phase of patient care.

Conscience Clauses have been adopted by a number of U.S. states. including Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.

Really Long Link

Conscience Clauses, although allowing medical professionals not to perform procedures against their conscience, does not allow professionals to give fradulent information to deter a patient from obtaining such a procedure (such as lying about the risks involved in an abortion to deter one from obtaining one) in order to imposing one's belief using deception.



Christian advocacy group Focus On The Family Action claim laws like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and other Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Laws can harm businesses with Christian employees.

A California software maker was forced to pay a settlement and legal fees totaling over $1 million because the company did not promote a man who had come to work dressed as a woman. The “victim” sued under California’s sexual orientation nondiscrimination law. As legal fees escalated, the company finally settled out of court.

Oakland, California, city employees Regina Rederford and Robin Christy formed a group called the "Good News Employee Association" and posted a flier on a company bulletin board advertising a "forum for people of faith to express their views on contemporary issues of the day, with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values." After a lesbian employee complained of being offended by the flier, the city removed the flier and threatened the two women with adverse employment action for placing the fliers "in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation based harassment." A federal court upheld the city's action.

AT&T employee in Denver fired for refusing to sign company-required pledge to recognize,
respect and value sexual orientation differences within the company. In 2001 the employee was required to sign a new AT&T Broadband Employee Handbook with policies that conflicted with his religious beliefs by condoning the homosexual lifestyle. After notifying his supervisor that based on his religious beliefs he could not sign the certificate of understanding, he was fired.

Madison, Wisconsin, a Christian firefighter Ron Greer was suspended for handing out tract entitled “The truth about homosexuality." He was suspended and ordered to attend diversity training for violating the city's anti-discrimination code and nearly lost his job.

Debra Kelly, a former hospice worker in Philadelphia, was fired for expressing her Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Her gay supervisor, a supporter of ACT-UP, said Kelly was intolerant and unsuited for her position.

At Hewlett Packard’s plant in Boise, Idaho, an employee with a 21-year record of meeting or
exceeding expectations was fired for refusing to remove Bible verses about homosexuality
from his cubicle. The employee allegedly posted the Bible verses in response to a poster near his cubicle that he perceived to be promoting GLBT relationships. HP openly admitted that its reasoning for firing the employee was “his overt opposition to HP’s Diversity Advertising Campaign.”

Michael Hartman was employed by the Red Cross in San Diego. The company sent a mass e-mail to all employees in 2005 promoting "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month," urging them to "observe" the celebration. Hartman, a Christian, communicated his religious objections to his supervisors and was promptly called in and told his communication was "inappropriate." Hartmann was fired.

Focus On Family Action's Citizenlink
http://www.citizenlink.org/

Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp

Jews defending the first ammendment
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/

190
Vote
Shared on


   
Subscribe to this blog 


Just this blog This blog and DailyOrble (recommended)

   

   


Comments
245 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by RubySoho

June 18th 2008 14:45
Oh for fuck's sake...

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 18th 2008 14:55
hey Ruby,
theres whole websites set up dedicated to Christians banding together because they feel that allowing others to have rights directly impacts on their rights . . . and apparently Christians are getting fired and reprimanded willy nilly because they feel they cannot perform their duties and be in accordance within their church/bible guidelines

Comment by RubySoho

June 18th 2008 15:06
And that's why I will never stop criticisng religion. Because we, as a society have finally gotten to a stage in our history where we are beginning to accept and even applaud diversity and these fundies want to set us back a couple of hundred years.

Seriously, if a non-religious person says they hate gays we would not tolerate it...but if it's a Christian, oh well that's okay...it's their religion....we have to respect it. Well I don't.

That rape victim had her rights trampled upon twice. Once by her rapist and the second time by that heartless pharmacist who thought their own morals came before her right to health care, not to mention her right to decide what she wants to do with her body.

And some Christians have the nerve to criticise those Muslim taxi drivers in America who refuse to pick up passengers who are carrying or smell of alcohol.

They are all mental. I've seriously had it with the lot of them.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 18th 2008 15:56
hi Ruby,
i feel sorry for people that are actually getting fired because they dont understand the difference between having the right to be a certain way and having the right to stop others from being a certain way
the difference between GLBT posters and anti-homosexual bible passages is that the posters dont assert there is only one correct type of lifestyle at the exclusion of others
if your boss said you had to be gay to get a promotion then yes that would be discrimination, or if he insisted female staff had to take the pill to work there then yes that is discrimination again
if your boss doesnt cater for your religious dietary requirements at compulsary work functions then that is discrimination
if your boss asks you to comply with your job description and not marginalise and be unpleasant towards minorities . . . well . . . i dont know . . . what would jesus do?

Comment by Summer

June 18th 2008 18:19
It's pathetic really. "Oh no, you're discriminating against my right to force everyone else to do what I say!"

It is the ultimate victim mentality. If someone so much as sneezes wrong they are up in arms about being persecuted for their beliefs.

Comment by Jeff Musall

June 19th 2008 00:19
It is important to also add that in many of these cases....they are simply not true. I haven't researched the cases cited, but I have looked into the general veracity of the fundies and their legends. I'll give an example. Many of them believe a story I first heard more than 20 years ago...it says that the Israelis in the 67 war (or the 73, depending on who you hear the story from) were massively out-gunned and running out of ammo. They heroically decided to fire what they had, and trust God. Miraculously, the enemy vehicles (tanks, trucks) were all disabled, leaving the enemy that didn't run open to easy take down. Upon investigation it was discovered that each enemy vehicle had only one hit, a bullet hole directly through the engine block, and that the number of casualties exceeded the number of bullets fired.
I first heard this at about 11 years old and remember thinking that god must be pretty awesome. Of course, I learned better. But still, I have heard this story repeated as fact, even by one of my sisters - and, unfortunately, her children.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 04:26
hi Summer,
you raise an excellent point, Christians have the religious holidays of Christmas and Easter accepted and recognised and workplaces observe that celebration, the same should apply for any other religion, ethnic, or cultural group
there is a difference between things that affect you personally and things that stop you from "spreading the word"


hi Jeff,
Jews On First was an anti-christian-fundamentalist site with fairly unbiased info, CWFA and Focus On Family Action were extremely conservative far right, and theres some wikipedia info mixed in
of the ENDA examples, the first one was originally reported in this brochure "The Other Side Of Tolerance'
Really Long Link
the second example is confirmed here
Really Long Link
the AT&T example was a man called Albert Buonanno who later sued and was awarded $146,269 for lost salary and benefits and compensation for emotional distress but was not reinstated
Really Long Link
apparently Ron Greer was eventually fired for continued insubordination
Really Long Link
apparently part of Debra Kelly's job as a hospice worker was to work with AIDS patients "the supervisor claimed that she wasn't qualified to work with AIDS patients. Her discrimination suit was settled out-of-court"
Really Long Link
the michael hartman case is widely reported on christian news sites
Really Long Link

i think they all happened its just a matter of how vitimised the people come across depending on the source . . .

Comment by Anne Tootill

June 19th 2008 05:47
Hi Morgan Bell, I'm very wary of religious zealouts, especially the pro-lifers, they scare me to death.




Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 06:03
hi Anne,
thanks for the comment
to death? haha
you sound pretty scared!
i think women have a right to be personally pro-life (meaning they adhere to their religion by not undergoing an abortion or using contraception themselves) just as they have a right to refuse blood transfusions or any medical treatments . . . but i dont think that right extends to dictating to others how to live or preventing others from having access to treatments

Comment by KylieW

June 19th 2008 07:00
In a word...........NO!

And as for those pharmacists who refused to give contraception to that rape victim......what f**kwits! That poor woman, as if she hadnt suffered enough trauma already!

We all have to be tolerant of one another. That means putting up with people/actions that don't always fit with our belief systems. That's life. Everyone has to do it. Why should people change just because YOU think they should?

Your post is just one of the many reasons why I have a real problem with religion (all religions).

Very informative and well written post too! Excellent work

Kylie


Comment by Johnny Come Lately

June 19th 2008 07:10
Conscience clauses? Ridiculous. Simple, if you don't believe in dispensing legal drugs, don't become a pharmacist. That isn't discrimination. It is simply following the requirements of holding that position. If the drug is legal they have to provide it. If they don't like it, get a different job.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 07:18
hi Kylie,

thanks for commenting with your opinions, i think you have raised some important points
i was trying to present both sides of the argument without too much of my own opinion so much of the information is directly from religious websites in an attempt to understand them better

it must be very difficult for modern Christians to understand the basic principles of discrimination when there are contradictory laws in place and the Pope himself instructing Catholics not to dispense the morning-after-pill (Plan B) . . . if the Pope and the lawmakers exempt people from basic human decency then what hope does the average joe blow have?

if the laws change will devout religious people eventually have to limit themselves to only working in fields that will not challenge their beliefs?

we live in interesting times . . .



Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 07:36
hi Johnny,

spooky, we were both thinking the same thing!

see there was a time (perhaps we are still in that time) where the medical profession was dictated to by the Church and people took on those careers believing things would never change, so i have sympathy for the old dinosaurs of the pharmacy industry but while their are Conscience Clauses they feel justified

as a counter example do we see homosexual Pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives because they dont want to promote the heterosexual lifestyle?

in these modern times it is becoming increasingly hard for Christians to segregate themselves from gays and women as collegues and clients and there are so many sources that encourage their intolerance by telling them that they dont have to keep their religion to themselves . . . infact some Christians think that it is a "sin" to allow to commit "sins" and it is their ethical and moral duty to point it out . . . some Christians may even be actively seeking out medical careers to spread the word of their religion?

Comment by Ahmed

June 19th 2008 08:20
Some peoples version of tolerance discriminates against the very basic principles of humanity.

Just saying...

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 08:35
hi Ahmed,
what are the basic principles of humanity and who decides on them?
(dont worry PoMo is away, this post isnt aimed at you or anyone else, i am genuinely interested in the flipside of the argument)

Comment by Ahmed

June 19th 2008 09:46
Asking something like 'what makes the skin black?' is not necessarily racist, in fact, unless you are the extremely sensitive type you won't think nothing of it.

However to some, that's intolerance.

Variety makes people, questioning that variety is like saying we're not different, it's discriminating the very basics of what makes us human.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 10:08
hi Ahmed,
that is very true, variety does make people . . . i think it is ok to question why we are different, just not to exclude people who are different

Comment by Brenton

June 19th 2008 10:49
The pharmacy thing makes me think of all the times I have sold ridiculus pro-Liberal propoganda at my bookshop.

My temptation is more to secretly serve a copy of Pilger but I perform the job.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 11:28
hi Brenton,
great analogy!
(i take it you mean the conservative Liberal Party in Australia ie Howard, not the little "l" liberals?)
quite a few vegetarians i know have worked for Pizza Hut and MacDonalds, it is possible to serve a product without consuming it


oh and Ruby,
i found this interesting article by a Muslim writer condemning cab drivers that refuse to pick up customers carrying alcohol
Really Long Link
and some Muslim elders condemning younger people who refuse to handle alcoholic products in retail stores
Really Long Link
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, director of the Muslim Institute and leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “This is some kind of overenthusiasm. One expects professional behaviour from people working in a professional capacity and this shows a lack of maturity.

Comment by Doug Pollard

June 19th 2008 11:28
Freedom of religion means you have the right to practice your religion. It does not give you any right to impose your religion on anyone else. Respect and tolerance is a two way street. If people want to believe in fairy tales and organise their lives accordingly, that's up to them. But they have no right to force me to behave as if I believed in them too.

Comment by Ahmed

June 19th 2008 11:34
and some Muslim elders condemning younger people who refuse to handle alcoholic products in retail stores

They missed the mark, by a few miles.

If you don't believe in drinking alcohol don't work at a company that sells it. Don't go against your principles and sell it but don't work there.

With cab drivers, if you own the cab, that is, it's your business then it's your right to refuse anyone you want. However if you are working for someone then it isn't your right, if you don't want guide dogs in your cab don't work as a cabbie.

What's really ridiculous about the alcohol thing is they're working at an organization which sells it, irrespective of whether or not they have a direct hand in making the checkout they work directly with it at a retail level. *sigh* I wish people could follow through with all t heir principle, not just the parts that is convenient for htem to.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 12:09
hi Doug,
thanks for your comment
"respect and tolerance is a two way street" i think perhaps you have identified the crux of the whole problem


hi Ahmed,
that is a very similar attitude to what Johnny Come Lately expressed in the comments a little further up: the question of should someone even work for an outlet that sells products or services against their beliefs?
perhaps not just a religious issue but an ethical one for individuals . . . should the onus be on the individual to be responsible for where they choose to work?
would it be fair for someone to accept a position at mining or logging or cigarrette companies and then refuse to sell the products without being fired because of a Conscience Clause?

regarding the taxi issue:
is refusing service to someone based on the fact that they are carrying alcohol any different to refusing service to someone based on race, gender, sexuality, or disability?
taxi drivers i have spoken to in Sydney consider themselves to be part of the public transport system with access to bus lanes and transit lanes etc so i personally think they should only refuse service to people if they fear their own safety rather than making value judgements on the type of customer
(it might be a different scenario in other states or the USA)

Comment by Ahmed

June 19th 2008 12:16
taxi drivers i have spoken to in Sydney consider themselves to be part of the public transport system with access to bus lanes and transit lanes

lying pricks...

Comment by Brenton

June 19th 2008 12:23

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 12:45
hi Ahmed
hahaha maybe i was getting fed the official press release?


hi Brenton,
ahhh i thought as much

Comment by RubySoho

June 19th 2008 14:22
hey Morgan, actually Muqtader Khan's website is where I first came across those irksome taxi drivers. He says some very interesting things about Israel and Iraq too if anyone is interested.

.


Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 14:25
hi Ruby,
yeah the whole article was very interesting, i would encourage everyone to read it to get a different perspective . . . i should have known you would have been way ahead of me on the political news! haha

Comment by RubySoho

June 19th 2008 14:35
well that second link you gave was new to me. and interesting to see it was the elders who were being sensible.

i first came across Kahn about six months ago when I was having a "debate" with a conservative about Israel and Islam. She was on her high horse about how all the smart and moderate Muslims were pro-Israel and how I knew nothing about Islam and what an evil religion it is and do I think I know more than Muqtader Kahn? So she gave me a link to his site and the first thing I read was about how Israel's actions in the 2006 war with Hezebollah increased the popularity of Hezebollah and how that and other terrorist groups were motivated by politics more so than religion, which is pretty much what I had been arguing all along.

When I told her that she admitted that she had never actually read his articles. Just assumed that because he was religiously moderate and smart and respected then he was automatically a conservative.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 19th 2008 15:14
hi Ruby,
yeah the second link was about employees in the UK, i thought it was fairly impressive that senior Muslims basiclly said that employees should re-examine the allowances of their religion rather than making things difficult for the workplace and mis-using or exploiting any goodwill towards the Muslim community

isnt it funny when people give you links to things that actually prove them wrong haha



does anyone else have any examples where jewish or buddists or hinduist or any other religion or group with special needs are exempted from workplace tasks, responsibilities or policies?

particularly with reference to discrimination . . .

Comment by Cathy

June 19th 2008 23:40
Oh, so we cannot discriminate based on religion...Christians should be protected, but no one else????? I work in equal rightst and hate when I hear things like this.

Great post!

Comment by Doug Pollard

June 20th 2008 00:03
I don't have any workplace examples of exemptions etc. for non-Christian students, but I remember at school that the Jewish kids all got the Jewish holidays off in addition to the Christian ones, which we all thought was unfair! Mind you, we had no Jewish teachers, so it would have been a bit pointless making them come to school over Easter.

Comment by Jeff Musall

June 20th 2008 01:43
Here's my fix - no religious holidays at all, no religion-related time off, no officially acknowledged religious rites (in the public arena) Practice whatever religion you want, out of the public square, completely.
On another note, here is an example of religious zealotry that kills. Here in Oregon there is one of those christian sects who don't believe anyone but god can heal. A 16 year old boy died last week, his body poisoned by his own urine that he couldn't expel because of a simple obstruction that could have been easily treated. A few months ago a young little girl died from a different easily cured illness. Thanks to a recent change in the law, the parents of the young girl will have to face a day in court. For the 16 year old, no such chance. The law allows anyone over 12 to refuse medical treatment. He listened to his parents and his miserable church who told him gold would take care of him. That's "faith" for you.

Comment by RubySoho

June 20th 2008 01:57
hah. "Gold" would take care of him.

Sorry, awful story but great typo.

Comment by Breaking News

June 20th 2008 02:54
Fallacy of Composition.

Fallacy of Association.

Fallacy of Ad Hominem Attacks.

Research, understand and grow.

Comment by Jeff Musall

June 20th 2008 02:58
Oops! But I think he might have better luck with gold, sad enough to say.

Comment by Ahmed

June 20th 2008 04:47
I remember at school that the Jewish kids all got the Jewish holidays off in addition to the Christian ones, which we all thought was unfair!

haha, I remember my dad saying how back when he was schooling in Iraq Christians got the Christian and Islamic holidays off.

He never said it was unfair though XD

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 20th 2008 04:54
hi Cathy
thanks for the comment
you must hear alot of interesting stories working in equal rights!


hi Doug
extra holidays! haha
well i guess that doesnt really impact directly on anyone else . . . except to raise our jealousy levels! lol


hi Jeff
as an atheist i have always found Christian holidays fairly pointless for non-believers . . . i understand people of faith may use the day to attend a church service and the gifts and other traditions actually represent something to them . . . but for everyone else it has just become materialistic family barbeque day, completely devoid of its original religious meaning
that was a heartbreaking story about the little boy, adults should have the right to refuse medical treatments but it really does raise the question of whether kids living with religious parents are really in a position to make an informed decision


Ruby,
are you baiting my readers? hahaha


hi Breaking News,
were that comment in regards to anything in particular?

Comment by RubySoho

June 20th 2008 05:26
Ah, if anyone can take it, its Jeff. He gets me.

Besides, you gotta admit, it is a great typo.


Comment by Morgan Bell

June 20th 2008 06:13

Ruby,
gold, god, golden god, godly gold . . . oldly dog, goodly odd . . . wheres mountain fog? he would LOVE this stuff!

Comment by RubySoho

June 20th 2008 06:31
Hmmm. Morgan does Breaking News sound strangely familiar to you?

I am a golden god!

Fog is bust celebrating his first Orble birthday....

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 20th 2008 06:40
Ruby,
does a list of logical fallacies sound familiar to me?
or were you referring to the cryptic, highly ambiguous delivery?
haha it does slightly resemble at least one self-appointed intellectual i can think of . . . but it may all be coincidence as i dont even know what that comment was in reference to?

the mysteries of orble!

Comment by RubySoho

June 20th 2008 07:04
hahaha. got it in two morgan.

well it starts off with the "fallacy of composition' so one can reasonably assume it is directed at you. oh no, is there a "fallacy of assumption"? or is assumption the mother of all stuff-ups perhaps?

if it is a coincidence, its a bloody big and highly amusing one.

thanks for the laugh breaking news!

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 20th 2008 07:34
hey Ruby,
is this the point where i am supposed to demand credentials and dismiss everything that contradicts my opinions as sementics? hahaha
cos i just dont know if i can be quite that pompous
yes thankyou for the entertainment Breaking News, you have a doppleganger out there on orble

Comment by RubySoho

June 20th 2008 07:38
just call breaking news a troll/muppet/sophist and be done with it.



Comment by postmoderncritic

June 20th 2008 09:19
As Morgan pointed out, I'm not posting very much right now, but Ahmed may comment on a post that is not written by me on this blog at any time. If I didn't write it then I don't consider it my responsibility to respond to him. It's all about checking for the author at the bottom of the post.

Comment by Ahmed

June 20th 2008 09:22
hey, what's that smell? the one that has the aroma of overwhelming self reightousness (and possibly poo)?

oh right, the brave battler, PMC, here to impart her wisdom and 'expose' me for what an evil person I am -_-


Watch as she gets up and tells me in an i-told-you-so sort of way how she doesn't think I'm evil and how she just exposed me for how *insert word that means evil but not quite being evil* I am instead.

haha.

Comment by postmoderncritic

June 20th 2008 09:35
And here I was being all gracious...

Ahmed, the first thing I will do when I get back on Orble is to write a post about the perils of desensitisation towards violence, thanks to your icon. You are, for better or worse, an inspiration.

You should win some award for keeping up a constant state of paranoia. It's quite admirable, really.

Comment by Ahmed

June 20th 2008 09:39
Why thank you, and you my dear should be awarded the position of 'Display Picture Attendent' since you seem to be facinated by whatever image I have hover towards the left.

I would put poo there but whether or not you read into it is irrelevent, people will be put off by it.

For what its worth, I'm glad to be serving as inspiration for you to go on your noble crusade making the world a better place and what have you!

^_^

Comment by postmoderncritic

June 20th 2008 09:43
Actually I would find a representation of poo less offensive than what you have right now. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I encourage you to substitute one for the other. *facepalm*

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 20th 2008 09:50
Ruby,
theyre all such cute words, its hard to even think of them as insults


hi Epiphanie,
i hope your holiday is going well!
i thought i would post something while you were away . . . Ahmed was being really well behaved until he saw you! haha
i look forward to your new posts when you get back!

hi Ahmed,
i so glad we managed to get your opinions on discrimination out of you before your sparring partner distracted you . . . i might just leave you two to it


play nice guys!
ultimately this blog is PoMos creation so we should try to respect the moderator . . .

Comment by Ahmed

June 20th 2008 09:55
Actually I would find a representation of poo less offensive than what you have right now. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I encourage you to substitute one for the other. *facepalm*

If I had poo you'd be saying the opposite, there's no pleasing women.


hi Ahmed,
i so glad we managed to get your opinions on discrimination out of you before your sparring partner distracted you . . . i might just leave you two to it

I'm sorry morgan, when I see PMC round here parts all i can think of is how I can engage her in a sort of 'discussion'. It reaffirms to me that there are looney left wingers on par in the looney department with their right wing counterparts.

Comment by Cheryl J

June 20th 2008 10:53
Good grief, it's PC gone mad. I agree with Summer and Doug hit the nail on the head. Also, both Johnny and Morgan are right, if it offends your moral belief to follow the laws that your job entails then go into a different career. If a doctor is a pro-lifer then they have the option of not practising medicine in hospitals or clinics where the law requires them to do so, they can set up their own clinics which state they do not provide those services BUT they must refer another doctor who has no objections without forcing their own views onto someone who has come to them for help. A patient has a right to unbiased medical information to make a decision if the procedure is a legal one.

However, a pharmacist should not have such freedoms. If their job is to dispense medications on a prescription provided by a medical practitioner it is their job to do that.

If your job requires you to provide a service that you find morally reprehensible but it is a requirement, then you have a legal and ethical responsibility to do just that. The same goes for taxi drivers. If you don't like it, get out.

If a company requires anti-discrimination then it has the expectation that the staff follow their code.

That said, I don't agree that flyers promoting anything other than anything relating to the workplace belong in the workplace. This goes for religious flyers and gay rights flyers. Both are unnecessary unless you work in a) a church or b) a company that is involved in promoting gay rights activities. Any time you are pushing your own agenda onto another person you are violating their rights.

No religious holidays be accepted into the workplace unless all are.

It's gotten to the point where PC and fear is so rife at work that I asked friends at work today if they thought I looked better as a blonde or brunette as I'm thinking of doing something with my hair. One of the responses was "I think you look great with brown hair" quickly followed by, "I hope that isn't offensive and I hope you don't take that as a sexual reference". When did it become so bad that people have to qualify a simple statement in case it's taken the wrong way?

the whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: Ahmed I LOVE that avatar. It's funny!


Comment by Ahmed

June 20th 2008 11:19
Thanks Cheryl! Nice to know there's someone left on the internet with a sense of humour.

btw as for hair colour, it depends, boys like blondes, men like brunettes ^_^

If anyone says otherwise don't believe them, they're not men.

Comment by Ahmed

June 20th 2008 11:19
Thanks Cheryl! Nice to know there's someone left on the internet with a sense of humour.

btw as for hair colour, it depends, boys like blondes, men like brunettes ^_^

If anyone says otherwise don't believe them, they're not men.

Comment by Cheryl J

June 20th 2008 11:34
Funnily enough Ahmed, I'm finding that to be completely true!

As for my sense of humour, I have it in abundance especially if something is sarcastic, witty and mildy offensive as all the best stuff is...I think I just described myself - I'm the ultimate narcissist!

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 20th 2008 11:39
hi Cheryl,

thanks for your thoughtful response!

im pretty left wing when it comes to health care, i think affordable and timely health care is a basic human right and doctors and pharmacists who refuse treatments to others (esp in rural areas where services are limited) are negligent . . . i hope that is where we are headed as a society even though there are laws in the USA that do not reflect this

i worked in a local government office for a really long time where every action you took had to comply with EEO and OH&S and anti-discrimination etc and we still had posters which advertised events and celebrations whether they were for environmental causes or sporting activities or health issue fundraisers or support groups or foreign culture clubs . . . if it is for benevolent purposes i dont see the problem . . . however, malevolent propanganda designed to insult i think has no place at work

posters that claim you should join a group to "preserve our workplace with integrity'' are designed to rally against a particular group and marginalise them . . . similarly quoting passages from any text that deems a group of people evil or unnatural (and im not just talking about the bible, i mean current newspaper articles, political manifestos, even film screenplays) is not appropriate for the workplace

if there was a poster for a queer celebration stating "learn how to be gay, the only natural lifestyle, if you dont come you are evil" i would insist that be taken down immediately!


Comment by postmoderncritic

June 20th 2008 14:57
Ahmed,

First of all, it might interest you to know that of all the people I know, RL and virtual, you're the only one who thinks me self-righteous.

Secondly, you have NO evidence to base your assumption that I would change my mind on. Not only that, you're completely off the mark because I know my priorities and am confident in writing about them.

Thirdly, how is my behaviour supposed to be representative of all women? Making generalisations about groups is harmful, simplistic and unhelpful.

But hey, if women are so tough to please, why not try men instead?

Comment by Kleonaptra

June 20th 2008 15:11
Hey guys.

Ah, Ruby, I think you and I could have the greatest bitch session about religion....How they force it up your nose and through the pores of your skin and then say the only way to redeem this horror we have done to you is to go do it to someone else.

Im sure God approves.

Why do you think Im dancing with the Devil?

Morgan, you write so well and on these sensitive topics you always manage to walk to razor edge without ever tipping to one side or the other. Thats admirable and its something I cant do. I dont know why someone gets into health care at all if they dont want to help people - Ive had plenty disagree with me, but my life is my life, its their job to help me and they chose that path, not me. Their personal feelings are not supposed to come into it at all. I know pharmacists dont take the hippocratic, but maybe they should. (Ive spelt it wrong, its very late and Im very drunk, but Im referring to THE oath)

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 20th 2008 16:04
hi Kleo,

thanks for stopping in, i always value your opinion! and i appreciate the compliment . . . i try to put my "moderator" cap on when talking about politics as people are very passionate about their opinions!

"the oath" is apparently not compulsary but most doctors still consider it a right of passage . . . it has been updated many times at many different medical schools since antiquity but here is a fairly modern version:

2005 Cornell Medical College's Hippocratic Oath
I do solemnly vow, to that which I value and hold most dear:
That I will honor the Profession of Medicine, be just and generous to its members, and help sustain them in their service to humanity;
That just as I have learned from those who preceded me, so will I instruct those who follow me in the science and the art of medicine;
That I will recognize the limits of my knowledge and pursue lifelong learning to better care for the sick and to prevent illness;
That I will seek the counsel of others when they are more expert so as to fulfill my obligation to those who are entrusted to my care;
That I will not withdraw from my patients in their time of need;
That I will lead my life and practice my art with integrity and honor, using my power wisely;
That whatsoever I shall see or hear of the lives of my patients that is not fitting to be spoken, I will keep in confidence;
That into whatever house I shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick;
That I will maintain this sacred trust, holding myself far aloof from wrong, from corrupting, from the tempting of others to vice;
That above all else I will serve the highest interests of my patients through the practice of my science and my art;
That I will be an advocate for patients in need and strive for justice in the care of the sick.
I now turn to my calling, promising to preserve its finest traditions, with the reward of a long experience in the joy of healing.
I make this vow freely and upon my honor.

Comment by smooth political

June 20th 2008 22:14
I don't believe it does. I believe that asking for tolerance helps all of us live in this world harmoniously. I am convinced that no one's interpretation of their faith has all of the answers. People do the best they can to interpret what what was left here for them.

Comment by Ahmed

June 21st 2008 02:55
PMC,

you know what? You are absoloutely right, someone who is devoid of the capability to understand humour must always be right, what with such a cold out look on life.

We should all sit down being very wary in case we might offend someone, you know, be all PC and whatnot, extra wary, because life is all about walking on egg shells.


You know I'm convinced you're only treating me like this because you 'know' what kind of a horrid person I am, but if you really treat *people* like this, men in particular, you're going to die a very lonely person.

...oh wait, did I just discriminate against your pansexuality?

god, I'm such a bad person, always discriminating *sigh* The world would be better without people like me eh?

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 21st 2008 05:05
hi smooth political,
harmony, its a beautiful concept . . . but should we tolerate intolerance too? or is humouring people encouraging them?
i think people have the right to go to work without being put-down or bullied but with that right comes the responsibility to extend the courtesy to everyone else

Comment by Ahmed

June 21st 2008 05:14
But hey, if women are so tough to please, why not try men instead?

If men could screw women in a cardboard box they'd never buy a house.

...said one terrible comedian who shall remain nameless beause he's evil and discrimnating aginst poor old oppressed women who are pansexuals and whatnot.

Watch out PMC! The world is out to get you!

Comment by Brenton

June 21st 2008 06:38
A note.

I think a great deal of whjat we call 'PC' is really individuals with intence views.

Calling it PC goe mad or what not is not helpful, because it essentially creates an enemy that doesn't exist so that we can launch our anger against it.

Comment by Morgan Bell

June 21st 2008 07:02
hi Brenton,
yeah i think the idea of PC is just to get people to think about the terms they use to describe people, avoiding loaded words etc . . . the art of the euphamism! haha
some people hijack the concept of being PC and try to use it in an accusational w