jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message news:<20041010232332.01624.00002233@mb-m28.aol.com>... I don't have a problem with pharmacists deciding not to sell a drug on ethical grounds, so long as they let their customers know in advance which drugs they won't dispense. I do wonder, though, how they draw the line between one drug and another. Many drugs will have adverse effects for some customers; some will kill on occasion, quickly or over time. Is it as simple as knowing that the drug sold to an individual will kill, as opposed to simply knowing that it might? J.

I dunno. I think I would have a problem with it if the pharmacist was
part of a larger organization and not an independent.

If it were, say, Walgreen's, I would expect the pharmacist to
represent company policy and not drag his own personal views into it.

If Walgreen were to advertise that, as a corporate policy, we will not
sell X, I would concede it is their right to do so -- and everyone
else's to pressure them, if they can. What I would object to is if I
go into a Walgreen's expecting that I can get birth-control pills (or
whatever) and the pharmacist says, "Nope, I don't believe in birth
control, go away."

I also think that these stores have a responsibility to screen out
people who impose their own religious beliefs on potential customers.

How far can we take it?
What's ethics, what's personal prejudice?
Who can refuse service -- only pharmacists, or anyone?

"I will not sell cigarettes to anyone. Don't you know smoking kills?"
"You're too old to be driving a car, I won't sell you gas."
"Alcohol is a vice, I'm not ringing that up."
"I won't serve people with body-piercings."
"Children should be home with their moms, I'm not selling anything to
your daycare center."
"I don't believe in the religion you preach at your church (mosque,
temple). You are deluding people and endangering their souls. Don't
shop here!"

All these things may be a person's right if it's his own store and his
own business; but if they are personnel at larger organizations, I
think customers have a right not to unreasonably be refused service.

Rupa

>jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in messagenews:<20041010232332.01624.00002233@mb-m28.aol.com>... I don't have a problem with pharmacists deciding not to sell a drug onethical grounds, so long as they let their customers know in advance which drugsthey won't dispense. I do wonder, though, how they draw the line between one drug and another.Many drugs will have adverse effects for some customers; some will kill onoccasion, quickly or over time. Is it as simple as knowing that the drug sold to an individual will kill, as opposed to simply knowing that it might? J.I dunno. I think I would have a problem with it if the pharmacist waspart of a larger organization and not an independent.If it were, say, Walgreen's, I would expect the pharmacist torepresent company policy and not drag his own personal views into it.If Walgreen were to advertise that, as a corporate policy, we will notsell X, I would concede it is their right to do so -- and everyoneelse's to pressure them, if they can. What I would object to is if Igo into a Walgreen's expecting that I can get birth-control pills (orwhatever) and the pharmacist says, "Nope, I don't believe in birthcontrol, go away."I also think that these stores have a responsibility to screen outpeople who impose their own religious beliefs on potential customers.How far can we take it?What's ethics, what's personal prejudice?Who can refuse service -- only pharmacists, or anyone?"I will not sell cigarettes to anyone. Don't you know smoking kills?""You're too old to be driving a car, I won't sell you gas.""Alcohol is a vice, I'm not ringing that up.""I won't serve people with body-piercings.""Children should be home with their moms, I'm not selling anything toyour daycare center.""I don't believe in the religion you preach at your church (mosque,temple). You are deluding people and endangering their souls. Don'tshop here!"All these things may be a person's right if it's his own store and hisown business; but if they are personnel at larger organizations, Ithink customers have a right not to unreasonably be refused service.Rupa

An interesting question, Rupa. I haven't looked at the state of the art in
employment and religious belief in quite some time. If I get a chance, I'll
post a follow-up.

Personally, I'd expect the individual to follow the owner's policy and the
owner to post that policy if it was anything other than to sell any legally
prescribed medication.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

An interesting and germaine bit of thinking. May I add at what point does a
persons beliefs become discrimination? It really doesn't matter if he/she is
independent or a wage slave.

Raymond


"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20041011180957.24934.00002460@mb-m28.aol.com...jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in messagenews:<20041010232332.01624.00002233@mb-m28.aol.com>... I don't have a problem with pharmacists deciding not to sell a drug onethical grounds, so long as they let their customers know in advance which
drugsthey won't dispense. I do wonder, though, how they draw the line between one drug and
another.Many drugs will have adverse effects for some customers; some will kill onoccasion, quickly or over time. Is it as simple as knowing that the drug sold to
an individual will kill, as opposed to simply knowing that it might? J.I dunno. I think I would have a problem with it if the pharmacist waspart of a larger organization and not an independent.If it were, say, Walgreen's, I would expect the pharmacist torepresent company policy and not drag his own personal views into it.If Walgreen were to advertise that, as a corporate policy, we will notsell X, I would concede it is their right to do so -- and everyoneelse's to pressure them, if they can. What I would object to is if Igo into a Walgreen's expecting that I can get birth-control pills (orwhatever) and the pharmacist says, "Nope, I don't believe in birthcontrol, go away."I also think that these stores have a responsibility to screen outpeople who impose their own religious beliefs on potential customers.How far can we take it?What's ethics, what's personal prejudice?Who can refuse service -- only pharmacists, or anyone?"I will not sell cigarettes to anyone. Don't you know smoking kills?""You're too old to be driving a car, I won't sell you gas.""Alcohol is a vice, I'm not ringing that up.""I won't serve people with body-piercings.""Children should be home with their moms, I'm not selling anything toyour daycare center.""I don't believe in the religion you preach at your church (mosque,temple). You are deluding people and endangering their souls. Don'tshop here!"All these things may be a person's right if it's his own store and hisown business; but if they are personnel at larger organizations, Ithink customers have a right not to unreasonably be refused service.Rupa An interesting question, Rupa. I haven't looked at the state of the art
in employment and religious belief in quite some time. If I get a chance,
I'll post a follow-up. Personally, I'd expect the individual to follow the owner's policy and the owner to post that policy if it was anything other than to sell any
legally prescribed medication. J. Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>>jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in messagenews:<20041010232332.01624.00002233@mb-m28.aol.com>... I don't have a problem with pharmacists deciding not to sell a drug onethical grounds, so long as they let their customers know in advance which drugsthey won't dispense. I do wonder, though, how they draw the line between one drug and another.Many drugs will have adverse effects for some customers; some will kill onoccasion, quickly or over time. Is it as simple as knowing that the drug sold to an individual will kill, as opposed to simply knowing that it might? J.I dunno. I think I would have a problem with it if the pharmacist waspart of a larger organization and not an independent.If it were, say, Walgreen's, I would expect the pharmacist torepresent company policy and not drag his own personal views into it.If Walgreen were to advertise that, as a corporate policy, we will notsell X, I would concede it is their right to do so -- and everyoneelse's to pressure them, if they can. What I would object to is if Igo into a Walgreen's expecting that I can get birth-control pills (orwhatever) and the pharmacist says, "Nope, I don't believe in birthcontrol, go away."I also think that these stores have a responsibility to screen outpeople who impose their own religious beliefs on potential customers.How far can we take it?What's ethics, what's personal prejudice?Who can refuse service -- only pharmacists, or anyone?"I will not sell cigarettes to anyone. Don't you know smoking kills?""You're too old to be driving a car, I won't sell you gas.""Alcohol is a vice, I'm not ringing that up.""I won't serve people with body-piercings.""Children should be home with their moms, I'm not selling anything toyour daycare center.""I don't believe in the religion you preach at your church (mosque,temple). You are deluding people and endangering their souls. Don'tshop here!"All these things may be a person's right if it's his own store and hisown business; but if they are personnel at larger organizations, Ithink customers have a right not to unreasonably be refused service.RupaAn interesting question, Rupa. I haven't looked at the state of the art inemployment and religious belief in quite some time. If I get a chance, I'llpost a follow-up.Personally, I'd expect the individual to follow the owner's policy and theowner to post that policy if it was anything other than to sell any legallyprescribed medication.J.

Here's what the EEOC has to say about religious discrimination in the
workplace. My take on it is that what the employer could require and the
employee could do would vary considerably with the workplace: an independent
pharmacy with one pharmacist on duty vs. Wal-Mart with 2 ormore on duty. If the
independent wanted the employee pharmacist to sell the drug, the employee'd
probably have to sell. If Wal-Mart tried it, the employee could at least argue
that its no burden to have another on-duty pharmacist fill the prescription.

J.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from
discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing,
and other terms and conditions of employment.

Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local
governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations,
as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants less - or more - favorably
because of their religious beliefs or practices. For example, an employer may
not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter
promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose
more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's
religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a
religious activity as a condition of employment.

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious
beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the
employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work
environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible
scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral
transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are
examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and
practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers'
legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if
accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary
administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other
employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers
to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or
burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or
regulation.

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees
are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the
religious expression would impose an unde hardship on the employer. Therefore,
an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on
other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace
efficiency.

Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious
harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective
procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment
practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination
charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation,
proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote

Thanks for posting this, J

I wonder how it would be implemented in the matter of religious
pharmacists...
Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.
So an employer could reasonably allow a pharmacist to not serve
certain people or provide certain drugs if another pharmacist could do
it instead. This would accomodate a Hindu pharmacist who refused to
dispense any drugs that were grown in cattle; or to serve any Hindus
who were of lower castes (especially if they were from the "scheduled"
castes). Ok.
An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
How about if it inconveniences the customers? Or do we assume that the
company would make sure they are not inconvenienced, through providing
back-up?

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an unde hardship on the employer. Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

What does "other personal expression" mean?
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII. http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html
How about religious employees harassing others? Can this be an issue,
and how could it be resolved? If a sales clerk always delivers a
sermon with the sales speech, is it acceptable, and would it remain
acceptable if for instance a Jewish customer objected to being given a
strong Christian message?

Rupa

>jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wroteThanks for posting this, J

You're welcome.
I wonder how it would be implemented in the matter of religiouspharmacists...

A perfect place to say "God only knows", but I won't.
Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to thework environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religiousbeliefs.So an employer could reasonably allow a pharmacist to not servecertain people or provide certain drugs if another pharmacist could doit instead. This would accomodate a Hindu pharmacist who refused todispense any drugs that were grown in cattle; or to serve any Hinduswho were of lower castes (especially if they were from the "scheduled"castes). Ok.

Looks like it to me.
An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefsand practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes onother employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causesco-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with anotherlaw or regulation.How about if it inconveniences the customers? Or do we assume that thecompany would make sure they are not inconvenienced, through providingback-up?

Assuming that it would burden, piss off, or otherwise cause customers to go
elsewhere, I'd think the employer would be in a position to claim an undue
hadship on business practices. As a practical matter, however, I'd expect the
objecting pharmacist to simply look at the scrip and hand it on to another
employee to fill, without comment. I doubt an employer would be required to
let the employee lecture the customer.

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression ifemployees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an unde hardship on the employer.Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.What does "other personal expression" mean?

Political beliefs, cartoons, whatever it may be that expresses the person's
interests. we had a situation here recently in which a state supervisor tried
to prohibit an employee from parking her car, covered with religious messages,
in the agency lot. That attempt was put to rest fairly quickly, as I recall.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of theiremployees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawfulreligious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having aneffective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposingemployment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing adiscrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII. http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.htmlHow about religious employees harassing others? Can this be an issue,and how could it be resolved? If a sales clerk always delivers asermon with the sales speech, is it acceptable, and would it remainacceptable if for instance a Jewish customer objected to being given astrong Christian message?

See above. Preaching on company time seems to me to be well over the limit.
Then again, if you look long enough you'll find a judge somewhere . . .

Rupa

J.




Reply to jmhjmd at aol.