The employer has the right to employee only people who are going to aid in making the store successful. There is no right to a job. People who wish to tell the employer that they do not have the right to determine how their store is run are acting in a manner that violates the right of the employer.

Once again, these are in earthly terms. The government cannot issue regulations based on what happens when we die. It is up to the individual employer as to whether or not they care. The individual employee can decide whether or not to work for those who do not care. They cannot make the employer care. That would be a violation of rights.

This whole birth control thing is certainly a religious issue.

I am by no means speaking of Pharmacies, who for whatever reasons choose not to stock and distribute birth control pills. As I stated, I also take issue with Planned Parenthood for attempting to tell Target that they must stock birth control pills and other products that they would choose not to. If every Pharmacy in the world decided to not stock birth control pills I would not believe that anything wrong had occurred.

If Pharmacies wish to establish agreements with employees setting terms that allow conditions under which an employee may opt out of filling any prescription, as long as the terms are mutually agreed upon, I have no reason to offer complaint. If the Pharmacy wishes to set conditions that say that Employees may choose to not do task X for any reason that the Pharmacy feels is non objectionable then I have no reason or right to complain.

When we are talking about a situation where the Pharmacy is not willing to meet such terms. If the Pharmacy states that any who will not fill the prescription will not be employeed by said Pharmacy and the employee decides to seek employment elsewhere there is no issue.

When said employee goes to Washington and says make the Pharmacy employee me despite the fact that I do not meet their requirements for continuing employment, or takes any other action to attempt to strong arm the Pharmacy, this provides an issue.

Is this any clearer regarding what I am trying to say? As I have said, sometimes I worry that I am not clear, and I think that frequently that concern is valid.

I really no longer see your point anymore. I’m lost and part of me wants to throw up my hands and say you win because I no longer know what you are talking about anymore.

What is your point if there are pharmacies willing to employ pro-life pharmacists, respect their beliefs, and if that is where pro-life pharmacists seek employment. Because pro-life pharmacists do not have the right to take their cause any further?

You say it is about the need for the pharmacy to stay open, and I say I think the pharmacy can stay open and hire pro-life pharmacies, and then you say that is not the point. I don’t know what we are talking about anymore.

Seeking to legislatively strong arm Pharmacies into complying with employers is wrong.

No, it’s not, it’s within our right as Americans to seek protective legislation. It is not strong arming people to bend to a religious will. It is not making birth control illegal. It is pro-life pharmacists asking to be left alone.

The slaves were not oppressive or heartless when they made the same request of their masters. The lives of the masters would change dramatically, as would the lives of the slaves. The masters had not been mistreated. It is not oppressive for the owner of a business to tell an employee who would not be an employee if it weren’t for the owner how to do the job they have been hired to do.

Your analogy of comparing employees to slave masters and slaves to employers is…weird…

Anywho, forcing people to commit mortal sins against their will simply because you disagree with their opinion is oppressive.

But you get to oppress others.

Yes, its true, I’m telling you that I would appreciate it if you would live your life and allow me to live mine. It’s the same thing I ask of the people who want me to turn left on a red light. You drive your car and I’ll drive mine.

It is not heartless or oppressive to tell you that you don’t get to oppress me. The slaves were not oppressive or heartless when they made the same request of their masters. The lives of the masters would change dramatically, as would the lives of the slaves. The masters had not been mistreated. It is not oppressive for the owner of a business to tell an employee who would not be an employee if it weren’t for the owner how to do the job they have been hired to do. It is not oppressive for the owner to expect the job to be done completely and correctly.

Your perception of the businesses financial situation is not the issue. The profit of the business is the property of the business. It is the option of the business to choose whether or not to sacrifice part of their profit for anything.

No, of course the only product being sold is not Birth Control. That is not the point. The point is that the owner of the Pharmacy, be it a little Pharmacy, or a big Pharmacy, has chosen to stock the product. The point is that The Pharmacy, not the Pharmacist chooses whether or not individual Pharmacists will be permitted to decide whether or not to distribute the product. If the Pharmacy decides that distributing this as neccessary is a requirement for keeping a job then the Pharmacist has choices. Distribute it as neccessary, or lose job. The Pharmacy has determined that the Distribution of Birth Control is part of the job description. It is up to the Pharmacist whether or not to risk termination, quit, or distribute the product.

The Pharmacist is of course free to refuse. Though they should understand that in the instance that they refuse the Pharmacy has the right to fire them. This is their choice. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with asking questions. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with saying no. I said, the Pharmacy gets to give the answers. Seeking to legislatively strong arm Pharmacies into complying with employers is wrong. It is a demonstration of a complete disrespect for the free market system. It is a demonstration for desire to have unearned control.

But you would have your ideas enforced on us.

Many large chain pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS have no problem financially or morally allowing pharmacists with pro-life ideals to not have to prescribe birth control. So they obviously feel it is simply not about revenue. Or maybe they do as pharmacists are one of the most in demand professions, and they demand grows higher as time goes on. The pharmacy program is highly rigorous and demanding (my husband started it, but it is not a program someone who is supporting a family can truly devote themselves to).

Fact is his lack of ability to keep the lights on would have more to do with not hiring trained pharmacists. Let’s get real here, the medical and pharmacuetical industry does not start and stop with birth control pills. The number 1 prescribed drug is hydrochlorothiazide (HZTZ), blood pressure medication. Some of the others at the top-Vicodin, Hydrocodone, Lexapro, Xanax, Paxil. (I know this because I am a medical transcriptioner and I type the same meds over, and over, and over again.) Americans are more plagued by heart conditions, high blood pressure, chronic pain, depression then they are with fertility. A pharmacist can work days on refills of Lipitor and Wellbutrin before he sees a script for bcps. And again, I still do not get how you see a pharmacist just going to the back room and sitting down. Saying to another pharmacist “can you get the bcp script, while I fill the oxycodone” is not a refusal to do a job.

I also don’t know what to make of your employees are not supposed to tell employers what to do. Of course they have the right to ask things of their employers. Depending on the stragety they use, or the gravity of the issue, yes they do so perhaps to the detriment of their job. I agree. But there is nothing wrong in and of itself with inquiring and finding out.

I also didn’t bring up Aristotle or Paganism. I went along with it, but I didn’t introduce it.

I mean, frankly, when the owner of the Pharmacy can’t keep the lights on because he has lost to much money paying people extra to do ‘Als’ job who was heartless then?

When we are speaking of an employee telling an employer they will not sell Birth Control or The Nicotine Patch. If there is such concern over a product because of a sincere belief that it is a poison being released into the body, where is the uproar for the Nicotine Patch? Where is the consistincy? Never mind, forget I asked. I’m not actually advocating uproar over the patch. This is the same thing as the attempts to tell Target that they must carry the Pill, or Scope…it doesn’t matter.

Heh.

Good analogy with the Halal butcher, too.

ABORTED FETUS SINGS!!

http://www.tedharvey.com/gianna.htm

You can listen to it at …

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=119963

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor

http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0040927.cfm

Crashing The Party

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/06/crashing_the_pa.html

It is not refusing to do a job, if your job does not require you to do something. If an employer says a pharmacists does not have to dispense drugs that are against their religion, then not dispensing birth control is not refusing to do a job.

A pharmacist “refusing to do a job” conjures up images of a guy sitting in the back of CVS eating a Chalupa while customers come in and he out and out ignores them.

If I had a job as a cashier and I am not required to mop the floor, then I am not refusing to my job because you desire I need to mop the floor to make it nicer for you to look at when you come to my store.

If I go to Halal meat market and there are no pork chops, I don’t say “that butcher is refusing to do his job as a butcher”, I just simply go to anther butcher for my pork chops.

What more or less baffles me is your heartlessness in the fact that you have no care in forcing someone to do something that extremely heinous to their faith and beliefs to prove a point. There are pharmacists who will fill birth control prescriptions as it is not illegal, just not everyone. Nine times out of ten, there is another pharmacist on duty, what do you care if in the back they say “hey John, I can’t fill this prescription, can you take it?” Because it is not OK to simply have people in the world who find it immoral, You have to annihilate thier sensibilities, and in the same breath, complain about Catholics who believe tha abortion is wrong and have the nerve to lobby against it.

As for Natural Law, I see your point, and I knew eventually your view would be that we have the right to control the course of nature, it is just a different perspective on how far. That I get. Catholics do not feel we should mess with what God has put into motion,but respected as much as possible, and to us (Catholics) we feel that things like birth control and abortion, while even though are possible, does not mean OK. I got that, and I knew that is what your opinion would be. I also knew nothing I said here would change that. “To those who who do not believe in God no explanation is possible, to those who believe, no explanation is necessary”~Franz Werfel. But I wasn’t trying to do that, I was trying to explain from one perspective why I believe that what is right means it is right for everyone (which is in and of itself another explanation-evil does not change from person to person-what is right is always a constant). What I got frustrated with was changing the definition of Natural Law or to argue if it is Catholic or pagan or Aristotle or not.

I get the concept that if you are holding a glass dish of ketchup, and you do not want broken glass and ketchup all over the floor, don’t drop the dish. You totally get that too which is why I got so frustrated. That part is a no brainer. But it was like you were saying only Catholics believe that dishes can be dropped, and what pagans think this etc. etc. etc. Where we disagree is simply that I think you just shouldn’t drop the dish. People’s lives are much easier and happier just not dropping the dish. You think it’s OK to drop the dish as long as you put newspapers an towels on the floor where it will be dropped and you clean up the mess afterwards because it’s their right to drop the dish. And we will not agree on that. With that part, I’m cool because we will not agree.

The idea that sex may result in children; even the Humanae Vitae acknowledges that every sexual encounter will not result in the fertilization of an egg. The condition is that there should be no interference with this. Thus, sex is for the purpose of having children. The Humanae Vitae also lays out stipulations regarding marriage and the need for sex in marriage.

That you believe this isn’t the issue that I have. The issue that I have is the desire to impose this upon the rest of us. Now, I understand that the going belief is such as identified in the Humanae Vitae, that this isn’t your rule, it is Gods rule, your just the messenger. Therefore, it will be imposed by nature, and that you can’t impose it. Which would omit the attempts to legislate away the rights of employers who do not believe this to be the case. This would do away with the harrassment of women at abortion clinics and the attempts to legislate against those who don’t believe it. Natural Law would take care of those that went against it. Reality does. The assumption seems to be that this Natural Law is indeed Reality.

The thing about this is they think they just found the roots of agriculture. It’s a fig. I can’t give specifics, however the reason they believe this to be the roots of agriculture is because it came from a mutated strand of some variety that would not have taken root by itself. It required human intervention to be reproduced. Which meant that in order for this to happen people had to figure out a way to manipulate nature in order for it do their bidding.

The fact is that while other fruits and vegetables may very well grow of their own accord without our intervention, the fact that we control where to plant them and when defies the concept of Natural Law as presented. The idea of Herding Cattle defies natural law. This also is the result of members of humanity stepping in and altering the natural order of things. The creation of the wheel, the ability to control fire, the ability to understand gravity. These are things that require us to mentally or physically manipulate basic concepts in order to better understand and use them.

We have also devised ways to prevent pregnancies and reduce the chance of disease. We have devised ways to prevent pregnancies from continuing. Agriculture is a violation of how things would be without our interference. This is for the record the complaint of many Environmentalists, that we should avoid altering nature.

Assuming that I have now understood, where do we draw the lines in manipulating nature? Who decides? On what grounds? Realistically the answer is that the market of ideas decides. Anything other than that results in Dictatorships and I personally am opposed to Dictatorships. My house is a demonstration of the manipulation of nature. My contacts, my inhaler, my car, my lunch.

I don’t have a problem with marriage for those who wish to engage in it. I have a problem with being told that there is something wrong with not getting married. I don’t have a problem with people who wish to have any number of children. I don’t disagree with any one who makes those choices. I don’t choose to do the same, but I don’t question their rights to govern thier own lives. I don’t ask whether or not it is moral for them to engage in such activity. Not simply because in large this is what is dicated by society as acceptable, but because it is a personal choice. In France it is becoming more and more common for couples to commit and start families without a wedding certificate. It is also becoming common for people to begin families later in life and to have fewer children. I associate it with one thing, you associate it with another. I still say if you want a hundred kids and can feed a hundred kids then I can not pretend to know your capabilites and have no reason to think of interferring.

The insinuation made by the article that started this is the suggestion that somehow there is actually something wrong with people who choose not to have children.

As I noted earlier, this post is intended simply to scratch the surface. The growing anti-parenthood trend, along with the closely related anti-marriage trend, are only two of the bitter fruits that have emerged since the contraceptive mentality began to permeate our culture.

Unless I’ve misunderstood and this is in praise of ‘bitter fruits.’