Forcing your beliefs on others is not religious freedom

[cleanhippie]

First it was doctors who wouldn’t perform abortions and pharmacists who wouldn’t fill prescriptions for contraceptives. Several years back a Chicago police officer sought an exemption from an assignment to guard an abortion clinic. And most recently, a town clerk in New York state refused to sign the marriage license of a lesbian couple who had every right to marry under the recently passed state law. In these cases public servants claimed religious exemptions from doing a part of their job under the guise of so-called “conscience clauses”. In each case, “religious freedoms” of public servants have trampled over the rights of the people they took an oath to serve.

--snip--

Advocates of the clauses believe they safeguard their religious freedom — that forcing a town clerk to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple is a violation of the clerk’s rights as a religious person who condemns homosexuality as a sin. It’s a disingenuous interpretation that allows for anyone who wants to force their beliefs on others to call it “religious freedom.” And it’s dangerous. These conscientious objections—not only in health care, but all spheres of public life—are not a simple matter of individual religious beliefs and rights, because they always affect someone else’s access to care or services. While these individuals have the right to consider their religious beliefs in determining their own personal medical and social decisions, those personal beliefs cannot be forced on the public, as they pick and choose which services to provide.

--snip--

New York Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, had it right in his response to the town clerk who refused to issue the marriage license to the lesbian couple. He said, “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose.” It’s that simple. If your religious beliefs infringe on your ability to do parts of your work, then it’s time to find another job. Religious freedom does not mean that you can ignore portions of your job, administer only the portions of the law that you like, deny services to the public based on your personal beliefs or infringe on the rights of another.

What conscience clause advocates need to understand is that freedom of religion is for everyone — not only those who share their religious views.

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/10/20/forcing-your-beliefs-on-others-is-not-religious-freedom/

[polmaven]

1. This strongly religious woman

agrees with the post except to say that, if there is another pharmacist, or town clerk ON DUTY at the time the customer or constituent comes in, then sure, ask that other person to do it in your place.....But I completely agree that, when you are serving the public, that is what you should do....serve the public. If there is no one else immediately available, then it is up to you to do what the person in front of you needs, with no exceptions. If you cannot, then you should not be working in that capacity.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Mildly disagree with your examples

Substitution of the town clerk allows violations of the oath of office. They should resign or be forced out.

As for the pharmacy question, there is no legal duty to fill a particular customers request. The refusal is between the pharmacist and their employer. Not clear if the current law requires such a religious accommodation. Additionally, the pharmacy may choose not to stock that product and can not be forced to under current law. A less controversial example of that is compounding, which most pharmacies do not do.

[cleanhippie]

10. That is a perfectly reasonable response.

:applause:

[LeftishBrit]

2. This has just come up not so far away from me

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9315368.Complaints_made_over_GP_s_use_of_religion/

There seem to have been other problems with this doctor (e.g. timekeeping, not spending enough time with patients); but forcing his beliefs on his patients certainly seems to be one of his problems!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Cited article is a mixed bag and the law is far from clear.

State and Federal law require accommodation of religious beliefs where practical. Also there is a clear difference between public officials, including police and private businesses.

Public officials must do their duty, such as issue marriage licenses. I actually applaud those who refuse and then resign. It is a good thing to see people stand up for what they believe in, no matter the cost. On a practical level it also gets them out of the way of progress. Having someone else issue it is more questionable and should be prevented. Using the other example cited in the OP, the cop can request a religious accommodation and under the law it should be allowed. That does not excuse the cop from not doing his job if he is present.

As for the private businesses it is a much harder case. The duty to perform is between the employee and the employer, not the customer. Also there is no basis in law to require a business to stock particular merchandise. So in the case of birth control, the pharmacy may not stock it at all, or a particular pharmacist may choose not to dispense what is in stock. In neither case is there is not a legal duty to the customer to do either. Some here have argued that state licensing demands such things, but that is not currently the case and I seriously doubt it would hold up in the courts. The way to address this is economic pressure, which is being applied and looks to be effective.

[dmallind]

5. If that were true why did Denny's get into legal trouble for turning away blacks?

Businesses open to the public are public accommodations and not allowed to discriminate on protected grounds, which include both race and religion. Discrimination includes both for and against, and in this case the pharmacy (a public accommodation) would be discriminating against those whose religion does NOT include proscriptions against family planning prescriptions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Different concept

If a business chooses not to carry a particular product, it is not discrimination since all customers are being treated identically. Not all pharmacies carry all drugs or do compounding.

Restaurants who treat customers differently based on race are clearly discriminating and its illegal. Restaurants do not get in trouble for not serving artichokes to someone who asked for it if they do not carry them.

[dmallind]

8. Which only applies if the whole COMPANY decides to abandon faamily planning for example

Sure Water Sizlak, Apothecary of East Godley Idaho since 1964, can decide not to stock abortifacients, but that's not usually the kind of case that draws attention. Walgreen's, CVS, Wal-Mart etc certainly do stock contraceptives, and their individual pharmacists have no say in the matter. Thus if these pharmacists are willing to provide them to married couples but not singles, there is discrimination. There is even discrimination if the individual refuses to dispense them to anyone, as this is being willing to provide everything a person whose religion forbids contraceptives may demand, but not so serving those wiothout the religious prohibition. The pharmacist then is still discriminating on religious grounds. The very claim of religious privilege contains the definition of religious discrimination, since you will treat differently those who agree with your religion (dispense all their Rxs) and those who disagree with it (refuse to dispense some Rxs). You simplu cannot treat customers differently based on religion.

Hasidic restaurants don't have to serve pork, but a restaurant that DOES offer pork cannot refuse to sell it to non-obsrvant Jews who are not Hasidim.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Correct to a point

However, I believe it would be store based, not the entire chain. For example, not all WalMarts carry everything WalMart sells, that includes drugs.

Not clear if it meets the legal definition of discrimination if a particular pharmacist refuses to dispense a certain drug to anyone, though it is clearly is an issue between employer and employee. Refusing to dispense to only some customers is clearly discriminatory, but I am not sure if it is currently generally considered illegal.

[Deep13]

7. Agreed. One cannot make someone else bear the cost of ones convictions. nt