This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Luke 6:37
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
So fine, judge all you want; sure hope you're 100% perfect.
This is about letting personal transgressions pass. Look at the verse before it. "Be merciful". When in a position to display mercy, we should always do so, to the compliment of our God. We should always pardon, if able, when someone owes us, personally. HOWEVER, we should NEVER let sin go, as we do not have the power to forgive, or let sin pass. We should address it directly, and with the strength of the word. Just because we do not condemn people for their slightest transgression against us, does not mean we allow them to sin without address.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Ok well, back to the actual topic, eh?
:)
Post by
Magician22773
Reading back through all the posts on the topic, the most judgemental post is mine.
I judged myself.
I freely decided to live in a manner that I knew was sinful before my God, and for that, I am sorry to Him alone.
Outside of that, I don't see where anyone here judged anyone else. Either you believe in what the Bible says, or you don't. If you do, than you are not being "judged" if someone says that sex before marriage is a sin, you are being told something you already knew. If you don't believe, then someone saying sex before marriage is a sin should mean nothing to you, because you do not believe in sin.
Please, show me the post(s) where anyone was "judged" here, because I don't see them.
I know there are groups that do in fact go around "forcing" or rather "expressing" their views about this subject.
If "expressing" a view is equal to "forcing" that view, then that would have to apply to the homosexual marriage issue. By this measure, the gay rights community is "forcing" their beliefs on Christians.
Post by
Sas148
The gay community is forcing their beliefs on Christians? I personally can't even respond to that... just sounds too absurd.
I would actually say more but this thread isn't intended for that and it's outside the present topic so I'll just leave it with that.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##sas148##DELIM##
Post by
Magician22773
Its not what I believe, but what I quoted.
If a Christian groups "expressing" their beliefs are considered to be "forcing" them on others, then how is the opposite not true as well?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The gay community is forcing their beliefs on Christians? I personally can't even respond to that... just sounds too absurd.
I know. You believe the common bought tripe that Christians are the oppressors and homosexuals are just victims. Tell that to the CEO of Chik Fil A. Just wants to open restaurant, but his beliefs are out of the mainstream.
I suggest you stop buying what is commonly believed, and just look at what is actually going on around you.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Why must everything in off-topic come down to religion and homosexuality? For petes sake people, MOVE ON!
Post by
FatalHeaven
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
Post by
Sas148
I changed my mind... don't want to cause drama that isn't really necessary.
That you for objectively pointing it out... you know who you are.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##sas148##DELIM##
Post by
Sas148
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
Yes. I mean, they can say no but at risk of losing their jobs as it's a business and that's all there is too it. The exception would be if they own said pharmacy, then I think they can choose not to supply specific items if they so choose.
Post by
Magician22773
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
A pharmacy is a privately owned business, and should have the same right as any other business to refuse service to anyone, within the legal limitations of anti-discrimination laws.
Why must everything in off-topic come down to religion and homosexuality? For petes sake people, MOVE ON!
With all due respect, look at the topics for both the Debate of the Day, and the Question of the Day. Most of them have some "morality" aspect imbedded in the question. (The current topic has "morally wrong" in the title), so don't be so surprised when that is where the discussion ends up. Do you not believe that this topic will end up pitting the religious against the non-religious?
You have the same group of people discussing different subjectsin the forum, so while the last question did go a bit off topic, it should be expected, and I believe, addressed. It is not really possible to ignore what is said in one topic, when something polar opposite is posted in another.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Do you not believe that this topic will end up pitting the religious against the non-religious?
The only reason everything here comes down to religion and homosexuality is because Off-Topic is the epicenter of derailments; usually by the same group of people. Even when the OP of different topics try to reign it in, or moderators step in, people still do it.
The point of:
Why must everything in off-topic come down to religion and homosexuality? For petes sake people, MOVE ON!
was basically venting frustration at the fact that I had tried TWICE in the past 90 minutes to stop the derailment.
With that said, I am sorry if it offended anybody with it.
Viva La Current Topic!
Post by
PTsICU
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
Employee working for a pharmacy that stocks and fills those drugs, a pharmacist should fill legit prescriptions regardless of their personal belief. At the least they should lose their jobs (employer should be liable to lawsuit for refusal to serve a service they provide) for refusal to serve the patient.
Imagine a nurse refusing to give an HIV patient needed AIDS related drugs, because they disagree with the person being a drug abuser or homosexual. I view pharmacist as part of the healthcare profession, much the same as all other fields. They are bound to that duty regardless their personal beliefs. If they can't live with those responsibilities, they should choose another profession in life.
Post by
Sas148
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
A pharmacy is a privately owned business, and should have the same right as any other business to refuse service to anyone, within the legal limitations of anti-discrimination laws.
Not all pharmacies are privately owned. Also, even if one is, that doesn't mean the pharmacist working at said pharmacy is going to agree with the owner's about a particular item/drug and if they want to keep their job I'd suggest not arguing about it.
But, in the case of a privately owned pharmacy wanting to not carry a particular drug/item, I agree... that should be up to them to decide and I believe that is the case, though I am not certain.
If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense those drugs or items I'd have to suggest they find a like-minded pharmacy to work at.
Post by
Magician22773
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
Employee working for a pharmacy that stocks and fills those drugs, a pharmacist should fill legit prescriptions regardless of their personal belief. At the least they should lose their jobs (employer should be liable to lawsuit for refusal to serve a service they provide) for refusal to serve the patient.
Imagine a nurse refusing to give an HIV patient needed AIDS related drugs, because they disagree with the person being a drug abuser or homosexual. I view pharmacist as part of the healthcare profession, much the same as all other fields. They are bound to that duty regardless their personal beliefs. If they can't live with those responsibilities, they should choose another profession in life.
A pharmacy sells a product. They are not bound by the same laws as "healthcare professionals". They are no different than a candy store. If a candy store does not want to sell M&M's, they don't have to sell M&M's. If the customer wants M&M's, they can go to a different candy store.
If an employee refuses to sell a controversial drug, and the employer fires then for it, they would be in deep trouble. Because religion is protected under anti-discrimination laws, he would likely lose a lawsuit for religious discrimiation. In most states, you can be fired "with or without cause", so they could still be fired, but if the employer says its "because of your beliefs", they would be screwed.
Your nurse analogy is not a good one, as doctors and nurses are held to different standards by law. (Similar to the anti-discrimiation laws that protect the pharmacy employee, laws also prevent medical professionals from refusing service in an emergency to anyone). However, hospitals and doctors are only required by law to treat a patient in an emergency, and then they can transfer the patient to a different facility, so refusal to administer AIDS drugs may or may not be considered "an emergency"
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
And if a law like this passed you would end up having to drive 30-45 min to gets prescriptions filled.
There is no current law that requires pharmacy's to carry or sell any medications.
Due to the high number of pharmacy's getting robbed for narcotic pain killers like Oxy-Contin and Vicodin, the parmacy that used to fill my prescriptions stopped carrying them all together. So I now go do a different pharmacy. It is slightly more expensive, and a little farther to drive, but I respect their decision as a business to do what they felt necessary.
But if your licensed with the state you are not a doctor and can actually endanger someones life by refusing something as simple as birth control cause you believe its wrong
No. All you have done is make them drive to a different pharmacy. If that pharmacy happens to be 30-45 minutes away, so be it. If you need medication bad enough that your life depends on it, than an extra hour of your time and a couple gallons of gas a month should be the least of your worries. Prescriptions can alos be filled and delivered to you by mail, so there is no extreme hardship being placed on any patient here.
Not all pharmacies are privately owned.
In my area, and AFAIK, in the US, the only pharmacy's that are not private businesses would be pharmacy's that are part of a Public Hospital. And, at least around here, there are no government owned hospitals other than the VA (Veteran Administration) Hospital.
Post by
Nathanyal
If an employee refuses to sell a controversial drug, and the employer fires then for it, they would be in deep trouble. Because religion is protected under anti-discrimination laws, he would likely lose a lawsuit for religious discrimiation. In most states, you can be fired "with or without cause", so they could still be fired, but if the employer says its "because of your beliefs", they would be screwed.
If they know those products are sold there to begin with, why the hell would they want to work there? They should know that the place they're going to work at sell those types of drugs, and if they don't like it they should either get over it or work some where else.
And I don't see that as him being fired for his religious beliefs, I see it more like firing because he isn't doing what he was hired to do.
I would say that's like someone working at a McDonald's, Burger King, or Wendy's refusing to sell a hamburger because they're Hindu.
Post by
Magician22773
If an employee refuses to sell a controversial drug, and the employer fires then for it, they would be in deep trouble. Because religion is protected under anti-discrimination laws, he would likely lose a lawsuit for religious discrimiation. In most states, you can be fired "with or without cause", so they could still be fired, but if the employer says its "because of your beliefs", they would be screwed.
If they know those products are sold there to begin with, why the hell would they want to work there? They should know that the place they're going to work at sell those types of drugs, and if they don't like it they should either get over it or work some where else.
And I don't see that as him being fired for his religious beliefs, I see it more like firing because he isn't doing what he was hired to do.
I would say that's like someone working at a McDonald's, Burger King, or Wendy's refusing to sell a hamburger because they're Hindu.
First, for them to just "get over it" would be to either ignore, or change their religious belief. Does that make it any clearer why firing them for it would be "religious discrimination"?
A person has the right to study for, and enter any field of work they choose. It would be proper, IMHO, for the prospective employee to let the pharmacy know that they would have a problem with dispensing these drugs, and let the employer decide if it is practical to work around their belief or not. If they do not disclose it, than the employer had better hope they are in a "right to work" state, and can fire without cause, or they are pretty much screwed. (On a side note, welcome to the world of owning a business. Hiring and firing is one of the most nerve-wracking duties a business owner has)
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.