The end result of Gay Cake-gate

[Lewberry pie]

Same as that woman in the US who was a marriage registrar who refused to marry gay people. She probably shouldn't be in a job that's against her religion. Or pass it on to someone else in the same store who can provide the service (which is what this store in question said should have happened, but the pharmacist was a dick).

Question for pharmacists - do you take the Hippocratic oath like doctors do? ( @Bad_mother )

This is what should have happened, I'd personally refuse to get involved in supporting anyone to have an abortion, although I am religious my views on abortion have nothing to do with that, I just don't agree with them.

All I'd do is arrange for a colleague to do it, which is me doing it via proxy lol, it's the only way I could do it.

 

[Sir Lancelot]

This is where allowing people to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious beliefs gets us.

Pharmacist allegedly denies woman miscarriage medication over religious beliefs

A pharmacist refuses to give a woman drugs that she has a prescription for, because those drugs can be used to have an abortion and he’s Catholic.

She’s just had a miscarriage and she needs the drug to avoid serious complications.

He refuses to let her speak to anyone else in the pharmacy, and apparently also refuses to give her the prescription back so she can take it elsewhere. She had to go to another of the same chain, 3.5 hours away.

That story has been around for years. Pharmacist is entitled to refuse the medication but he MUST refer to a pharmacist who will provide it. He has no right to retain the script.

It often comes up on pharmacy forums as part of ethical debates.

 

[HellsBells]

He could always have taken his trade somewhere else.

Let's face it, he was a dickhead (as is anyone who describes themselves as an activist) he went out of his way to cause offence and get his ten minutes of fame. It's backfired on him and he lost.

This is very different to a situation where only one person is qualified to provide a service (although I'm very surprised to hear there is only one registrar in the entire USA )

There was only one in that town (she was the head, wasn’t she?)

Do you think in this op situation it’s fair to say there are more pharmacies to go to so it’s all fine?

 

[chr1s1973]

To me,if an independent business refuses service,that was always their right. Apparently not.

This is different,aside from the implied duty of care you'd think a chemist has,it's not their business. It's Meijer's so it's not up to them to create policy.

 

[HellsBells]

I'm sorry but that comparison is absolute bollocks.

How? You shouldn’t be able to discriminate on the grounds of religion. Simple as that.

(Agree I wasn’t clear about the NI gay cake but rather other gay cakes in the US. The NI situation is different)

That story has been around for years. Pharmacist is entitled to refuse the medication but he MUST refer to a pharmacist who will provide it. He has no right to retain the script.

It often comes up on pharmacy forums as part of ethical debates.

Interesting. What’s the general consensus on the forums?

If you value free speech and freedom of expression this is a small price to pay. People have every right to withhold their services based upon whatever beliefs they hold. The market will see that pay the price if their views are repellant enough.

I don’t think it’s anything to do with free speech or expression. It’s to do with providing a (in this case emergency medical) service.

And I disagree that the market will always level stuff like this. It didn’t in the past, and isn’t now. Legislation is always required.

 

[JAZZMANB]

Regardless of how the situations came about - allowing people to discriminate against buyers on the basis of their religion is wrong.

People will say there are other shops/bakers/pharmacies you can go to, but this is what happens when you allow that.

It's all been said on the cake one
A guy running his own business making cakes isn't the same as a judge or pharmacist .Everyone's entitled to their beliefs but has to make a career choice in line with living with them that will allow you to do your job .
Artistic expression is the artists choice .Yeah cake making isn't Picasso but it's his choice wether we agree or not

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Asking someone to make an item promoting an illegal activity, and them refusing as they don't agree with it, is a bit different from a medical professional refusing to do his job.

 

[HellsBells]

It's all been said on the cake one
A guy running his own business making cakes isn't the same as a judge or pharmacist .Everyone's entitled to their beliefs but has to make a career choice in line with living with them that will allow you to do your job .
Artistic expression is the artists choice .Yeah cake making isn't Picasso but it's his choice wether we agree or not

So you’re saying some people should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs, but others shouldn’t?

 

[JAZZMANB]

So you’re saying some people should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs, but others shouldn’t?

One didn't want to put some words on a cake they were asked to make ,I don't see it as discriminating ,except against words perhaps
The cake maker had served them before .It's really not a big thing and is nothing like someone working in medicine and suddenly deciding what they consider correct

 

[Horatio Pugwash]

There was only one in that town (she was the head, wasn’t she?)

Do you think in this op situation it’s fair to say there are more pharmacies to go to so it’s all fine?

Not at all, but as she's not some activist going out of her way to stir up trouble it's a very different situation

 

[MonkeyLove]

So you’re saying some people should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs, but others shouldn’t?

It's not discrimination. This was in the judgement.

It's about what activities someone will complete. Not who they will complete them for.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

To me,if an independent business refuses service,that was always their right. Apparently not.

IMHO the NI gay cake incident is problematic because the original ruling could have been used to force gay bakers to bake a cake arguing for compulsory chemical castration of all gay people. It's also problematic because it's happening in Northern Ireland which is a ludicrous place and shouldn't be used as a precedent in any circumstances ever.

Regarding an independent business refusing service, that can't be an absolute right if people also want fair treatment and the rule of law. If they don't that's different, which I suspect is the case in large parts of the US

 

[HellsBells]

One didn't want to put some words on a cake they were asked to make ,I don't see it as discriminating ,except against words perhaps
The cake maker had served them before .It's really not a big thing and is nothing like someone working in medicine and suddenly deciding what they consider correct

In that particular case yes. But in other cases, especially in America, they were discriminating based on religion. Should it be allowed?

(I’m not arguing for the recent NI case, I agree that wasn’t discrimination).

It's not discrimination. This was in the judgement.

It's about what activities someone will complete. Not who they will complete them for.

In that case yes.

I’m not talking about that specific case I’m talking generally. Other gay cake cases in the US.

 

[Tatty]

America and the UK are very different in that America is secular. Unfortunately, we have an official state church. As much as I disagree with the views of the bakers, I agree with the court's decision as how can you have the Church of England as your official church and then penalise people for upholding its views? But in America there really is no excuse.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

In that particular case yes. But in other cases, especially in America, they were discriminating based on religion. Should it be allowed?

(I’m not arguing for the recent NI case, I agree that wasn’t discrimination).


In that case yes.

I’m not talking about that specific case I’m talking generally. Other gay cake cases in the US.

So the thread has nothing to do with gay cakes? Then a different story.
If a Muslim won't touch alcohol then should Sainsbury etc have to employ them? I would say no. If a pharmacist has someone who won't dispense contraceptive pills should the chemist be able to refuse employment? Yes. If a chemist is employed and won't issue a scrip on religious grounds then the pharmacy should have an alternative in place for issuing the scrip or they should not have a licence. Imho.

 

[HellsBells]

So the thread has nothing to do with gay cakes? Then a different story.
If a Muslim won't touch alcohol then should Sainsbury etc have to employ them? I would say no. If a pharmacist has someone who won't dispense contraceptive pills should the chemist be able to refuse employment? Yes. If a chemist is employed and won't issue a scrip on religious grounds then the pharmacy should have an alternative in place for issuing the scrip or they should not have a licence. Imho.

I’m saying that particular gay cake (NI) is different. The NI was a sensible decision and wasn’t discrimination I’m regretting not making that clear in my OP.

There have been other instances of gay cakes in the US, B&Bs etc where people have been refused service on the grounds of the providers religion. That’s wrong. And it leads to stuff like this.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

America and the UK are very different in that America is secular. Unfortunately, we have an official state church. As much as I disagree with the views of the bakers, I agree with the court's decision as how can you have the Church of England as your official church and then penalise people for upholding its views? But in America there really is no excuse.

The UK parliament has authority over the Church of England, including power of veto

 

[Harry Angstrom]

I’m saying that particular gay cake (NI) is different. The NI was a sensible decision and wasn’t discrimination I’m regretting not making that clear in my OP.

There have been other instances of gay cakes in the US, B&Bs etc where people have been refused service on the grounds of the providers religion. That’s wrong. And it leads to stuff like this.

Its USA. They are different over there.

 

[Mr.Thunders]

Good example right here in the value of thinking before posting on a hot topic.

 

[Bad_mother]

Question for pharmacists - do you take the Hippocratic oath like doctors do? ( @Bad_mother )

Nope, but #1 in our Code of Ethics states that "a pharmacist's prime concern is the welfare of patients and the public"

That's as far as we get.

Yes there are a few that won't give Morning after pill on the basis of their religious convictions but they must signpost to another pharmacy....

USA is a different system I believe, the script is sent directly to a pharmacy rather than walked in by the patient making it harder to just go to another one