LoneStarMadam wrote:nimh wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:What's next, a Jewish taxi driver refusing a fare to someone with a cross? Or maybe a Christian taxi driver refusing to allow a gay couple into the taxi because that is against his/her religion? See where this can go? Of course i realize that it isn't PC to deny a muslim any accomodation.
Hmmm... would lambasting a Christian taxi driver for refusing to allow a gay couple in be PC, or un-PC?
Let me guess - lambasting a Christian driver for refusing people a ride on religious reasons would be liberal PC; but lambasting a Muslim driver for refusing people a ride on religious reasons would be commonsensically un-PC.
A Christian taxi driver wouldn't get away with it, the ACLU would be on him/her like stink on poop.
You didnt answer the question.
You did provide a pointer, though, so let me take you up on it:
If the ACLU would be on a Christian taxi driver "like stink on poop" for refusing to carry a passenger on religious grounds, would it be being PC?
Are the conservative critics of the Muslim taxi drivers who are refusing to carry a passenger on religious grounds, being PC?
nimh wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
Hhhmmmmm, ohkay.. So thats all your beef is about? Like, if they refuse the same passengers for the same reason on, say, Downtown Tourist Square, you would not have a problem with it?
If those drivers are independent drivers, with no agreement with the airport, of course it would be their individual right, IMO, to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
dlowan wrote:I am wondering if the refusal of these catholic orphanages reflects the prejudice of those who run them, or if the relinquishing parents have specified catholic, or at least christian, parents?
I would guess that the preferences of the mother would be relinquished at the release of her parental rights.
revel wrote:If Joe is right and taxi drivers can't refuse passengers on those grounds, then the taxi drivers should be fired or whatever.
However, LSM is wrong about ("it not happening") Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives at pharmacies.
Culture war hits local pharmacy
Quote:CHICAGO - The culture wars have already seeped into hospices, movie theaters, and the Super Bowl. Now, even the corner drugstore has become a battleground.
From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.
It's a debate that weighs personal morals against professional responsibility. It pits religious rights against patients' rights and raises the question of just where pharmacists stand on the spectrum of health-care professionals.
Many pharmacists point to the "conscience-clause" exceptions that nearly every state has in place for doctors, allowing them to recuse themselves from performing abortions or other procedures they object to. They believe they should have similar protection.
Critics point out that filling a prescription is a very different job from writing one, and question whether pharmacists can deny a legal drug on moral grounds. And the patients who have been denied are simply angry to see their prescriptions become fodder for a public debate - especially when the prescriptions they wanted filled were for something as time-sensitive as emergency contraceptives, often known as the morning-after pill.
"Most observers seem to say it [refusing to give out contraceptives] is picking up, and there seems to be a more organized campaign to allow pharmacists to refuse," says Adam Sonfeild, an analyst with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health issues.
And as the issue gets more attention, politicians are weighing in - on both sides:
In Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) last week issued an executive rule clarifying his view of state law: Any pharmacy that sells contraceptives must promptly fill a woman's prescription for them.
Four states, including California and New Jersey, are considering laws that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions despite any religious or moral objections, unless they could find an alternative that doesn't inconvenience the patient.
Thirteen states are considering giving pharmacists the kind of conscience-clause outs that doctors have, allowing them to refuse to fill some prescriptions that go against their personal beliefs. (Four already have such laws on the books.)
In a related issue, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R) exercised a rare veto this week, for a bill that would have required all hospitals - including Catholic ones - to inform rape victims about the availability of emergency contraceptives. Among other concerns, he questioned the constitutionality of forcing religious institutions to engage in speech counter to their principles.
With the pharmacist battles, it's principles of individuals, rather than institutions, that come into play. While no hard numbers are available, anecdotes have cropped up with increasing frequency.
Two pharmacists at a drugstore in Texas refused to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive for a woman said to be a rape victim. They were later fired. In Wisconsin, a judge reprimanded Neil Noesen this year for not only refusing to fill a college student's prescription for birth-control pills, but for balking at transferring the prescription to a pharmacist who would fill it.
Governor Blagojevich's ruling was prompted by a pharmacist at a downtown drugstore who refused to give emergency contraceptives to two women. "The governor said that there seems to be a pattern here, and it was important to take action quickly to make sure pharmacies in Illinois know they have an obligation to ensure a woman's access to health care," says Abby Ottenhoff, an aide to the governor.
Public opinion tends to come down in favor of the patient. In a November New York Times poll, just 16 percent of respondents said they believed a pharmacist should be able to refuse to dispense birth-control pills for religious reasons. Among white evangelical Christians, that number grew to just 24 percent.
But many pharmacists believe it's possible to accommodate their consciences and still ensure a patient gets her prescription. "We support the pharmacist stepping away, but we don't support them stepping in the way," explains Susan Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which adopted a policy calling for conscience protections, as long as the pharmacy had an alternative system in place - another pharmacist on duty, for instance, or an agreement with a neighboring pharmacy. The issue first arose not because of contraceptives, she says, but over pharmacists in Oregon concerned about taking part in assisted suicide.
Ms. Winckler is concerned about the order in Illinois, which she says has caused many drugstores to reverse their policies and doesn't take into account that pharmacists may refuse to fill a prescription due to health concerns as well as moral objections. She's also worried about proposed laws that give too much weight to either the pharmacist's rights or the patient's rights, instead of considering them both.
Still, in a conflict, the patient's rights should win, say some medical ethicists. "For the past few years now, pharmacists have wanted to model their relationship with the patient on the physician-patient relationship, which is not really appropriate," says Evelyne Shuster, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.
Others wonder about the implications down the road: A pharmacist only agreeing to give contraceptives to married clients, for instance. Defenders of the conscience clause dismiss such fears as ridiculous, and contend that pharmacists - who have an obligation to look out for their clients' interests when it comes to, say, adverse side effects or potential allergies - are healthcare professionals who should have the same protections as doctors do.
"We intervene and stop prescriptions and make doctors change prescriptions," says Karen Brauer, a pharmacist in Lawrenceburg, Ind. The pharmacy she works at refuses to stock contraceptives - a fact she explains if people come in looking for them - but she feels that workers at any pharmacy need to be able to follow their conscience.
Ms. Brauer, along with some other pharmacists, has a particular problem with emergency contraceptives because they work by inhibiting ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. While most medical professionals define pregnancy as beginning with implantation in the uterus, she and some others consider a fertilized egg, even before implantation, to be human. "We should be free to opt out of killing humans at any stage of development," she says. "If women really want this drug, they are going to have to find a willing provider."
Others voice more tempered views, but still feel that allowing a right of conscience shouldn't have to keep a patient from being serviced. "We don't force doctors to perform abortions, and we shouldn't force pharmacists to dispense contraceptives," says Steven Aden of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom.
He doesn't buy the argument that referring a client elsewhere can be too burdensome or cause delays that threaten the effectiveness of the morning-after pill. "You don't force somebody to do something they think is morally wrong because somebody can't get into a car or a bus and access healthcare."
Reproductive-rights advocates note that keeping a woman from the morning-after pill can cause more unwanted pregnancies - and potentially abortions - than making it available. But above all, they say the issue comes down to discrimination that no woman should have to face at the pharmacy. "A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication," says Steve Trombley, president of Planned Parenthood Chicago. "Not moral judgment."
LSM never said it not happening[/I]. I realize that you & a couple of others love to tell people what they said because you think that's what they said, but as usual, you & a couple of other people are wrong. This thread is not about pharmacists, this thread is about some muslims that are using their religion to deny some people their rights. You want to talk about pharmacists or some other malady that you find abhorrant, start a thread.
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
Drivers who refuse to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked two years for the second offense, according to a proposed taxi ordinance revision.
"Our expectation is that if you're going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it," commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said.
<snip>
Mohamud, an attorney who teaches Islamic law at William Mitchell Law School in St. Paul, said, "Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol." Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.
Mohamud said he would ask airport officials to reconsider, adding that he hoped that a compromise could be worked out that would serve as a bridge between the American legal system and the cultural and religious values of the immigrants.
Currently, he said, more than half of the state's taxi drivers are Muslim and about 150,000 people follow Islam in Minnesota, most of them in the metro area.
LoneStarMadam wrote:The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.
As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.
If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.
LoneStarMadam wrote:The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.
As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.
If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.
joefromchicago wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.
As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.
If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.
What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?
revel wrote:joefromchicago wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.
As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.
If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.
What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?
If a doctor is in private practice, he should be able to refuse any service to anyone.
What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?
LoneStarMadam wrote:revel wrote:joefromchicago wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.
As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.
If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.
What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?
If a doctor is in private practice, he should be able to refuse any service to anyone.
If that were true then why the need for the "conscience-clause" that states provide for doctors who object to abortions?
revel wrote:What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?
The difference is that, as part of his license agreement, a cabbie must pick up fares without exception. And that's because that is the only way a taxi system can function. If cabbies could routinely discriminate among which passengers to pick up, then passengers wouldn't have any confidence that they could hail a cab on the street or call for a taxi to pick them up, and so they would stop trying to get cabs altogether. For the system to operate, therefore, cabbies have to be obligated to pick up all fares.
The contrast with doctors in private practice, I think, should be obvious. Doctors have no obligation to treat every patient who walks through the door, and the system doesn't collapse because doctors can pick and choose among patients.
You make a logical argument, however, if doctors can refuse to treat patients, why the need for a "conscience-clause" to protect doctors who do not want to perform or treat patients which goes against their religious beliefs?
The History and Effect of Abortion Conscience Clause Laws
I note that I personally oppose abortion and I am not really wanting to beat this to death, I am just curious.
The difference is that, as part of his license agreement, a cabbie must pick up fares without exception. And that's because that is the only way a taxi system can function. If cabbies could routinely discriminate among which passengers to pick up, then passengers wouldn't have any confidence that they could hail a cab on the street or call for a taxi to pick them up, and so they would stop trying to get cabs altogether. For the system to operate, therefore, cabbies have to be obligated to pick up all fares.
The contrast with doctors in private practice, I think, should be obvious. Doctors have no obligation to treat every patient who walks through the door, and the system doesn't collapse because doctors can pick and choose among patients.
I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one Joe. Are taxis really obligated to pick up every passenger? I don't think so.
They are able to refuse to pick up people who are too drunk or are headed to neighborhoods they don't want to go in.
How are taxis more obligated than physicians? How would the ability to refuse service cause the taxi system to fail but not the health system?
