Are there limits to "conscientious objection?"?

Question

Read the two scenarios below and comment. Are there really any significant differences? Shouldn't people just "do their jobs?"

Three-quarters of the taxi drivers serving the airport are Muslims, many from Somalia and, in recent years, many have refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol because Islam frowns on liquor.

They are a group of men who refuse to do their jobs because of a perceived conflict with their religious beliefs. You're entitled to your religious beliefs. You're not entitled to require your employer or customers to go to extraordinary lengths to accommodate those beliefs.

Some pharmacists are getting selective about the medications they are willing to dispense on moral grounds. If a customer has a legal prescription from a doctor, said customer has every right to expect to have that prescription filled. It is the pharmacist's job to fill prescriptions and properly, not make moral judgements about the drugs.

Answer 1

My belief is this, if you have a job you should fulfill that job. Thus if your are a cabbie you should transport people who want the service and the only time you should not is when it is dangerous or against the law. As for the pharmacist if the medication is legal and the customer has a legal right to take it then you should dispense it. What you have here instead though is where people are becoming "moralist" and basically forcing their religious views upon others. Frankly at this point these people should be removed from their jobs on the basis that they are bias towards their customers and therefore can't fulfill their duties that go along with their job properly.

Unfortunately in this country you have many people who now believe because they are a certain religion that they have some right to subject others to their views whether the masses believe their religion or not.

We must quickly curtail this and demand that this is a free country to practice any religion we want and also free for us not to accept or practice another persons religion and that we should not be subjected to someone elses religion just because they believe it is right. Hence force these people must be removed from their jobs if they refuse to do their jobs without being corrupted by their own personal views.

Answer 2

You are correct on both counts. If a man or woman has a problem with having alcohol in their taxi, then they need to find a job where the presence of alcohol is not a problem. I do not drink and i do not condone drinking, but I do not have the right to force this viewpoint on people to the point of denying them my services. A taxi driver has the right to refuse to pick up drunks and to refuse to allow drinking in his cab. As far as the pharmacist is concerned, the same applies. He is in business to provide products and services. A doctor has mad a decision for the patient and it is the duty of the pharmacist to respect that decision and fill the prescription.

Answer 3

You make a good point. But don't these individuals making the conscientious objections also have a choice? If a taxi driver won't carry passengers with alcohol or a pharmacist won't fill a given prescription, customers will move on to those taxi-drivers/pharmacists who will. The market will decide whether or not the conscientious objections are acceptable.

Answer 4

Thats insane. Most companies that hire a person have a statement they have to sign or atleast discuss, that if they have an objection to any part of they job, they have to withdraw or deal with it. Personal beliefs of any kind are not to interfere with their employment. If they don't like the job, they don't work there.

Answer 5

I agree with you. If you can't perform the job description you aren't qualified to do the job. I don't care what religion someone is when hiring but on the other hand I don't believe I should be required to hire someone who won't perform aspects of the job because of their beliefs.

Answer 6

hi. This poem is poignant and authentic, it extremely is a tragic component , while others mis choose us, tells lies approximately us un particularly basically for the sake of it. Your poem of existence nail the hammer deep down the wood table, and it extremely is a message to be taught, and a few component to contemplate upon . The temper and the subject count is amazingly life like and touching, i like the used of metaphors and the imaginative and prescient you painted , this message will stayed in my techniques for an prolonged time by way of fact it extremely is the way of guy, we are no longer appropriate people , yet we specific are you able to should be greater effective people. thank you for sharing your techniques and emotions. God bless.

Answer 7

If they are independent contractors who own their own cabs or phramacies or rent them with payment in advance and don't use dispatch service they can do as they please.

If they use dispatch service and they cause a passenger hardship for no legal reason, the cab company is liable and can be sued for common tort

Answer 8

Religion and public service should have nothing to do with each other. If you have a belief that is going to keep you from fulfilling the basic requirements of your line of work, you should not be in that line of work.

Answer 9

Who you answer to in the end is the most important. If a job convicts a person that strongly, then I say find another job. Who cares about the money.?

Answer 10

A business can choose to operate in whatever way it deems fit (legally). No one is required to do business with you. The taxi passenger can find another cab and the pharmacy customer can find another pharmacy. If you have standards, you shouldn't compromise them for business.