Is Refusing to do Your Job a Choice?
  by Ellen Rennels

On April 19, columnist Diana Saunders wrote a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "'Choice' means No Choice." In this column,[1] reprinted in a local newspaper on May 3, Saunders contended that pharmacists who don't believe in emergency contraception for rape victims should have the choice to refuse to fill those prescriptions. She accused "the left" of hypocritically opposing choice "[by not] letting individual workers say no to tasks they find morally abhorrent..."


Saunders in absolutely correct - in the workplace morals trump everything. We are indebted to people like Saunders for ushering in a grand new era - where professional ethics, job descriptions, common sense, and a free market economy all take a back seat at the workplace to those workers who sound the trumpet for moral values! Of COURSE pharmacists shouldn't have to dispense emergency contraceptives if they are morally opposed to such practices. And as a matter of fact, if they are opposed to birth control, they shouldn't be required to dispense that, either. Even selling early pregnancy tests could raise the red flag for the "moral" ones - what if a woman finds she is pregnant and wants to terminate? Or she learns with relief that she's not pregnant and then wants birth control? Immoral behavior all around, and the pharmacist shouldn't have to be a part of it. No doubt some pharmacists are morally opposed to artificially enhanced sex for 80-year-old men. It's perfectly logical for them to refuse to dispense Viagra or its clones. "Moral" workers could certainly refuse to sell condoms to married people.


And pharmacists aren't the only ones whose moral values could restrict job duties.

Imagine the situations in which a worker could avoid job duties by claiming "moral opposition."


A Muslim at a checkout counter should not be required to sell greeting cards with any Christian reference. He shouldn't be required to restock or handle such merchandise. Nurses should be able to use "moral opposition" as grounds to refuse treatment to drug addicts, women terminating pregnancies, or the wife beater whose abused wife finally shoots him. For some, their moral conviction means no alcohol or music. If they work in stores that sell such products, they shouldn't have to participate in those transactions. And if they smell alcohol on any customers, they should refuse to do any business with those drinkers, not even sell food, on moral grounds. If a store clerk is opposed to the song lyrics, she shouldn't have to ring up that CD. Those whose moral code prohibits eating meat shouldn't have to sell, stock, bag , or even touch meat products. And teachers whose religion says that homosexuality is a sin should be able to refuse to meet with the homosexual parents of a student.

Saunders wants us to think that the concept of reproductive choice and choices made in private are somehow equivalent to tasks involved in doing a job. She muddies her logic with fear tactics - "Do Americans want the government to tell a business what it has to sell?" She belittles the situation by saying the whole thing just isn't a big deal, and people with complaints can hire a lawyer. In reality, this isn't about "choice." It all comes down to morals. Saunders seems to believe that Christian morals trump others' morals. In the melting pot that is the United States, this simply cannot be.

1. www.sfgate.com

Send us an Email

Or write to us at:
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs
P.O. Box 62946
Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2946
Phone: 719-594-4506