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
|