bbauska

Are you ok with a business firing, releasing, forcing (ad infinatum) an employee for beliefs?

If those beliefs directly hinder his abiility to do his job to the satisfaction of the employer ... sure.
(With reasonable constraints on the employers' requirements ... )
If the beliefs are a private matter that do not effect job performance .... no.

Examples: A pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for prescribed birth control pills should lose their license. They have no right to inflict their morality on the doctor patient relationship nor in any way control the lives of the patient through denial of service...
A restaurant that refuses to serve Indians....should have its business license revoked. Same reasons.
An employee of that restaurant that refuses to serve customers for some reason of bias...again the owner should be able to fire them. Because their refusal is affecting the business both directly and reputationally.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Are you ok with a business firing, releasing, forcing (ad infinatum) an employee for beliefs?

If those beliefs directly hinder his abiility to do his job to the satisfaction of the employer ... sure.
(With reasonable constraints on the employers' requirements ... )
If the beliefs are a private matter that do not effect job performance .... no.

Examples: A pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for prescribed birth control pills should lose their license. They have no right to inflict their morality on the doctor patient relationship nor in any way control the lives of the patient through denial of service...
A restaurant that refuses to serve Indians....should have its business license revoked. Same reasons.
An employee of that restaurant that refuses to serve customers for some reason of bias...again the owner should be able to fire them. Because their refusal is affecting the business both directly and reputationally.

So you don't believe the market should be allowed to react. I thought so. You only think the market should be allowed to react in cases you agree with.

How one-sided of you.

I understand these are your opinions, but:

The conscience clause allows health care professionals to exclude certain services. (Perhaps not in your world view)

I agree with the other two cases. I don't think it should be the government's responsibility to police the situation. It should be the market for the reasons you give.

bbauska

So you don't believe the market should be allowed to react. I thought so. You only think the market should be allowed to react in cases you agree with

You've demonstrated that you interpret what people write the way you want... .

Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States which permit pharmacists, physicians, and other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience

The conscience clause only exists in "parts of the US".
And frankly, I disagree with the law. If the role of providing certain legally prescribed medications or remedies to patients is unconscionable then the person should find another line of work. Or find a way to accommodate their beliefs that does not discomfort their clients.

bbauska

I don't think it should be the government's responsibility to police the situation. It should be the market for the reasons you give.

What situation are you referring to?
I certainly believe that the government has a duty to actively ensure that the constitutional right so citizens are protected.
If there was a practice of discrimination against blacks attending restaurants in certain parts of the US, it would be the governments duty to prosecute civil rights offences. And not depend on the good conscience of restaurant owners and citizens to correct the matter in a market driven solution.
If it were up to the market, in many parts of the US, the civil rights of many citizens would still be denied.

Nice non answer (again...)

rickyp wrote:bbauska

So you don't believe the market should be allowed to react. I thought so. You only think the market should be allowed to react in cases you agree with

You've demonstrated that you interpret what people write the way you want... .

Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States which permit pharmacists, physicians, and other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience

The conscience clause only exists in "parts of the US".
And frankly, I disagree with the law. If the role of providing certain legally prescribed medications or remedies to patients is unconscionable then the person should find another line of work. Or find a way to accommodate their beliefs that does not discomfort their clients.

bbauska

I don't think it should be the government's responsibility to police the situation. It should be the market for the reasons you give.

What situation are you referring to?
I certainly believe that the government has a duty to actively ensure that the constitutional right so citizens are protected.
If there was a practice of discrimination against blacks attending restaurants in certain parts of the US, it would be the governments duty to prosecute civil rights offences. And not depend on the good conscience of restaurant owners and citizens to correct the matter in a market driven solution.
If it were up to the market, in many parts of the US, the civil rights of many citizens would still be denied.

All situations. If the world is changing so much (and I agree it is!), then the dinosaurs will dies out with their beliefs. I believe the quote you used is "they are on the wrong side of history". Personally, I do not see the reason to discriminate, but I support the people's right to be an idiot.

I disagree with your premise that the market would still discriminate. What evidence of that do you have? There are just a couple of cases of people not wanting to provide service for a gay marriage, but will provide service to the gay couple outside of the ceremony.

Are they discriminating against the person by providing service to the person, but not wanting to cater a wedding ceremony that they morally disagree with? You would say yes, and I would say no.

I am sure you can bring evidence from back in the 60s for racial discrimination; but history has passed them by. Anything recent?

bbauska wrote:I disagree with your premise that the market would still discriminate. What evidence of that do you have?

History? The market is just made up of people making transactions. People can discriminate, individually and in the aggregate.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I disagree with your premise that the market would still discriminate. What evidence of that do you have?

History? The market is just made up of people making transactions. People can discriminate, individually and in the aggregate.

RickyP said:

"If it were up to the market, in many parts of the US, the civil rights of many citizens would still be denied."

Ok, I think after several weeks we have established that Brad believes that the best option here is to let the market resolve this. If firms that fire employees because of their views suffer competitively because other firms get better employees, then the market has decided that it is a bad strategy.The only thing Brad requires is that everyone get treated impartially here; businesses firing people that support anti-gay legislation get treated the same as a company fires someone from being pro-choice.

But, as Dan has pointed out, these are not constitutionally protected rights. There is no actual "market" entity to police the situation. People who participate in the market will decide whether a company who fires an employee for certain beliefs is deserving of censure. People in the market may decide that firing someone who makes anti-gay comments is just fine, but firing someone who is pro-choice is not fine. If there are enough people who think that is unfair then we can pass a law to put restrictions on what a business can do. Otherwise, a business can fire someone for their beliefs and may have no problem in some cases and may lose money in other cases, and maybe it is not fair, but that is your precious market in action, Brad.

Freeman,
I agree with you. The voters of Prop 8 did decide.

It took a judge to discount all those who voted.

bbauska wrote:Freeman,
I agree with you.

So why are you disagreeing with / ignoring the same points made by others?

The voters of Prop 8 did decide.

It took a judge to discount all those who voted.

How is that relevant to what freeman said? Are you now arguing that the Constitution should not apply if a majority wants to ignore it? That the people should be empowered to bypass Constitutional laws if it suits them?

What does Prop 8 itself have to do with a market anyway? It did not concern trade, but marriage.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Freeman,
I agree with you.

So why are you disagreeing with / ignoring the same points made by others?

The voters of Prop 8 did decide.

It took a judge to discount all those who voted.

How is that relevant to what freeman said? Are you now arguing that the Constitution should not apply if a majority wants to ignore it? That the people should be empowered to bypass Constitutional laws if it suits them?

What does Prop 8 itself have to do with a market anyway? It did not concern trade, but marriage.

We disagree on what a market is apparently. I see a market, not only as a place where people transact, but transact ideas as well. If a position is antithetical to the beliefs of society, the market will not bear that. NAMBLA can gripe about it's discrimination, but if society will not abide by NAMBLA beliefs then it will not become mainstream.

The same is with a conscience clause. If society does not want to afford the freedom to disagree, the market will have it's customers go to someone who will provide the meds they desire, and the other people will go out of business.

As for Prop 8, Freeman said "People in the market may decide that firing someone who makes anti-gay comments is just fine, but firing someone who is pro-choice is not fine."

To which I say, people were not allowed to decide in the case of Prop 8. It was voted on (hence the market analogy), and overturned by a judge.

bbauska

To which I say, people were not allowed to decide in the case of Prop 8. It was voted on (hence the market analogy), and overturned by a judge

In your world basic human rights, as guaranteed in the Constiitution have no place?
At any time, a majority can decide that a persons rights can be attenuated ?
Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional . Do you have a problem with providing minorities protections for their freedoms?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

To which I say, people were not allowed to decide in the case of Prop 8. It was voted on (hence the market analogy), and overturned by a judge

In your world basic human rights, as guaranteed in the Constiitution have no place?
At any time, a majority can decide that a persons rights can be attenuated ?
Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional . Do you have a problem with providing minorities protections for their freedoms?

No (One's rights shall not be abridged by another. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.")
Yes (See NAMBLA above. See Conscience Clause above)
Yes (See NAMBLA above. See Conscience Clause above)

Laws that protect children from sexual abuse are not unconstitutional. (In fact they are there to protect the rights of the children) . That's been contested in court I beleive.
Laws that provide a pharmacist a "conscience clause" have not been tested in a court for constitutionality. At what point are the constitutional rights of a person using a doctors prescription at a pharmacy infringed upon by the pharmacists "conscience"? I think it can be adjudged that if a woman is stopped from being provided service that she has a legal prescription for that the pharmacist is inflicting his religious or ethical values upon her.... and that this represents a failure to provide protection from religious persecution, or a failure to protect her privacy, or a failure to provide equal protections.
The pharmacist doesn't have to be a pharmacist if the act of fulfilling his duties to properly prescribed citizens causes him doubts. But he shouldn't be able to press the consequences of those doubts on another..