I, too, have seen that movie. 
I’m simply not engaging people who take the most obvious bad-faith reading of a post. There is no value in engaging.
You know I’m not suggesting this so why post it. 
For those interested in actual discussion this is a good paper.
Going back to the condoms (sort of), it strikes me that whenever you hear somebody complaining that somebody else’s values or “lifestyle” is being “shoved down their throat” it’s always a religious conservative complaining about the gays instead of the other way around, which would be infinitely more appropriate.
5 Likes
On a side note, I only post about this stuff sincerely. Sometimes I lose my shit lately because I’m living on the edge of survival. i got myself here, just trying to help you understand.
A homeless man asked me for a ride yesterday and I couldn’t do it for actual reasons besides fear or inconvenience. I thought about that shit the rest of the day.
You guys are brilliant and see the big picture. I’m just trying to give you some perspective from another view.
1 Like
-
Condoms allow a woman to have multiple sexual partners in her life so she might know that sex can, in fact, be pleasurable for her.
-
Condoms allow women to have sex without having to commit to a single partner for life, thus skewing the availability of sex for men away from god’s intensions.
3 Likes
It’s not completely clear what the objection is here. Are you just making fun of the employees beliefs or do you think they should be fired?
the puritanical sex shaming that’s at the core of that does have its roots in some very patriarchal stuff.
1 Like
To clarify my own position - given what’s in the article it sounds like Walgreen’s is doing things appropriately? I don’t know enough about discrimination law (or the particulars of this store) to know if Walgreen’s could legally dismiss this employee. But even if they can, it seems like that they are taking the enlightened approach here. Should I be boycotting a business for insufficient religious discrimination?
I guess the argument is that getting someone else to ring you up is a violation of privacy? What am I missing here?
Employee should quit or be fired. He is unwilling or unable to perform the duties for which he was hired.
The burden on the customers (and employer) makes it unreasonable to accommodate his position.
In this case the customer was publicly shamed and humiliated (other customers were present during the interaction). That seems deeply inappropriate and uncool to me. Not to mention bad for business.
6 Likes
Some of that is also based in how challenging parenting is. Does nobody here really think that someone who plans on having kids is more apt to be a better parent than someone who does not?
Being a shitty parent is a form of violence in itself.
Yeah, this. Like, you don’t get to sign up for work at a pig slaughterhouse and then say you shouldn’t have to do any pig processing because that’s against your religion and then still get paid. If selling condoms is against your religion, have you considered selling food instead?
1 Like
It’s not.
yes, but this isn’t a pig slaughterhouse and I assume checking out condoms is a relatively small part of the job. Note that Walgreen’s is legally required to make reasonable accomodations per discrimination law. Again- I don’t know if the conditions here apply. But I would guess, yes?
A better analogy is a grocery store cashier that calls a coworker over to bag pork products that they don’t want to touch. Would you want someone in that position fired as well? (note - this has actually happened to me, and I honesty didn’t think much of it).
I mean - I guess you could argue that the sensitive nature of the condom purchase is a bigger imposition to the customer. I dunno though, sounds a little slight.
2 Likes
Not analogous for similar reasons as above post.
For me the principle is that an individual’s religious beliefs shouldn’t give them the right to shape the world around them.
1 Like
I agree it’s not the same as working at Walgreens, but it’s also not the same as working in a pig slaughterhouse. In addition to issuing marriage licenses, the Rowan County Clerk is responsible for conducting all Special, Primary, and General Elections within the County. Also, the Clerk’s Office upholds all voter registration information and is responsible for making sure all election laws set forth by Kentucky Revised Statutes are maintained properly. They’re also responsible for motor vehicle transactions and liens; disabled parking placards; legal documents which are filed as public record; and registering notary publics.
No offense, but this seems willfully obtuse. My understanding is that Davis wasn’t handing the licenses over to her boss to sign. She was denying them outright! Also leaving people with no other options. Not in the least bit analogous even if you think your right to getting contereption at your favorite store is equivalent to your right to get married.
Here in the US we have discrimination protections for employment. I think this is a good thing. Perhaps this dosen’t meet “reasonable accomodation,” but if not what does? I doubt that Walgreen’s could fire this person, but what they could do is refuse to sell condoms at all. Would that be an appropriate remedy?
1 Like
I mean I don’t really care, but if you’re going to call me willfully obtuse I’ll double down. She asked for religious accommodation so she wouldn’t have to personally issue the marriage licenses as Kentucky law required county clerks to issue marriage licenses in their names. This was refused, and she sued the Governor for ordering her to violate her religious beliefs instead of trying to accommodate them.
After she was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to personally issue the licenses, her deputy clerks were ordered to issue the licenses. She returned to her job a week later and served out her term no longer required to issue licenses. Instead her deputy clerks issued the licenses which were authorized by “the office of the Rowan County Clerk” and no longer bore her name. Kinda like a Walgreens manager refusing to sell condoms, and condom customers being served by other staff.
Genuinely didn’t mean to be insulting, apologies. That said I can’t wrap my head around the equivalence here even if I don’t know the details. I will say that obviously discrimination protections don’t offer the protection to discriminate. If the cashier refused to checkout to people because they were gay, then yes of course that would be grounds for firing.
I mean, maybe our experiences in life are vastly different, but I have shopped in a lot of stores and having the cashier ask the manager for help is a pretty common experience. It’s happened to me hundreds of times. Decidedly in “not a big deal” territory. Maybe I have low standards? But if I thought that something like this was grounds for termination I would want to look deep inside to make sure I knew where that reaction was coming from before I started calling for a boycott.