• BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 month ago

    Good. This is the same as a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription due to personal beliefs. You took a job knowing what it would entail.

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Their free speech is bad. OK.

        What does that have to do with delivering the mail as the carrier takes an oath to do ?

        Or was professionalism in the civil service bullshit from the start ?

        • Facebones@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Their free speech is bad. OK.

          Yeah, hate speech is bad. IDGAF about your free speech when that speech is “I think this group I don’t like should be eliminated or removed from society.”

          If this were a conservative refusing to deliver liberal info you’d call the refusal free speech itself and argue firing her is illegal - so y’all can sit the fuck down.

      • iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 month ago

        So a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse selling e.g. birth control, due to personal beliefs? Everyone can just decide who they want to service for any reason, right?

        • nutsack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          the post office is right to punish her for not doing her job, but she is also right to sacrifice her job for an act of civil disobedience. they are both right. the only person who’s a piece of shit here is the one sending the mail.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              They don’t have to. Our democracy has the capacity to change for the better. We should push for this change going forward.

              edit: This story is about Canada, but they are also democracy. The US should learn from this woman’s example.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes. Exactly. But that’s the original point: you accept the job with the understanding that, if you find a particular aspect of the job to be against your morals, and you refuse to perform your job due to your morals, that you may be disciplined and/or fired.

            The wrinkle here is that pharmacists have some degree is 1a protections (in the US) because their objections are on religious grounds rather than humanist ones. That makes firing them difficult, because it can be argued that it’s religious discrimination. An obvious solution would be to require them to refer the person to another pharmacy, so that they aren’t violating their religion, but pharmacists are arguing that’s compelled speech that still violates their 1a rights.

            • nutsack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              nobody should ever be granted special privileges based on religion or political beliefs. the postal service and the pharmacy face the same moral circumstances in these two scenarios.

              civil disobedience is still disobedience. you do it because you believe its right, and you accept the consequences.

              • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                AFAIK, no one has rights based on political beliefs. But in the US, people have religious liberty granted to them under the constitution, within some fairly loose limits, and discriminating against people in employment based on their religious requirements is not legal. There’s the issue of ‘reasonable accommodations’; if I’m Muslim, then a company denying me the ability to pray several times each shift is almost certainly religious discrimination.

                Yes, I agree that we should view religion as a choice rather than an inherent quality, but that’s not the way the constitution is.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          People have to the right to make strategic decisions defend life and liberty. This would be like refusing to spread a disinformation campaign to ban birth control. Abortion is lifesaving healthcare and reproductive freedom. Choosing to defend that is not an arbitrary decision but who we are as a freedom loving democracy.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      No, this would be like refusing to spread a disinformation campaign designed to ban lifesaving medical treatments provided by said pharmacist. It’s not a personal belief, but a strategic decision to defend life and liberty. Banning gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. Tolerating intolerance should not be a part of anyone’s job description.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Pharmacists can get away with that. The mail person is a federal employee and doesn’t have that luxury.