I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?

[sherminator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm


I find this absolutely shocking!

No question just a bit of early morning venting!

[ludwig]

TCL, not sure I understand, but basically if you're the owner of the shop you can sell what the hell you like - which means you wouldn't stock contraceptive products.

So if someone comes in with a prescription for the pill you can say - 'I'm sorry, we don't stock that product' , which I have no problem with.
Rather than saying 'Yes, we have that in stock, but I'm not prepared to serve you because I disaprove of what you're going to do with it'

[TCL-MUMPING]

So it's fine for someone to refuse to stock an item on religious grounds but it's not fine to to refuse to sell if it's in stock? A owner is not obliged to sell anything they have in stock to anyone so I'm not sure you have a valid argument there.

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, neither you or jno will answer my simple question. Well here's another simple question. Why won't you?

[TCL-MUMPING]

I have already said the question has been answered but you don't want to have a conversation do you?

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, if the question had been answered I'd have seen it - and I know you would have had no hesitation in re-posting it. And no, I don't want a conversation with you. I just want you to give me an answer my question.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Sorry but I can't be bothered to re-post it. You'll have to look a wee bit harder.

[Ankou]

"i just want you to give me an answer my question"

classic. 3 days ago i said this is how it would end up. lol

[ludwig]

//So it's fine for someone to refuse to stock an item on religious grounds but it's not fine to to refuse to sell if it's in stock? A owner is not obliged to sell anything they have in stock to anyone so I'm not sure you have a valid argument there. //

This doesn't make sense. It's not a case of 'refusing' to stock something. As I said, if it's your shop you can stock what you like. Not stocking something and refusing to serve someone are two completely different things.

Consider it from the other way around. You go into your local Waterstones, pick up a bible/koran take it to the desk, and the person refuses to serve you because they're an atheist. Say what you like, but I'm sure you'd find that unreasonable.

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, I haven't looked at all because I know it isn't there. If you had an answer, you'd make sure we knew about it - but you haven't. Your continuing refusal to address the question simply confirms your intellectual cowardice - and you're fooling no one but yourself.

Ankou, oddly enough, so did I, because there is no defence for the indefensible - as jno and TCL Mumping have very clearly demonstrated.

[naomi24]

Ludwig, that's a very good analogy.

[Ankou]

maybe ludwig, but then you would just go to another bookstore.

i think the analogy is flawed.

[naomi24]

Ankou, you're missing the point, If the owner of the shop stocks the book then he clearly wishes to sell it, so why should the customer be obliged to go elsewhere to buy it because a shop assistant's personal beliefs? The analogy is spot on.

[naomi24]

'because of'

[naomi24]

Come to think of it, why should a shop owner find it acceptable to alienate a customer and lose a sale because of an employee's beliefs?

[ludwig]

//maybe ludwig, but then you would just go to another bookstore. //
As the person who wanted the pill had to do - but should they have had to?

//i think the analogy is flawed. //
How? It only differs in the fact that no-one needs a bible urgently, whereas being denied access to the morning after pill in a hurry can have potentially huge consequences.

[Ankou]

exactly

[ludwig]

Good, so we're agreed then. The person refusing to serve the pill is being much more unreasonable than the person refusing to serve the bible.

[Ankou]

my inference that your analogy was flawed was simply because the scenarios, choices and potential outcomes are very different.

still if i walk into a chemist and they won't serve me something for the reasons being discussed, i wouldn't go to max clifford, i would probably go to another chemist to try my luck, then complain to the owner of the first one and the national pharamcy associaion in writing.

[ludwig]

// i wouldn't go to max clifford, i would probably go to another chemist to try my luck, then complain to the owner of the first one and the national pharamcy associaion in writing. //

So you would complain? I thought you didn't have a problem with it. Now I'm confused.

//Come to think of it, why should a shop owner find it acceptable to alienate a customer and lose a sale because of an employee's beliefs? //

This is the point really Naomi. The person refusing the service may be a bit strange and unreasonable, but you can't physically force them to do something they don't want to. My problem is with the shop (and possibly the law) which condones the strange and unreasonable behaviour by allowing it from the employee.

That's why I said earlier, they should at least ensure that there is always someone available to serve the product, if it's a product they stock and there's no good reason to refuse service (drunkenness or whatever), or failing that put a sign on the door so people know to go elsewhere.

[naomi24]

The point seems to be wasted on some, Ludwig - but I strongly suspect it only seems that way. ;o)