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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That. What this parent did was a laudable act of civil disobedience. Unfortunately, the post office did what they had to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.