To think this is a bit off....But not sure why.

[Shortstuff08]

So, I had to go get the morning after pill today. I went to a high street retailer that has a pharmacy. They had a sign saying they provided it.

The woman behind the counter asked me if I was wanting the free one or to pay for it. I said that I assumed I would have to pay. She went away and came back and said they didn't provide the free one. I said that was fine and she told me that the Pharmacist would come our to see me in minute. A man approached me and asked if I was waiting. He then told me that he 'couldn't' provide MAP. I asked if they didn't have any and he said 'no, we do, but I can't give it'

Fair enough, I went to another high street store. Spoke to the Pharmacist there, she asked me a few questions about medication I am on and the gave me it. I said I was relieved she could as the other store couldn't give me it and thought I would spend all day looking for somewhere. She asked me where I had been and then said that some pharmacists, don't give it out due to religious purposes.

I don't think that's ok. If it's your job, how can you refuse on religious grounds? Or are some Pharmacists not able to administer it? Or am I being an arse in thinking that you should just do your job?

I have a friend who is a registrar on an Obgyn ward. She is the only non Muslim one there and as the muslim colleagues refuse to perform any abortion she has to do them all. She's leaving purely due to this and I think its absolutely disgusting. Why take a job somewhere where a major part of the job is performing abortions (most are for medical reasons or following miscarriage) and then refuse to them . I just don't think it should be allowed at all !

“Until the day comes where we cannot access the healthcare we need, then a few people being allowed to make their own choices is not an issue anyone needs to be creating.”

Well, unless there is only one pharmacist in the town. Unless the woman has spent ages plucking up the courage to ask, and is then turned down and can’t ask again. Unless the woman has no transport to go somewhere else. Unless the woman has managed to escape from partner or family and will not have another opportunity.

Read my qualifying statement. "Not unless their actions completely prevent us from exercising our choice".

The qualifying statement means nothing. Progress changes religion. Religion has always trampled on women's rights and dictated what rights women have.

And Why 'completely'?

Why does religion trump a woman exercising her rights? Why does it have to be completely prevented before they are challenged.

How can you not understand that every woman is just not in a position to just go somewhere else?

My Step MIL has been disabled since her 30s. If the Pharamacy refuses to give her the MAP, she would struggle to get into our town. When she did and got refused again (If she went to this chemist) she probably would not have the energy to go elsewhere and then make it back home. It's 2 buses there and 2 buses back. Or maybe she just not have sex until menopause kicks in.

Someone has said on this thread it took the 5 hours to find one that had and would give her the MAP. That's not acceptable.

Besides which, you keep ignoring, it shouldn't be legal. If a Catholic bakery is being discriminatory by refusing to provide a cake, supporting gay marriage (I think that is what was on the cake), why is it legal to refuse to give a woman medication on the same grounds?

Why does religion trump women's rights? What is it about religion that it's allowed to be placed before women.

The Pharmacist exercised his rights to when he decided to become a Pharamacist. That was his choice.

This is not the same as past crimes committed in the name of religion.

I disagree. Religion has a history of imposing it's will, where women's well being is concerned.

@Shortstuff08

Nobody needs to walk from pharmacy to pharmacy. Have they not heard of a telephone?

You phone the pharmacies and check if they dispense it. Then you go collect. Doesn't take a genius to pick up a phone. Traipsing around for 5 hours was unnecessary. It is not those pharmacists fault that she didn't call ahead. When it's a medication you know someone may refuse to dispense, you check beforehand.

You might want to judge people based on the history of their religion, but I'd rather judge the situation as it is today. I don't care if religion has previously destroyed women's right. That's not the position we are currently in.

The laws have been created to allow us access to what we need. The church no longer as the power to say "you are not allowed to do this". We are allowed. But that does not mean that every individual must be forced to take part in it.

You're right are not being trampled. You have access to the drug. But what you want is to completely trample their right to not get involved. They are not the oppressor here; you are.

I think it is OK to refuse something on religious grounds

And I absolutely don't. My beliefs — and I do have them — should not mix with my work. I'm sorry OP if your experience was in any way distressing

It is absolutely possible to live and let live. Keep your rights, and still allow others the freedom of personal choice. There is always another pharmacy - even if it takes a bit of effort to get to it. That price is worth having a free society where we can object and abstain from activities we do not agree with.

You simply cannot have a blanket rule on this. There is no good society where you would either force people to dispense against their beliefs, or else force them out of their jobs. There are alternatives available to patients. And we need to do everything we can to protect individual rights and freedoms.

And stop fpinf on about the bakery. It was in the US, so is not applicable in the UK. And anyway, last month the US supreme court sided with the bakers and not the gay couple. So that voids your argument.

OP, you need to absolutely report this man to head office!! Any kind of work should not be informed by personal or religious beliefs- he should just stick to what he is paid to do and not what he, subjectivly, thinks is morally right. I would be bloody livid!! How dare he treat you in this way, deciding who gets what treatment. Disgraceful!

If you wanted to bring a law or guideline to say that if a pharmacy is the only one around for 5 miles, then it must always provide the medication then I would back you all the way to the house of commons.

That is a reasonable adjustment which still leaves room for freedom of expression whilst ensuring everyone can reasonably access the medication.

A blanket rule would not be reasonable. Can you even consider that?

Absolutely you should complain. As far as I'm concerned, nobody with such strong religious beliefs should be in a position that would allow them to deny you what you're entitled to.

For example, can a devout Muslim refuse to sell you pork in a supermarket, does anyone know?

Im a taxi operator, would i refuse to send someone a taxi because its only up the road and in my opinion they're lazy?

This really angers me. The religion aspect in itself is bollocks, let alone having the right to wield that kind of power.

@PhaedrasChocolate

There's quite a few supermarkets with Muslim employees who put a sign up saying that you cannot purchase alcohol or pork at that till. The general response has been supportive, as long as another till is available.

How am I the oppressor? I didn't force him or attempt to force him to give me it.

I mention religious history because you post as though religion handy trampled o women for years. You talked about not wanting women's right to wall over religious ones.

You still have no answered why religious rights comes first, above women's.

The area I live in classed as deprived. Do you know how many people I know who have pay as you go mobile that they can not afford to top up. Or can't afford basics.

You clearly have no idea about people in a less than ideal situation.

It is absolutely possible to live and let live. Keep your rights, and still allow others the freedom of personal choice

Why doesn’t that work the other way? Why is it only the woman wanting the MAP who has to allow others personal choice?

There's quite a few supermarkets with Muslim employees who put a sign up saying that you cannot purchase alcohol or pork at that till

But there is a massive difference between having to go to a different till and having to travel across town to find another pharmacy.

And stop fpinf on about the bakery. It was in the US, so is not applicable in the UK. And anyway, last month the US supreme court sided with the bakers and not the gay couple. So that voids your argument.

No it wasn't. It was in northern Ireland. So if you want to debate understand what you are debating. It's nothing to do with the US. So that voids your argument.

I didn't know this and think it's very wrong.

The law is you can take the morning after pill so denying access seems contrary to your rights.

@SimonBridges

I'm ignoring that question because I have answered it. Religion does not trump women's rights, but women's rights also do not trump religion.

It is a game of give and take - which is what civilised society is built on. You have the rights, and you were not stopped. You just had to go somewhere else. Your rights were not taken from you. But if you get what you want here, then his rights will be taken from him. That is oppressive.

Religion obviously has a history of disgusting behaviour... But that it not the case here. Do you judge all Germans based on the behaviour of the Nazis? I'm sure you don't. So we do not judge religion based on the behaviour of the past.

We've won. They've lost. We are now entitled to abortions etc. But that does not mean we are entitled to take away their freedom of expression. A handful of them saying no does not trample women's right, but your removal or their ability to abstain will trample their right to a freedom of expression. And there is no need for it.

Give and take. Not absolute rule.

Why is it only the woman wanting the MAP who has to allow others personal choice?

Exactly. He can choose to have the family planning he wants. Why is it for him to impose his beliefs upon others?

This again? Just how frequently does this happen?

I'm in the disgruntled camp.

@Shortstuff08

The case I heard of, that has been in the news since it happened was in Colorado. I didn't see one happening in northern Ireland. But it is still wrong. People must be allowed the freedom to abstain from things.

How did it hurt that couple? They just need to use a bakery happy to be part of it. But forcing someone to take part in something they are deeply against is just wrong, especially when it does no harm to anyone. No harm would have been done.

I'm a jeweller. I refuse to make religious jewellery. I do a lot of bespoke work and have lots of enquiries for religious symbols. I always say that my schedule is too full because jewellery is around for a long time and my makers mark will be on that piece - I don't want to be known as a maker of religious jewellery in 100 years time.

Should I be forced to make those pieces? Or should I be allowed to choose what I do in my own business, as long as I don't hurt anyone or shour about it from the roof good?

Are you really trying to draw a parallel between reusing to make someone a cross to wear around their neck and refusing to prescribe someone vital medication?

*refusing

@JacquesHammer

If we're going to have anti-descrimination laws then they need to be universally applicable. When people say that personal or religious beliefs have no place outside of your own head, then this I what happens. We are all forced to participate in actions we do not agree with.

I don't really like religion; never have. If I ran a bakery and an evangelical Christian wanted me to bake a cake with a bit quote about supporting God iced onto it, then I'd want to refuse. It wouldn't be anything to do with that person... just with the message which I would not want to support. But I would be forced too if you all get your way.

If you want a law that says every town must have one pharmacy which will always dispense the MAP, then I'd be all for it. But to have a law which would take away freedom of exoreaaikn entirely? That is not a world I'd want to live in. And if the cost is having to take a bus to another pharmacy, then I'd hope we'd be willing to pay it.

Losing civil liberties, freedom of expression, all of that... is more terrifying that having to go to another pharmacy. You need to think about the far reaching consequences when you start taking away freedoms.

I think it falls under reasonable accommodation, if someone doesn't wish to sell something to a customer. If within the same store they shouldn't have to do the duty IF there is someone else in the store to do it instead. If there isn't someone available then I think you need to either honour the client's legal right to purchase or find yourself another job.

And if the cost is having to take a bus to another pharmacy, then I'd hope we'd be willing to pay it

You’re missing (or choosing not to read..?) the countless people who have stated for many people it isn’t that simple.

I would support anyone being allowed to opt out of certain duties on the basis there is ALWAYS someone else in the SAME pharmacy who will prescribe.

I am happy for people to worship however they wish. As soon as their believes remove choice from other people? That’s not ok.

Compromise isn’t expecting someone trying to access medication having to go to extreme lengths to obtain it.