Deerfield, IL-based Walgreen

Obviously a tool of the devil. You can tell by the not-English words on the package.

Via americablog, Boston Globe and the Trib:

18 Comments so far

  1. steven (unregistered) on December 1st, 2005 @ 11:09 am

    If you’re going to let religious beliefs get in the way of performing your job, especially in a profession in the medical field, then choose another field of work. If I needed emergency contraception, the last thing I’d want is for my local pharmacist to say no because its against their religion. I would probably stand there, dumbfounded, at that response.

  2. Ben (unregistered) on December 1st, 2005 @ 11:57 am

    Nikkos, you and I see eye to eye on this one. If Walgreens wants to fire them, I’m all for it.

  3. nikkos (unregistered) on December 1st, 2005 @ 12:34 pm

    Ben, you’re almost making me feel guilty for referring to your reptilian brain. Glad we can agree on this one.

  4. Ben 2 (unregistered) on December 2nd, 2005 @ 10:23 am

    Just wanted to know Nikkos… what do you think about requiring the removal of a headdress or veil for a Muslim in order to abide by a company’s dresscode?

  5. nikkos (unregistered) on December 2nd, 2005 @ 10:39 am

    “Ben2.” Ha!

    Anyways, on to your question. The answer is simple- I don’t know enough about the issue to comment. Do you have a personal experience or perspective you’d like to offer, Ben2 (not to be confused with Original Ben).

  6. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 2nd, 2005 @ 11:41 am

    Well I didn’t want to be confused with the other Ben heh.

    This is a hypothetical situation, because realworld situations tend to be more complicated:

    Say an orthodox Muslim works at Walgreens, and Walgreens has a dress code that requires no hats or headwear. Do you think that requiring the Muslim man to remove his headdress against his religious beliefs is wrong for Walgreens in this case?

    I am not saying that Walgreens has a code or that this has happened, it is just a means to receive an end.

    If, perchance, you do think that he should be allowed to wear his headdress, explain your inconsistency in allowing Muslims to conform to their beliefs and Christians not. If you think that the company has a right to impose their dresscode on their employees even against religious beliefs, do you think the Muslim man should be fired for wearing the headdress against code?

  7. nikkos (unregistered) on December 2nd, 2005 @ 1:39 pm

    Ben II:

    I understand the point you are tryng to make, but your analogy is flawed because in the actual Walgreen’s case, the pharmacists are in violation of the law when they refuse to fill a prescription.

    Further, I do not think that a dress-code ban on religious items would be legal. I would imagine that religious clothing is protected as a form of free speech. I could be wrong.

    In addition, you say:
    “If, perchance, you do think that he should be allowed to wear his headdress, explain your inconsistency in allowing Muslims to conform to their beliefs and Christians not.”

    The difference here, I think, is that when a fundamentalist Christian pharmacist ‘conforms to their beliefs’ in denying access to emergency contraception they are (1) breaking the law and (2) harming the individual that is attempting to get a legal prescription filled.

  8. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 2nd, 2005 @ 3:34 pm

    Here Nikko is where I see the inconsistency in your case.

    1) You refer to the “fundamentalist” Christians like those who oppose abortion are a fringe group.

    2) Now, let’s take for example that someone wears a Nazi symbol (the universal bad guy) at Walgreens. Shouldn’t they have the right to fire a person for putting an improper image on Walgreens by wearing something against their dress code? A Nazi symbol is both free speech and a belief system

  9. nikkos (unregistered) on December 5th, 2005 @ 3:06 pm

    Ben 2, you may be interested to know that at the moment I am at a trade show for my job. One of the exhibitors at the trade show is a Sikh, as evidenced by his “headdress”, or turban.

    Surprisingly, no one torched his trade show booth, nor was he stoned as a heretic. I blame this on the breakdown of traditional Christian values.

    How do we take back our country from the tolerant?

    I’m sure you have a few ideas.

  10. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 9:05 am

    You completely avoided answering all of my questions.

    As I said and have stressed, I have no problems with any religion or creed. I am looking for that all important equal protection.

    I have sought to show that your distinctions between the Muslim headdress question and the Christian values question are shaky at best, and with that in mind, I merely want to know why you believe that a Muslim’s turban is protected under the law when a Christian’s beliefs are not.

    I know you hate Drudge Report, heh, but this is a perfect example:

  11. nikkos (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 9:13 am

    BTW, your example from the Drudge Report concerns an incident in the United Kingdom, not the U.S. Since the Walgreen’s incident concerns U.S. law (in this case, Illinois state law), your analogy is, to use your fave legal terminology “shaky.”

    As I said before, come up with a workable analogy and I might feel compelled to respond in detail.

  12. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 11:28 am

    My apologies for the UK story.

    My analogy and all of the points corresponding to it still stand.

    “3) You make your distinction between pro-life Christians and the Muslim example because Christians iare against the law as well as “harming” others by not filling their prescription. Yet, think, when a law is unjust shouldn’t it be changed? I do not ask what the law is, I ask what is right, and sadly the two are not always equal. It also seems like you think a Muslim

  13. nikkos (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 11:39 am

    I have no idea what your question is, Ben 2. I’ve read your comment several times and I can’t make any sense out of it.

  14. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 11:55 am

    Based on the fact, Nikkos, that the question is about what the law should be and not what it is, and knowing that both religious decisions affect other people, how is wearing a turban and not filling a perscription different in a religious freedom sense?

  15. nikkos (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 12:30 pm

    I am not in the business of making laws or deciding what the law “should” be. Since you seem to have some sort of omniscience in the area of jurisprudence, you should have no problem answering your own stupid ass question.

    However, as I said before, denying people their prescriptions is illegal. Wearing a headdress, so far at least, is legal. THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE.

  16. getyourreligiousbeliefsoffmybody (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 12:33 pm

    A pharmacist with a religious head covering is not going to, through their lack of providing a legal prescription, cause me to give birth to a child conceived by rape.

    Nor will put me through undo duress while I try desperately to fill a prescription in the first 24 hours after my rape.

    That’s the difference.

  17. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 6th, 2005 @ 3:12 pm

    Apparently law is God. Good to know. It is the citizen’s resposibility to be critical of law! Are you kidding me how ignorant your response is? Maybe this “democracy” you think we are in… we’d all be making the laws heh. You really need a government lesson. If a law is wrong, hmmm… I think its our job to change it.

    Getyourreligiousbeliefsoffmybody (heh) –
    Of course I am sure I’ll be labeled a psycho as the insults continue. I’m glad that you decide that when you are raped the child must die, although how you blame the child for your rape is unbeknownst to me. Thanks for your value of human life. Have a good day.

  18. cmh (unregistered) on January 29th, 2006 @ 1:11 am

    Wow I’m late to this post but my god BEN2 the last time I checked a zygote was not a child especially one that had not attached to a placenta. There is no child being killed here only a nulification should an egg and sperm meet. Effectively no child must die from this rape since no child is now going to be conceived. There is a huge difference between this drug and RU-486 if you must split hairs.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.