Creeping theocracy - in Ealing!

Another case of religious nutters imposing their will on everyone else.

Staff at two branches of Boots in Ealing refused to sell the morning-after contraceptive pill to Tiffany Berton, on religious grounds.

According to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's code of ethics, staff can refuse to sell certain products if they have a religious objection to doing so but they should refer customers to another member of staff.

So what happened in Ealing?

Either the entire staff in both stores are followers of religions that object to contraception or the people that Miss Berton dealt with had just taken a decision to impose their religious views on her without reference to anyone else.

This chain of events, as told by Miss Berton, seems to imply that, at least at the second store, refusal to sell the pill is management policy:

I went to the Boots store next to Ealing Broadway station, but was told they did not stock it on religious grounds and was sent to the other Boots shop in Ealing Broadway.

When I got there I was made to fill out a form, then the assistant showed it to the pharmacist, before coming back and telling me I could not have the pill.

Here we have an entire branch of a national retailer taken over by religious people who then impose their own view of the world on their customers. The article in the Ealing Times does not mention the specific religion of the staff who objected to selling the pill, but I might take a walk down to both branches of Boots later today and make an educated guess.

Tiffany Berton is planning to mount a campaign to stop pharmacists being able to refuse treatments on religious and moral grounds. She's onto a loser, of course. There is little Boots or any other employer can do when faced with trenchant opposition from religious refuseniks. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and the Equality Act 2006 contain catch-all religious harassment clauses. Any attempt by an employer to challenge a refusal to carry out tasks on religious grounds could lead to a harassment claim. When such conflicts come to court, the case law is not encouraging.

It may be unfair for religious people to impose their beliefs on others but, increasingly,  they have the law on their side.

Hat Tip: Laban Tall

Comments

[Wolfie]

I couldn't help but wonder, even back in 2003 if those laws were not deliberately crafted to engender as much friction as possible because this outcome was quite foreseeable. Anyone who could possible elect a lawyer to public service has clearly never experienced the insanity of legal process themselves.

[asquith]

Would they rather she be forced to have a baby she couldn't provide for? It's all very well & good saying she shouldn't have had sex without being married, but she did & we have to deal with the consequences.

Seriously, what do they imagine would have happened if she'd given birth? Do these idiots think it's so easy to swan into an adoption agency & hand over a baby you've given birth to?

As with Lilian Ladele, these people should be confronted. If they work in the public sector they should be dismissed for failure to do their job. In the private sector, boycott them for their idiocy.

[asquith]

Oh, & which religion? I suppose that's not relevant though, since they're utter tits whatever.

[Frank]

The religion may not be relevant; but my guess is that they are of the Mohammedan persuasion; they are nearly as bad as primitive Methodists.

[Cabalamat]

If religious people think that part of their job is against their morals, they should get another job.

[Sammy]

The morning after pill is not contraception you fool, conception has already happened, it is a pill designed to kill the baby forming in the woman's womb.

I say good on the staff in Boots, why should anyone be forced to do something against their morals, the morning after pill probably came onto the scene after many of the staff started working in their chosen career (to save life not end it).

If the women cannot support a baby fine, there plenty of people who a desperate for a baby, her 9 months of discomfort will end up with someone somewhere having their dreams come true.

What if she cannot bear carrying a baby to give it away ? Well she should have thought of that first shouldn't she ?

Sammy

[asquith]

Restricting availability of the morning after pill (& for that matter abortion) will not stop women getting pregnant, it will merely result in unwanted babies being born, as wards of the welfare state who will most likely grow up to be criminals.

[JuliaM]

"it will merely result in unwanted babies being born, as wards of the welfare state who will most likely grow up to be criminals."

Sorry...? Is this some kind of a joke...?

Are you seriously suggesting that being born unwanted dooms a child to a life of crime?

[Monty]

The pious police are very good at demanding that every actual, or potential pregnancy, must be allowed to run it's course, according to "the will of God". I come from a catholic family, who broadly subscribe to this notion.

OK. But why stop there?

If you get knocked down by a car, was that not the will of god? Cancer, heart disease, typhoid, smallpox, lightning and bullets, all find us, by the grace of God.

If they truly respected God's prerogative, they wouldn't even have their teeth sorted out. But they would cheerfully accept a heart transplant without ever questioning whether they are sinfully thwarting God's intent.

[.]

Sammy,
Juliam

Once again you've proven yourselves to be f*cking idiots.

[Sammy]

Dot .... that was my first ever post ..... how come "Once Again" ? - certainly someone is an idiot

Monty, My objections have nothing to do with the "Will of God", its all about protecting human life rather than destroying it

[JuliaM]

"that was my first ever post ..... how come "Once Again" ? - certainly someone is an idiot"

The inability to sign its name proved that...

[JuliaM]

I'm not a Godbotherer, either, frankly - I can't say I believe in anything. I just think the attitude to abortion on demand cheapens human life.

[Monty]

"I'm not a Godbotherer, either, frankly - I can't say I believe in anything. I just think the attitude to abortion on demand cheapens human life."

I don't like abortion on demand any more than you do. I reckon we should tighten up the criteria for that procedure on clinical grounds only. And we should tell the pious to go piousing some place else.

But classifying the morning after pill as a form of abortion, is the last redoubt of Cosmo Smallpiece, ranting in his pulpit against nubile young wimminfolk.

It is in the best interests of a potential foetus, if it is to be terminated, to do it at the earliest possible stage. It is in the best interests of the clergy, to force us all to the other extreme.

[JuliaM]

"It is in the best interests of a potential foetus, if it is to be terminated, to do it at the earliest possible stage. It is in the best interests of the clergy, to force us all to the other extreme. "

Patterico hosted an interesting debate on this subject a few days ago:

http://patterico.com/2008/11/24/a-reader-poses-an-interesting-abortion-hypothetical/