Good to see that Target has finally fired a pharmacist who wishes to interpose her beliefs between drugs she is professionally bound to dispense and the health of her customers. As I have argued before, what’s particularly odious is that fact that these derelitctions of duty are framed as acts of high principle. This, of course, is silly:
I completely agree. It absolutely violates my core beliefs to see how the beef industry is run in this country. So you know what? I don’t apply for jobs with ConAgra. You know what else violates my core beliefs? The operation of the tobacco industry. Guess where I don’t work? Kirkland & Ellis. Hey, maybe I should get a job there and pull a Bartleby. If enough of us did that, we could totally sink the tobacco industry — they’d have no more lawyers to defend them!
Choosing not to use Plan B because you (erroneously) believe it to be an abortifacient is an act of principle. Resigning your job because you have to do things that violate your personal sense of morality is an act of principle. Demanding to be paid even though you’re not willing to do your job, conversely, is pretty much the antithesis of principle. Being a person of “principle” or “conscience” does not involve a world where there are no hard choices and other people bear the entire burden of your subjective judgments. And, of course, they’re taking their fight to make not doing your job a civil right to the courts. I certainly hope that–despite icoaste’s justified fears–the Thoscalito court won’t be able to rejigger civil rights law so as to make these laughably frivolous claims that being asked to do a routine part of your job violates “civil right” more sustainable.