Is it wrong to work in a drugstore where I sometimes have to ring up plan B pills?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcifrese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RolandThompsonGunner said:
The business will almost always face civil liability. Whether the individual cashier is liable varies by state.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that if a cashier knowingly sells alcohol to a minor, it is a criminal offense. It’s called endangering the welfare of a minor. What does vary from state to state is penalties as well as what other charges may be included, especially if said minor subsequently causes harm as a result of intoxication.

I’m no lawyer though… I’ll give you that🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
RolandThompsonGunner said:
Take another scenario. You go to McDonalds and buy a Big Mac. A bored 17 year old takes your order and watches you swipe your credit card.

Who did you buy a burger from? McDonalds, or Gary, the pimply junior in high school?
Click to expand...
Is Gary not getting a cut of that sale in the form of a paycheck? I may not be “buying from” the kid, but I am paying the kid, albeit indirectly.
 
ThomasMT said:
I’m pretty sure that if a cashier knowingly sells alcohol to a minor, it is a criminal offense. It’s called endangering the welfare of a minor. What does vary from state to state is penalties as well as what other charges may be included, especially if said minor subsequently causes harm as a result of intoxication.
Click to expand...
Usually. Some states will impose that liability on the store itself, some will impose it on the cashier. Some states even hold the cashier liable if he genuinely didn’t know the person was underage.

I am a lawyer, but I basically only know my own states rules, and I haven’t looked at those in years, so it’s not as much of an advantage as you might think. 😄
 
Swinging off topic for a sec… wouldn’t the store have to be guilty of actual intent in order for the liability to be criminal rather than civil?
 
As far as I know, the right to refuse to be involved in any transaction that goes against one’s conscience is still working it’s way through the legal system. At some point it will probably be settled as to how much ones conscience can be challenged verses the rights of the one making the purchase.

I think that each of us has a reasonable right to follow our conscience but not to force it upon someone else. It may come to a lot of places having to have someone on standby to complete a transaction in cases of conflicts. Both people have some rights in this and weighing whose takes priority is a nightmare in my mind!

I don’t want a Catholic pharmacist to be forced to fill my prescription of birth control but I also want my right to get the prescription filled. Some middle answer must be sought.

This discussion is interesting. I see an awfully large distance between the check out clerk and any sin but I’m not Catholic and it’s not my call to make.
 
Pattylt said:
As far as I know, the right to refuse to be involved in any transaction that goes against one’s conscience is still working it’s way through the legal system
Click to expand...
All the actual morality aside even if it wasn’t no boss on this planet was ever been understanding in that department.
 
The answer is, it stops when your conscience is affected to the point where you can’t be happy working there. Almost all jobs pose ethical challenges.
 
In my state, both the clerk and the owner of the store can be criminally liable for selling alcohol to minors.
 
Anrakyr said:
All the actual morality aside even if it wasn’t no boss on this planet was ever been understanding in that department.
Click to expand...
I disagree. My boss in our lab was very accommodating with peoples religious requests (Muslims needing a break for prayer) and when we would get products of conception that some couldn’t bring themselves to handle. We had several employees that couldn’t bring themselves to process them for pathology and others that had no issues…they would call on the latter to take over. (These were not aborted POC, they were miscarriages).

I think claiming all bosses are unaccommodating is false and a bit judgmental.
 
Not if it’s strict liability. That’s a minority position though.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
I assume you are speaking of aborted babies?
Click to expand...
No, I specifically stated that these are miscarriages. All miscarriages must be examined by a pathologist to make sure they were complete. We had to put them on formaldehyde and document pre and post weight n the container as well as fill out the paperwork…so, we had to see the POC. Some people were unable to handle it and it’s understandable, especially if they had ever had a miscarriage.
 
Medically, a miscarriage is considered an abortion, just not an induced one.
 
The semantics I object to is the clinical euphemism used to dehumanize babies, often found in the abortion industry.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
40.png
Anesti33:
Oh good, I’ll send my 12-year-old cousin down for a six-pack of beer, and have the cashier “record the transaction”.
Click to expand...
…but that would actually be illegal. This is not a good analogy, senor.
Click to expand...
The underlying topic is not societal laws, but morality and God’s laws. The analogy seems appropriate.
 
Anesti33 said:
Medically, a miscarriage is considered an abortion, just not an induced one.
Click to expand...
That true but they don’t call them involuntary abortions like they used to. Some older doctors will, on occasion, call them that but none of the younger docs do.
 
Anesti33 said:
The semantics I object to is the clinical euphemism used to dehumanize babies, often found in the abortion industry.
Click to expand...
But this was about a miscarriage.
Anrakyr said:
Roads are used for evil, so we should work on them?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between indirect and direct evils and a person can judge for themself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top