Woman Jailed on Felony Warrant After Reporting Rape

[5stringJeff]

This one gets filed under: WTF?

-----------------
Florida Woman Jailed on Old Warrant After Going to Police to Report Being Raped

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

TAMPA — A 21-year-old Florida woman who sought help from police after reporting that she had been raped instead was arrested and spent two days in jail for failing to pay a three-year-old restitution order.

A jail worker later refused to give her a second dose of an emergency contraceptive because of religious convictions, said Vic Moore, the college student's attorney. She was released from jail Monday only after Moore went to the media.

"Shocked. Stunned. Outraged. I don't have words to describe it," Moore said Tuesday of his client's arrest and following treatment. "She is not a victim of any one person. She is a victim of the system. There's just got to be some humanity involved when it's a victim of rape."

The woman is not being identified because police are investigating a sexual assault.

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248682,00.html)

[darin]

Yeah - I think timing is everything. Perhaps they should handle the rape case first, then bring her charges after it's determined if she was raped or not....or whatever.

[Nienna]

Sheesh, where are people's priorities?

[Bubbalicious]

I read that too. I'm not sure it was a felony warrant either. The article I read said it was a 4 year old juvenile offense she wasn't even aware of and turned out to be a paperwork error.

Plus, though the hospital prescribed the woman the morning after pill, the medical supervisor at the jail refused to give it to her because it violated her (the med sup's) religious beliefs.

I hope this woman sues the city's justice department and gets millions of dollars.

[5stringJeff]

Later down in the article it says it was a felony warrant for auto theft.

[jillian]

Later down in the article it says it was a felony warrant for auto theft.

Even if she did, perhaps that wasn't the time to deal with it.. or they should have dealt with her trauma first. It also wasn't a basis to deny her the medication she needed to prevent pregnancy by a rapist.

[dirt mcgirt]

Rape victim is jailed on old warrant

TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- A college student who told police she had been raped was jailed for two days after officers found an old warrant accusing her of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest.

While she was behind bars, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker's religious convictions, the college student's attorney said.

The 21-year-old woman was released Monday only after attorney Vic Moore reported her plight to the local media. (Watch the mother describe how her daughter was twice vicitimized )

"Shocked. Stunned. Outraged. I don't have words to describe it," Moore said. "She is not a victim of any one person. She is a victim of the system. There's just got to be some humanity involved when it's a victim of rape."

Moore said the young woman was not allowed to take the second emergency contraceptive pill until Monday afternoon, a day late, after reporters called police and jail officials.

Tampa police said they were changing their policy to give officers more discretion on when to arrest a crime victim who has outstanding warrants.

"Obviously, any policy that allows a sexual battery victim to spend a night in jail is a flawed policy," police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said. "So our city attorney is writing a new policy right now."

The woman is not being identified by The Associated Press because she reported being the victim of a sex crime.

Moore said it was too soon to say if his client would sue. Her priority is making sure detectives find her attacker.

"She is brave," Moore said. "We are going to work with police to catch this monster."

The woman was in Tampa on Saturday for Gasparilla, an annual pirate-theme parade that draws thousands of people. She said she was walking alone to her car when a man pulled her behind a building and raped her, McElroy said.

She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, McElroy said. The second dose is supposed to be taken within 24 hours.

Later, as she was riding in a patrol car trying to locate the crime scene in the dark, police found the warrant stemming from a 2003 juvenile arrest for grand theft and burglary. It said she owed $4,585.

"They stopped the investigation right there" and put her in handcuffs, Moore said.

Authorities arranged a special bail hearing Monday.

"When the chief's office learned we had a rape victim in jail, we began working very aggressively to get her out," McElroy said.

Jennifer Dritt, executive director of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, wanted more explanation from the jail, saying the woman's arrest "makes people think law enforcement doesn't have a victim-centered approach."

Moore said his client said she paid the fine for what he described as a childish mistake. He didn't have details of that arrest. The woman has no criminal history as an adult, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/30/jailed.rapevictim.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[Gaffer]

Sounds like while they were doing the investigation someone else went fishing.

She could very well have paid the fine and it never got into the records, that happens a LOT.

[5stringJeff]

Even if she did, perhaps that wasn't the time to deal with it.. or they should have dealt with her trauma first. It also wasn't a basis to deny her the medication she needed to prevent pregnancy by a rapist.

I agree they ought to have dealt with the trauma first. I don't know police custody policy very well, nor do I know rape trauma treatments very well, but I'm sure there must have been some way to get her information re: the rape and then process her warrant.

[darin]

If there was any trauma. IF they had the lattitude (which is appears they did not) to 'let her go.'

[jillian]

I agree they ought to have dealt with the trauma first. I don't know police custody policy very well, nor do I know rape trauma treatments very well, but I'm sure there must have been some way to get her information re: the rape and then process her warrant.

We're agreed as to that. Personally, I also think it's kind of odd to have someone working with a rape victim who won't allow the victim to take the morning after pill. I understand if someone has the objection (well, not really, but I accept the fact that's the case), but perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to work with rape victims.

[The ClayTaurus]

We're agreed as to that. Personally, I also think it's kind of odd to have someone working with a rape victim who won't allow the victim to take the morning after pill. I understand if someone has the objection (well, not really, but I accept the fact that's the case), but perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to work with rape victims.They certainly do not have the right to withhold medication.

[5stringJeff]

If there was any trauma. IF they had the lattitude (which is appears they did not) to 'let her go.'

I'm sure there was at least emotional/mental trauma, if not physical trauma.

And I think one of the police chiefs/lieutenants/spokespersons said that their policies needed to be reviewed/updated, precisely because they didn't have that latitude.

[5stringJeff]

We're agreed as to that. Personally, I also think it's kind of odd to have someone working with a rape victim who won't allow the victim to take the morning after pill. I understand if someone has the objection (well, not really, but I accept the fact that's the case), but perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to work with rape victims.

Yeah... I'm torn on the morning-after pill, but I understand your reasoning.

[jillian]

They certainly do not have the right to withhold medication.

I agree. But no one's discussed that aspect, so I figured I'd raise it. Personally, I think it was abhorrent. But that's me....

[jillian]

Yeah... I'm torn on the morning-after pill, but I understand your reasoning.

And, given your beliefs, I accept that you feel that way and I understand the arguments. I just feel that if someone has that belief, they're entitled to it, but shouldn't be allowed to work with people in this situation.

[darin]

I'm sure there was at least emotional/mental trauma, if not physical trauma.


If a rape actually happened.

[jillian]

If a rape actually happened.

No one is alleging it didn't, so I'm not quite certain why you're focused on that.

[darin]

No one is alleging it didn't, so I'm not quite certain why you're focused on that.


Bringing it up once means I'm 'focused' on it? wha??

Unless you were the cop taking the report, you have no idea what trauma existed. Could it be she was in there laughing? acting suspicious? I dunno.


Side note: If it were a MAN reporting a rape, and he were arrested, do you (not you - jil, but 'you' the reader) wonder if the outcry would be the same?

[The ClayTaurus]

And, given your beliefs, I accept that you feel that way and I understand the arguments. I just feel that if someone has that belief, they're entitled to it, but shouldn't be allowed to work with people in this situation.I'm not sure they shouldn't be allowed to work with people, but it should be clear the repercussions of projecting your beliefs onto others through your work.

[jillian]

Bringing it up once means I'm 'focused' on it? wha??

Unless you were the cop taking the report, you have no idea what trauma existed. Could it be she was in there laughing? acting suspicious? I dunno.


Side note: If it were a MAN reporting a rape, and he were arrested, do you (not you - jil, but 'you' the reader) wonder if the outcry would be the same?

Actually you questioned whether a trauma occurred twice. That aside, if the article questioned the veracity of her complaint, I think it would be fair to discuss. The article doesn't question her veracity on the rape charge, so perhaps the more relevant issues are a) was her treatment appropriate given that?; b) is there a way to prevent this type of thing in the future?; and c) were the priorities of the cops appropriate under the circumstances and what discretionary power did they have?

[darin]

Actually you questioned whether a trauma occurred twice.

No............I brought it up ONCE.

I said "IF the rape occurred"...when questioned I asked "If trauma occurred".

Rape doesn't always involve trauma - they aren't always linked. But even if you STRETCH it - my 2nd reply was a clarification to my first. It's me bringing up the subject ONCE, then clarifiying. You ALWAYS argue with me, Jill.


That aside, if the article questioned the veracity of her complaint, I think it would be fair to discuss. The article doesn't question her veracity on the rape charge,

Correct. All we have is all we have. We are speculating. I'm saying 'unless you were there, you wouldn't know what lead the officers to decide to arrest. I'm speculating (and I think I'm right) the officers felt it was their duty to arrest the woman; who had a felony warrant.

[Mr. P]

The jail worker that refused to give her a second dose of the med. should be fired.
That individual is NOT (unless it was the jail nurse) a medical professional and has only set the local government up for a liability. Even if it was the jail nurse it goes against medical protocol. I see a BIG law suite coming on this one, bigger if she becomes pregnant.

As far as the arrest goes for an outstanding warrant..no problem.

[jillian]

The jail worker that refused to give her a second dose of the med. should be fired.
That individual is NOT (unless it was the jail nurse) a medical professional and has only set the local government up for a liability. Even if it was the jail nurse it goes against medical protocol. I see a BIG law suite coming on this one, bigger if she becomes pregnant.

As far as the arrest goes for an outstanding warrant..no problem.

Unfortunately, there's no cause of action for "wrongful life".

[Mr. P]

Unfortunately, there's no cause of action for "wrongful life".

Withholding a medical treatment? I could make a case. I think.

[jillian]

With holding a medical treatment? I could make a case. I think.

Yes. But whats the measure of damages? The life and the emotional distress because of it.

You might be right, of course. But it's going to be a rough case.

[Pale Rider]

It all boils down to 'MONEY'! The "investigation" was halted AFTER they found out she owed MONEY. Typical of a police force. It is DRILLED into these cops heads to write as many tickets as possible. It's their bread and butter. But when they find out they have someone already in custody that's already been through the system and OWE'S MONEY, hell, you're cuffed and stuffed, no matter what.

Is that wrong? You fuckin' A. In this case I think it was.

[Mr. P]

Yes. But whats the measure of damages? The life and the emotional distress because of it.

You might be right, of course. But it's going to be a rough case.

I’d go for the lifetime expenses of raising a kid today (BIG bucks). And the emotional distress of the mother for being forced to do so against her will. She doesn’t believe in abortion but doesn’t view a med that ‘prevents’ a complete pregnancy as such. Jury selection would be critical.

A million $ or so, maybe.

[5stringJeff]

Rape doesn't always involve trauma - they aren't always linked.

I absolutely disagree. Rape is always traumatic for the victim, if not physically, then certainly emotionally and mentally.

[darin]

I absolutely disagree. Rape is always traumatic for the victim, if not physically, then certainly emotionally and mentally.

That 17 year old boy in GA? Remember him? While he's not in jail for 'rape', it CERTAINLY illustrates how the (quoty fingers) Rape can be MORE traumatic for the (quoty fingers) rapist.

[5stringJeff]

And, given your beliefs, I accept that you feel that way and I understand the arguments. I just feel that if someone has that belief, they're entitled to it, but shouldn't be allowed to work with people in this situation.

For me, that depends on whether the person is a government employee or not. If the person is working at a private medical clinic or charity and refuses to give the morning after pill, that's their right. If one is working at a state-run medical clinic and refuses to give the morning after pill based on personal beliefs, that's quite different.

[5stringJeff]

That 17 year old boy in GA? Remember him? While he's not in jail for 'rape', it CERTAINLY illustrates how the (quoty fingers) Rape can be MORE traumatic for the (quoty fingers) rapist.

That particular issue was statuatory rape, not 'actual' rape. The "victim" was a willing participant. I'm talking about rape, where the victim is an unwilling participant, which seems to be the case here.

[Mr. P]

That 17 year old boy in GA? Remember him? While he's not in jail for 'rape', it CERTAINLY illustrates how the (quoty fingers) Rape can be MORE traumatic for the (quoty fingers) rapist.

Not relevant to the thread, is it? Two different things.

[Mr. P]

For me, that depends on whether the person is a government employee or not. If the person is working at a private medical clinic or charity and refuses to give the morning after pill, that's their right. If one is working at a state-run medical clinic and refuses to give the morning after pill based on personal beliefs, that's quite different.

Yeah but, a charity or medical clinic is not going to 'forcibly' refuse you meds already prescribed that have in your possession, unless they're idiots.

I agree that private companies have the right to supply or not supply any drugs they may feel are wrong.

[Bubbalicious]

Click here to send the following letter to your state governor.
(http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/ec_florida)

Subject: Ensure Access to Emergency Contraception

Recently the media reported that a rape survivor in Tampa Florida was forbidden from taking the required second dose of emergency contraception by a jail worker. This is not the first time a rape survivor has been treated so outrageously, but we must ensure that it doesn't happen to women in our state.

Please create a clear policy forbidding workers in government facilities from denying women access to emergency contraception.

[Nienna]

The jail worker that refused to give her a second dose of the med. should be fired.
That individual is NOT (unless it was the jail nurse) a medical professional and has only set the local government up for a liability. Even if it was the jail nurse it goes against medical protocol. I see a BIG law suite coming on this one, bigger if she becomes pregnant.

As far as the arrest goes for an outstanding warrant..no problem.

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. If this is the only aspect of the job that the employee did not perform, I don't think this person deserved to be fired. If I were in the position, I would not have administered the drug, but would have tried to get the woman someone who would administer it. I think this would be a reasonable accommodation.

As long as medical/psychological care was given first, she should have been arrested for an outstanding warrant.

[Mr. P]

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. ....

Oh HELL NO THEY DON'T!!

[Nienna]

Oh HELL NO THEY DON'T!!

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp

[Bubbalicious]

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. If this is the only aspect of the job that the employee did not perform, I don't think this person deserved to be fired. If I were in the position, I would not have administered the drug, but would have tried to get the woman someone who would administer it. I think this would be a reasonable accommodation.

As long as medical/psychological care was given first, she should have been arrested for an outstanding warrant.

You really think it's reasonable to throw a woman in jail who'd just been raped only about an hour prior? For a 4 year old juvenile offense? She needs to go to jail that very instant? Really?

[The ClayTaurus]

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. If this is the only aspect of the job that the employee did not perform, I don't think this person deserved to be fired. If I were in the position, I would not have administered the drug, but would have tried to get the woman someone who would administer it. I think this would be a reasonable accommodation.

As long as medical/psychological care was given first, she should have been arrested for an outstanding warrant.How is administering the drug any different from finding someone to do it instead? Aren't both enabling? It seems like if you have convictions against performing that duty, you should find another job.

[Mr. P]

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp

This is easy, Nienna..If my employee will not "agree" to do their job they're outta here.
Their private life and beliefs are just that, and I don't want them dictating how "MY" business is run. :)

[Nienna]

How is administering the drug any different from finding someone to do it instead? Aren't both enabling? It seems like if you have convictions against performing that duty, you should find another job.

If the sole duty of the position was to hand out morning-after pills... yeah, it would be unreasonable for them to have that job. But, seems to me this is only a marginal duty of the job.

My convictions would be satisfied. My job is to witness, not coerce. In refusing to administer the drug, my objections would be made known. Up to the recipient to decide whether or not she wants to take the drug(s).

[jillian]

If the sole duty of the position was to hand out morning-after pills... yeah, it would be unreasonable for them to have that job. But, seems to me this is only a marginal duty of the job.

My convictions would be satisfied. My job is to witness, not coerce. In refusing to administer the drug, my objections would be made known. Up to the recipient to decide whether or not she wants to take the drug(s).

If even part of the position involves morning after pills, the woman has no business having anything to do with that job. That person has NO BUSINESS telling their objections to a rape victim.

And just for the record, accommodating one's religion, for purposes of the anti-discrimination laws as I know them do not require an employer to leave a person in a position where they can impose their religious views on others in any form. What reasonable accommodation requires, at most, is moving her to a position where she does not have to dispense such pills.

[The ClayTaurus]

If even part of the position involves morning after pills, the woman has no business having anything to do with that job. That person has NO BUSINESS telling their objections to a rape victim.

And just for the record, accommodating one's religion, for purposes of the anti-discrimination laws as I know them do not require an employer to leave a person in a position where they can impose their religious views on others in any form. What reasonable accommodation requires, at most, is moving her to a position where she does not have to dispense such pills.To be fair, I think someone with anti-birth control convictions is perfectly capable of refusing to administer the drugs without the victim knowing. There is a difference between "I am not going to give you the drugs you dirty sinner" and "my coworker will be in shortly to administer the pill."

[jillian]

To be fair, I think someone with anti-birth control convictions is perfectly capable of refusing to administer the drugs without the victim knowing. There is a difference between "I am not going to give you the drugs you dirty sinner" and "my coworker will be in shortly to administer the pill."

I agree. But I took "making my objections known" and then it would be up to the victim to decide if she should take them or not to imply that the objecting person would inform the victim of their position. I might be wrong that this was the implication of the statement.

[The ClayTaurus]

I agree. But I took "making my objections known" and then it would be up to the victim to decide if she should take them or not to imply that the objecting person would inform the victim of their position. I might be wrong that this was the implication of the statement.Perhaps... but it also could have been meant in a "making my objections known to God" or "to my employer."

For the most part, I'd agree that a rape victim isn't exactly the best candidate for evangelizing. At least not in the first days after.

[jillian]

Perhaps... but it also could have been meant in a "making my objections known to God" or "to my employer."

For the most part, I'd agree that a rape victim isn't exactly the best candidate for evangelizing. At least not in the first days after.

It could have meant that. In which case I was wrong. Happens. ;)

I'd agree about the rape victims. On the other hand, I think that's true of a woman walking into an abortion clinic as well.

[The ClayTaurus]

It could have meant that. In which case I was wrong. Happens. ;)

I'd agree about the rape victims. On the other hand, I think that's true of a woman walking into an abortion clinic as well.Do you mean John Q. Public standing outside?

[jillian]

Do you mean John Q. Public standing outside?

Yes.

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes.Oh I entirely disagree. There are certainly lines of reason that shouldn't be crossed, but I am completely against prohibitting the protesting of abortion clinics or anything in this country.

That's not to say I think a protestor should be allowed any more latitude than in other situations. If they're blocking people's way, refusing to allow entry, assaulting, or intimidating then I have a problem, same as I would for any protest.

Maybe you want to qualify?

[jillian]

Oh I entirely disagree. There are certainly lines of reason that shouldn't be crossed, but I am completely against prohibitting the protesting of abortion clinics or anything in this country.

That's not to say I think a protestor should be allowed any more latitude than in other situations. If they're blocking people's way, refusing to allow entry, assaulting, or intimidating then I have a problem, same as I would for any protest.

Maybe you want to qualify?

First, there are first amendment issues that are appropriately raised by protesters. So I'm not saying they should be prohibited from speaking their piece.

I do, however, think it's unfair to subject a woman, who is doing something under stress and already had a difficult enough time making her decision, to that type of emotional assault. It's an awful thing to do to her. If someone inside wants to calmly speak with her, with no religious overtones, but rationally about the choices available to her, I don't have a problem with that.

[The ClayTaurus]

First, there are first amendment issues that are appropriately raised by protesters. So I'm not saying they should be prohibited from speaking their piece.

I do, however, think it's unfair to subject a woman, who is doing something under stress and already had a difficult enough time making her decision, to that type of emotional assault. It's an awful thing to do to her. If someone inside wants to calmly speak with her, with no religious overtones, but rationally about the choices available to her, I don't have a problem with that.Lots of people go through tough times. You and I might agree that it's not nice or even beneficial to protest in that situation, but you're opening up a slippery slope if you start qualifying first ammendment rights.

[jillian]

Lots of people go through tough times. You and I might agree that it's not nice or even beneficial to protest in that situation, but you're opening up a slippery slope if you start qualifying first ammendment rights.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I wouldn't ever infringe on the protesters' First Amendment Rights.

That doesn't mean I think they aren't hurting these women or that I think it is anything but cruel.

[Nienna]

You really think it's reasonable to throw a woman in jail who'd just been raped only about an hour prior? For a 4 year old juvenile offense? She needs to go to jail that very instant? Really?

that very instant? No, I said medical & psychological care should be given first. That should take AT LEAST 24 hours, if not longer, depending on the psychological trauma, maybe weeks before she was in a condition to face another thing.

[Nienna]

This is easy, Nienna..If my employee will not "agree" to do their job they're outta here.
Their private life and beliefs are just that, and I don't want them dictating how "MY" business is run. :)

Well, hopefully, this general stuff would be revealed in the interview process. Once hired, it seems as if reasonable accommodations must be made. Allowing that nurse or whatever to call someone else in to hand the pill to the woman seems like a reasonable accommodation.

[Nienna]

I agree. But I took "making my objections known" and then it would be up to the victim to decide if she should take them or not to imply that the objecting person would inform the victim of their position. I might be wrong that this was the implication of the statement.

There are many sensitive ways to make objections known. One could simply state, calmly, that he does not administer the drug due to religious beliefs, but if the victim wanted to take them, he would call in someone to hand them out. This is not imposing religious beliefs on another person; it is allowing the worker free religious expression.

[Nienna]

First, there are first amendment issues that are appropriately raised by protesters. So I'm not saying they should be prohibited from speaking their piece.

I do, however, think it's unfair to subject a woman, who is doing something under stress and already had a difficult enough time making her decision, to that type of emotional assault. It's an awful thing to do to her. If someone inside wants to calmly speak with her, with no religious overtones, but rationally about the choices available to her, I don't have a problem with that.

Why are religious overtones so bad? SOME people in these situations are YEARNING for the comfort that God can offer. Why deny the person that? I am not talking about pressuring or being vindictive. But it is unfair--- to both the "religious" person who longs to help, and to the abortion-minded woman who may gain great comfort from "religion" at such a stressful time ---to deny even the mention of "religion."

[jillian]

Why are religious overtones so bad? SOME people in these situations are YEARNING for the comfort that God can offer. Why deny the person that? I am not talking about pressuring or being vindictive. But it is unfair to both the "religious" person who longs to help, and to the abortion-minded woman who may gain great comfort from "religion" at such a stressful time to deny even the mention of "religion."

You want to evangelize, do it at church. It doesn't belong on the job, nor is it protected by the Anti-Discrimination laws. In other words, keep it away from the victim who needs the morning after pill, not a lecture on the sanctity of human life.

Thank you though for letting me know I read your post correctly. Appreciate it. I was feeling insecure there for a second. :dunno:

[jillian]

There are many sensitive ways to make objections known. One could simply state, calmly, that he does not administer the drug due to religious beliefs, but if the victim wanted to take them, he would call in someone to hand them out. This is not imposing religious beliefs on another person; it is allowing the worker free religious expression.

Your objections aren't the victim's business. That's between you and your employer. Someone who feels the need to do that shouldn't be within a mile of a victim of rape.

Anyone who shares your belief is going to decline the pills. Stating your objections is a self-serving way to start a "dialogue" about the morality of the pill that doesn't belong in this equation.

[Nienna]

You want to evangelize, do it at church. It doesn't belong on the job, nor is it protected by the Anti-Discrimination laws. In other words, keep it away from the victim who needs the morning after pill, not a lecture on the sanctity of human life.

Thank you though for letting me know I read your post correctly. Appreciate it. I was feeling insecure there for a second. :dunno:


LOL! What is the point of evangelizing to people ALREADY AT a church? I don't think you have a very good understanding of what true evangelizing is.

[jillian]

LOL! What is the point of evangelizing to people ALREADY AT a church? I don't think you have a very good understanding of what true evangelizing is.

Sure I do. I just don't think it belongs at the intake of a rape victim ;)

FWIW, I think there are just certain beliefs that are inconsistent with certain jobs. Someone with objections to the morning after pill shouldn't be working with rape victims, same as an orthodox Jew or muslim shouldn't be working in a pork store.

[The ClayTaurus]

I think people should evangelize wherever they want, and even on the job should their private employer ok it. But in public, government jobs, no way. I believe religious freedom protects you from having to do things against your will, such as administer birth control, but it does not grant you the right from preventing others to do the same. It also does not grant you the right to evangelize, whether subtlety or not. Religious freedom applies to you as the individual, not you as it relates to others.

[Mr. P]

Well, hopefully, this general stuff would be revealed in the interview process. Once hired, it seems as if reasonable accommodations must be made. Allowing that nurse or whatever to call someone else in to hand the pill to the woman seems like a reasonable accommodation.

I disagree it's not always that way. There are general expectations for any job, hundreds of them, it's impossible to cover everything in the interview.. The job is the job. And if I would hire a nurse I'd expect they fulfill 'all' the duties that they are licensed for. If I hire a jail worker, I expect they will comply with ‘all’ of the job description. If they can't do it it's time for another job.

[Nienna]

I think people should evangelize wherever they want, and even on the job should their private employer ok it. But in public, government jobs, no way. I believe religious freedom protects you from having to do things against your will, such as administer birth control, but it does not grant you the right from preventing others to do the same. It also does not grant you the right to evangelize, whether subtlety or not. Religious freedom applies to you as the individual, not you as it relates to others.

I think what people don't understand about evangelizing is this...

Would you say that government employees should not mention their children or spouses? My relationship with God is THE most important one in my life, and other Christians would say so, too. Evangelizing is not supposed to be telling people what to believe. It is supposed to be just talking about the beautiful relationship we have with God, whenever it comes up naturally, as if we were talking about a family member.

"Subtly" evangelizing? I don't understand that. That implies deception.

[jillian]

I think what people don't understand about evangelizing is this...

Would you say that government employees should not mention their children or spouses? My relationship with God is THE most important one in my life, and other Christians would say so, too. Evangelizing is not supposed to be telling people what to believe. It is supposed to be just talking about the beautiful relationship we have with God, whenever it comes up naturally, as if we were talking about a family member.

"Subtly" evangelizing? I don't understand that. That implies deception.

No. It implies manipulation. Is that deceitful?

As for needing to talk about your relationship with G-d, I'll go with your analogy. Do you walk up to perfect strangers on the street and regale them with stories about your marriage and family? Or do you share those stories with friends and acquaintences who might express an interest?

[Nienna]

No. It implies manipulation. Is that deceitful?

yes, it involves deceit. If it was straight-up, manipulation would not be necessary.


As for needing to talk about your relationship with G-d, I'll go with your analogy. Do you walk up to perfect strangers on the street and regale them with stories about your marriage and family? Or do you share those stories with friends and acquaintences who might express an interest?

The latter. Exactly what I'm talking about. See... i TOLD you there was something about evangelizing that you didn't understand. :)

[jillian]

yes, it involves deceit. If it was straight-up, manipulation would not be necessary.



The latter. Exactly what I'm talking about. See... i TOLD you there was something about evangelizing that you didn't understand. :)

So there'd be no need to evangelize to a woman who was just raped and needed the morning after pill. Kinda what I was saying. But may have not been clear.

[darin]

So there'd be no need to evangelize to a woman who was just raped and needed the morning after pill. Kinda what I was saying. But may have not been clear.

allegedly been raped. And situation dictates. (shrug).

[Bubbalicious]

allegedly been raped. And situation dictates. (shrug).
How compassionate.

[Nienna]

So there'd be no need to evangelize to a woman who was just raped and needed the morning after pill. Kinda what I was saying. But may have not been clear.

Would depend on the situation. God moves the heart of the Christian to speak when the time is right. It would depend on the way the situation progressed, whether or not the person felt called to say something.

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Treating the woman with the utmost tenderness and concern would be the first step in "evangelizing." Anything further would depend on the situation, like dmp said.

Need? Need is a relative term. Do we NEED evangelizing? Do we NEED a pill? Depends on the goal.

[Gaffer]

Is it better to prevent a pregnancy through a morning after pill or wait two months and give her an abortion?

[Bubbalicious]

Is it better to prevent a pregnancy through a morning after pill or wait two months and give her an abortion?


I'll take what's behind door #1, Bob.

[jillian]

Would depend on the situation. God moves the heart of the Christian to speak when the time is right. It would depend on the way the situation progressed, whether or not the person felt called to say something.

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Treating the woman with the utmost tenderness and concern would be the first step in "evangelizing." Anything further would depend on the situation, like dmp said.

Need? Need is a relative term. Do we NEED evangelizing? Do we NEED a pill? Depends on the goal.

Which is why anyone who can't leave their evangelizing at the door for an 8 hour day shouldn't be anywhere near someone who's a victim. In other words, it doesn't MATTER what you're called on to say*. This also contradicts your statement that you would only impart intimate details of your life to a willing listener who was a friend or acquaintence and not a stranger with whom you come into contact through your job.

And to get back to the original point. No employer has any obligation to accommodate your *calling* under the anti-discrimination laws. Reasonable accommodation means letting you take off for religious holidays and that type of thing.

When the issue of the muslim woman who didn't shake hands with men arose, many were very quick to say that was tough and she could be fired. I'm here to tell you under the law her not shaking hands is meaningless within the larger responsibilities of her job and CAN be accommodated. Someone imposing their religious beliefs by not following protocol and interfering in the processing of a rape victim is an entirely different story and the worker could and should be kept as far away from those women as possible.

[Nienna]

Which is why anyone who can't leave their evangelizing at the door for an 8 hour day shouldn't be anywhere near someone who's a victim. In other words, it doesn't MATTER what you're called on to say*. This also contradicts your statement that you would only impart intimate details of your life to a willing listener who was a friend or acquaintence and not a stranger with whom you come into contact through your job.
1) My caring manner would be the first "evangelical" effort. You simply do not understand that a Christian's entire life is an "evangelical" effort. I know that it is very difficult to understand for those outside the faith. This rarely includes lapsing into an hour-long sermon. 2)Who says I would impart intimate details of my life? If I could do anything for the victim, it would be about HER, not myself.


And to get back to the original point. No employer has any obligation to accommodate your *calling* under the anti-discrimination laws. Reasonable accommodation means letting you take off for religious holidays and that type
of thing. Guess that would have to be decided in court, dependent on the details of the situation.


When the issue of the muslim woman who didn't shake hands with men arose, many were very quick to say that was tough and she could be fired. I'm here to tell you under the law her not shaking hands is meaningless within the larger responsibilities of her job and CAN be accommodated. Someone imposing their religious beliefs by not following protocol and interfering in the processing of a rape victim is an entirely different story and the worker could and should be kept as far away from those women as possible.

The issue with the Muslim woman was whether she would concede to having ANY physical contact with men, not simply the handshake. If she would not allow ANY contact with men, then her job would be irreparably impeded.

It seems you are saying that we should accommodate Muslims, but not Christians. I already outlined how a Christian's belief about the morning after pill could be reasonably accommodated. Handing out this pill was, evidently NOT the SOLE responsibility of this position, and the other duties were seemingly performed.

Don't you find it rather telling that a Muslim's refusal to to touch a man should be accommodated, but a Christian should not be allowed to call in someone else to administer a pill? You use the phrase "imposing religious beliefs." How would the course of action that I outlined be IMPOSING?

[jillian]

1) My caring manner would be the first "evangelical" effort. You simply do not understand that a Christian's entire life is an "evangelical" effort. I know that it is very difficult to understand for those outside the faith. This rarely includes lapsing into an hour-long sermon. 2)Who says I would impart intimate details of my life? If I could do anything for the victim, it would be about HER, not myself.

Guess that would have to be decided in court, dependent on the details of the situation.



The issue with the Muslim woman was whether she would concede to having ANY physical contact with men, not simply the handshake. If she would not allow ANY contact with men, then her job would be irreparably impeded.

It seems you are saying that we should accommodate Muslims, but not Christians. I already outlined how a Christian's belief about the morning after pill could be reasonably accommodated. Handing out this pill was, evidently NOT the SOLE responsibility of this position, and the other duties were seemingly performed.

Don't you find it rather telling that a Muslim's refusal to to touch a man should be accommodated, but a Christian should not be allowed to call in someone else to administer a pill? You use the phrase "imposing religious beliefs." How would the course of action that I outlined be IMPOSING?

We weren't talking about you quietly walking away and having someone else administer the pill. We were talking about your *need* to "express" your reasons to the victim. You then said you don't know if you could contain yourself from imposing your religious views on the victim.

I figure that makes you ineligible for the job.

Do please tell me how a woman not shaking hands with a man effects *him* one iota.

It's not that I don't think your beliefs should be *reasonably* accommodated, it's that you have no business imposing them, discussing them or otherwise have them impact someone who has not requested it. The argument is disingenuous and you know it.

Like I said, if you can't refrain from evangelizing to strangers during an 8 hour day when you're working for the government, then it isn't the job for you, perhaps.

BTW, your idea of doing something *for* the victim is absurd in this context. What are you going to do *for* her, have her do something that might end up with her having a rapist's baby?

[darin]

Jillian - you seem quite slotted as 'anti-christian'. That's too bad.

[Dilloduck]

Jillian - you seem quite slotted as 'anti-christian'. That's too bad.

maybe she'll come around with some TLC.

[Mr. P]

We weren't talking about you quietly walking away and having someone else administer the pill. We were talking about your *need* to "express" your reasons to the victim. You then said you don't know if you could contain yourself from imposing your religious views on the victim.

I figure that makes you ineligible for the job.

Do please tell me how a woman not shaking hands with a man effects *him* one iota.

It's not that I don't think your beliefs should be *reasonably* accommodated, it's that you have no business imposing them, discussing them or otherwise have them impact someone who has not requested it. The argument is disingenuous and you know it.

Like I said, if you can't refrain from evangelizing to strangers during an 8 hour day when you're working for the government, then it isn't the job for you, perhaps.

BTW, your idea of doing something *for* the victim is absurd in this context. What are you going to do *for* her, have her do something that might end up with her having a rapist's baby?


I for one agree with the above post 100%.

[Nienna]

We weren't talking about you quietly walking away and having someone else administer the pill. We were talking about your *need* to "express" your reasons to the victim. You then said you don't know if you could contain yourself from imposing your religious views on the victim.

The course of action I outlined was this: If a woman came in as the victim of a rape, I would touch her gently, look into her eyes, maybe cry with her. I could honestly cry now, just thinking of it. I would ask her if there was anything I could do for her, with all the compassion of my heart. I would tend to any injuries she had, listen to anything she wanted to talk about, give her any comfort it was in my power to give. If/when the request for the pill came up, I would tell her I could not administer that because of my religious beliefs, and ask her if she was sure she wanted it. If she replied "yes," then I would get someone to give her the pill. Afterward, I would continue to care for her in any way possible, with a loving and respectful attitude. If she asked questions about my beliefs, then I would answer them. If not, I would probably not say anything further.

I do not see how the above outlined course of action could possibly be considered "imposing" my beliefs on anyone.


I figure that makes you ineligible for the job.

Do please tell me how a woman not shaking hands with a man effects *him* one iota.

It's not that I don't think your beliefs should be *reasonably* accommodated, it's that you have no business imposing them, discussing them or otherwise have them impact someone who has not requested it. The argument is disingenuous and you know it.

Like I said, if you can't refrain from evangelizing to strangers during an 8 hour day when you're working for the government, then it isn't the job for you, perhaps.

BTW, your idea of doing something *for* the victim is absurd in this context. What are you going to do *for* her, have her do something that might end up with her having a rapist's baby?

I explained this above. I do not believe it to be absurd.

[jillian]

I for one agree with the above post 100%.

Thanks.

now where's my rep? lol... just kidding
:wink2:

[jillian]

The course of action I outlined was this: If a woman came in as the victim of a rape, I would touch her gently, look into her eyes, maybe cry with her. I could honestly cry now, just thinking of it. I would ask her if there was anything I could do for her, with all the compassion of my heart. I would tend to any injuries she had, listen to anything she wanted to talk about, give her any comfort it was in my power to give. If/when the request for the pill came up, I would tell her I could not administer that because of my religious beliefs, and ask her if she was sure she wanted it. If she replied "yes," then I would get someone to give her the pill. Afterward, I would continue to care for her in any way possible, with a loving and respectful attitude. If she asked questions about my beliefs, then I would answer them. If not, I would probably not say anything further.

I do not see how the above outlined course of action could possibly be considered "imposing" my beliefs on anyone.



I explained this above. I do not believe it to be absurd.

She isn't going to make a request for the pill. It is part of the protocol.

Everything else you wrote, while well-intentioned, simply reinforces my earlier statement. You not wanting to administer the pill is NOT her business. Nor is it your place to cry with her, although, again well-intentioned. They have qualified rape counselors to handle the emotional trauma.

Your effort to save a cell that may or may not have been fertilized is really what we're talking about, so let's not call it anything else. And *that* isn't doing a thing for the victim. Sorry. The job isn't for you. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand any more than it would be understandable that an orthodox jew or muslim shouldn't work in a pork store.

[Mr. P]

Thanks.

now where's my rep? lol... just kidding
:wink2:

I got that spread it around BS messege..:)

[Mr. P]

The course of action I outlined was this: If a woman came in as the victim of a rape, I would touch her gently, look into her eyes, maybe cry with her. I could honestly cry now, just thinking of it. I would ask her if there was anything I could do for her, with all the compassion of my heart. I would tend to any injuries she had, listen to anything she wanted to talk about, give her any comfort it was in my power to give. If/when the request for the pill came up, I would tell her I could not administer that because of my religious beliefs, and ask her if she was sure she wanted it. If she replied "yes," then I would get someone to give her the pill. Afterward, I would continue to care for her in any way possible, with a loving and respectful attitude. If she asked questions about my beliefs, then I would answer them. If not, I would probably not say anything further.

I do not see how the above outlined course of action could possibly be considered "imposing" my beliefs on anyone.



I explained this above. I do not believe it to be absurd.

Why question her? If she ask for it she wanted it..NO? This is where the line is crossed IMO.

If an inmate asked for water, would you ask if they're sure they want it?

[jillian]

I got that spread it around BS messege..:)

Heh! Thanks. It's the thought that counts. ;)

[darin]

Why question her? If she ask for it she wanted it..NO? This is where the line is crossed IMO.

If an inmate asked for water, would you ask if they're sure they want it?


Dude - you are so blatantly anti-christian; that's absurd.

"Are you sure?" is 'crossing a line'? good lord.

Want a beer? "No thanks" You sure? OMG! I'VE CROSSED THE LINE!

[jillian]

Dude - you are so blatantly anti-christian; that's absurd.

"Are you sure?" is 'crossing a line'? good lord.

Want a beer? "No thanks" You sure? OMG! I'VE CROSSED THE LINE!

Right. Everyone's anti-christian who won't allow you to run around government jobs preaching.

Puleeze.

[Mr. P]

Dude - you are so blatantly anti-christian; that's absurd.

"Are you sure?" is 'crossing a line'? good lord.

Want a beer? "No thanks" You sure? OMG! I'VE CROSSED THE LINE!

Yer full of shit! A jail is not a church. Christian views are NOT a part nor required for employment. Don't start thumpin like yer brother. :no: :no:

[Dilloduck]

Right. Everyone's anti-christian who won't allow you to run around government jobs preaching.

Puleeze.

How about a little cross lapel pin ?----or will that scare off all the non-believers too? :uhoh:

[CockySOB]

How about a little cross lapel pin ?----or will that scare off all the non-believers too? :uhoh:

We could always field test the idea here. Like my new avatar?

[Mr. P]

How about a little cross lapel pin ?----or will that scare off all the non-believers too? :uhoh:
We couldn't ware political campaign pins in the military...soooo

Here’s a novel idea, do the job yer hired to do. Don’t take it home with you nor bring your baggage to work.

[Dilloduck]

We couldn't ware political campaign pins in the military...soooo

Here’s a novel idea, do the job yer hired to do. Don’t take it home with you nor bring your baggage to work.

LOL everyone take your soma and wear the exact same thing to work so we are all equal. :uhoh:

[Mr. P]

LOL everyone take your soma and wear the exact same thing to work so we are all equal. :uhoh:

It not about being 'equal'.

[Dilloduck]

It not about being 'equal'.

The hell it isn't. What if I bitch about the shirt you wear. It goes on forever untl everyone looks the same so NO ONE is offended. A lapel pin ??? Talk about extreme !!!

[Mr. P]

The hell it isn't. What if I bitch about the shirt you wear. It goes on forever untl everyone looks the same so NO ONE is offended. A lapel pin ??? Talk about extreme !!!

Every employer I have ever worked for set the standards of dress etc. Not the employees.

[Dilloduck]

Every employer I have ever worked for set the standards of dress etc. Not the employees.

You're so full of shit Mr P------If some hot babe with a low cut dress had a cross on her neckless all you would do is drool.:p

[Mr. P]

You're so full of shit Mr P------If some hot babe with a low cut dress had a cross on her neckless all you would do is drool.:p

What does that have to do with anything? :laugh:

[darin]

Yer full of shit! A jail is not a church. Christian views are NOT a part nor required for employment. Don't start thumpin like yer brother. :no: :no:

Your biggotry against people of faith means you cannot honestly even DEBATE the issue.


"Are you sure?" is 'thumping'? Stop being like that. It's obviously some defense mechanism you have to 'protect' you from God.
Why do you hate Christians so much? Bad experience?

[Mr. P]

Your biggotry against people of faith means you cannot honestly even DEBATE the issue.


"Are you sure?" is 'thumping'? Stop being like that. It's obviously some defense mechanism you have to 'protect' you from God.
Why do you hate Christians so much? Bad experience?

Don't be an ass, dmp, you look like a thumper. You have no idea what my beliefs are or aren't. BTW, they will remain private. :)

[Nienna]

She isn't going to make a request for the pill. It is part of the protocol.

Everything else you wrote, while well-intentioned, simply reinforces my earlier statement. You not wanting to administer the pill is NOT her business. Nor is it your place to cry with her, although, again well-intentioned. They have qualified rape counselors to handle the emotional trauma.

Your effort to save a cell that may or may not have been fertilized is really what we're talking about, so let's not call it anything else. And *that* isn't doing a thing for the victim. Sorry. The job isn't for you. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand any more than it would be understandable that an orthodox jew or muslim shouldn't work in a pork store.

I would think that compassion would be a major part of ANY position dealing with rape victims. *I* do not want the job. "MY" effort to save a "cell" was not the issue. The issue is your belief that people who do not believe in administering the morning-after pill for religious reasons should not be eligible for employment in this job, especially not CHRISTIANS. Okay, then, what is the job description? I stated before that if the ONLY or even the MAJOR task of the position was to hand out the morning-after pill, then the person should probably not consider the position. However, I inferred that there were many duties within the position, and handing out his pill was merely a small part of the duties. I explained how this could be reasonably accommodated, and it is the law to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

Let me ask you... if it was a feminist instead of a Christian in this position, one who objected to the handling of the pill because she believed it had not undergone sufficient scientific testing before release, if this feminist requested that someone else administer the pill, would you be so incensed?

[Nienna]

Right. Everyone's anti-christian who won't allow you to run around government jobs preaching.

Puleeze.

If you call asking the question "are you sure" preaching... wow. There just doesn't seem to be any way to NOT preach if you are one of the anathematized believers in Christ.

[darin]

Don't be an ass, dmp, you look like a thumper. You have no idea what my beliefs are or aren't. BTW, they will remain private. :)

Being an ass? You are hostile against Christians. That's clear. You call people who even MENTION their faith 'thumpers' - it's ridiculous. It's intellectually dishonest.

"Are you sure?" Is NOT a statement of one's faith, it's asking the question "You've made a choice, are you certain?"

I suppose Regis was EVANGELIZING to contestants every time he said "...is that your final answer?"

:rolleyes:

Gimme a Break.

[Mr. P]

Being an ass? You are hostile against Christians. That's clear. You call people who even MENTION their faith 'thumpers' - it's ridiculous. It's intellectually dishonest.

"Are you sure?" Is NOT a statement of one's faith, it's asking the question "You've made a choice, are you certain?"

I suppose Regis was EVANGELIZING to contestants every time he said "...is that your final answer?"

:rolleyes:

Gimme a Break.
I have given you many breaks and believe me I’m not hostile against Christians, just assholes. If they’re Christians, so be it. Yes, you are being an ass and just mudding-up the thread. This is about doing a job that one was hired to do, not about passing on their personal beliefs to a ‘customer’.

Simple as that. Can’t service the customer under the guidelines of the job? Leave.

[Dilloduck]

I have given you many breaks and believe me I’m not hostile against Christians, just assholes. If they’re Christians, so be it. Yes, you are being an ass and just mudding-up the thread. This is about doing a job that one was hired to do, not about passing on their personal beliefs to a ‘customer’.

Simple as that. Can’t service the customer under the guidelines of the job? Leave.

If an employer prohibited any religious symbols in the workplace, would you be OK with it?

[Gunny]

This is a dumb argument. If a person is a pharmacist, their job is to dispense drugs they are handed a prescription for, not decide whether or not they morally approve.

That's like saying a fundamentalist Baptist working at liquor store can deny me my bottle of hooch.

[Dilloduck]

This is a dumb argument. If a person is a pharmacist, their job is to dispense drugs they are handed a prescription for, not decide whether or not they morally approve.

That's like saying a fundamentalist Baptist working at liquor store can deny me my bottle of hooch.

I don't think the freedom to practice religion has a restriction to it saying that it has to be smart.

[Nienna]

This is a dumb argument. If a person is a pharmacist, their job is to dispense drugs they are handed a prescription for, not decide whether or not they morally approve.

That's like saying a fundamentalist Baptist working at liquor store can deny me my bottle of hooch.

But was that truly the job description? A "jail worker" probably has MANY duties; handing out a pill is most likely only a marginal part of the job. Also, the pill has only been "out" for a relatively short period. It's possible the jail worker had this job before the pill was even in existence. It is the law to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious beliefs. Some people may not LIKE the law, but it still exists.

[Gunny]

But was that truly the job description? A "jail worker" probably has MANY duties; handing out a pill is most likely only a marginal part of the job. Also, the pill has only been "out" for a relatively short period. It's possible the jail worker had this job before the pill was even in existence. It is the law to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious beliefs. Some people may not LIKE the law, but it still exists.

If the job requires she dispense the pill regardless when doing so was implemented, she dispenses the pill. I seriously doubt they made it part of her duties without notifying her.

I don't see her refusal to hand out medication that is required by her job as making "reasonable accomodation for religious beliefs." I see it as an employee forcing her personal morals on another person.

[Dilloduck]

If the job requires she dispense the pill regardless when doing so was implemented, she dispenses the pill. I seriously doubt they made it part of her duties without notifying her.

I don't see her refusal to hand out medication that is required by her job as making "reasonable accomodation for religious beliefs." I see it as an employee forcing her personal morals on another person.

The other person gets her pill from someone else. No problem.

[Mr. P]

If an employer prohibited any religious symbols in the workplace, would you be OK with it?

Yes. Not because I would agree with a policy like that, but because it's their business to run as they see fit. Then this isn't about a symbol either.

[Gaffer]

The jail nurse does not make the determionation who gets medicine. She is there to dispense the meds to those inmates the doctor has prescribed meds for. It is not her place to decide if a med is to be given out or not. By not doing so she has taken the responsibility on herself to determine who gets meds which is technically against the law as she is not a doctor. The county and the nurse are subject to law suits and the nurse could be subject to prosecution.

If she can't follow a doctors orders for a prescription then she doesn't need to be in that job. And will probably be out of the job soon.

[Dilloduck]

The jail nurse does not make the determionation who gets medicine. She is there to dispense the meds to those inmates the doctor has prescribed meds for. It is not her place to decide if a med is to be given out or not. By not doing so she has taken the responsibility on herself to determine who gets meds which is technically against the law as she is not a doctor. The county and the nurse are subject to law suits and the nurse could be subject to prosecution.

If she can't follow a doctors orders for a prescription then she doesn't need to be in that job. And will probably be out of the job soon.

If she were a Muslim who had a problem with it she would have all the legal support in the world. Being a Christian ------? Let' just say the ACLU won't be at her doorstep.

[Gunny]

If she were a Muslim who had a problem with it she would have all the legal support in the world. Being a Christian ------? Let' just say the ACLU won't be at her doorstep.

I wouldn't agree with it if she worshipped ancient Norse gods.

[Dilloduck]

I wouldn't agree with it if she worshipped ancient Norse gods.

I wasn't taking about you----I was talking about the anti-Christian trend in the US in general. Please don' try to tell me there isn't a blatant effort being made to supress Christian influence while at the same time Muslims are being protected.

[darin]

I have given you many breaks and believe me I’m not hostile against Christians, just assholes. If they’re Christians, so be it. Yes, you are being an ass and just mudding-up the thread. This is about doing a job that one was hired to do, not about passing on their personal beliefs to a ‘customer’.

Simple as that. Can’t service the customer under the guidelines of the job? Leave.

How do you reconcile YOU saying "asking 'are you sure' = evangelizing"???

[Gunny]

I wasn't taking about you----I was talking about the anti-Christian trend in the US in general. Please don' try to tell me there isn't a blatant effort being made to supress Christian influence while at the same time Muslims are being protected.

I wasn't. I'm telling you there isn't a blatant effort to supress Christian influence while at the same time Muslims are being protected by ME.

I personally disagree with what this woman, on an individual basis, did. Why she did it is secondary.

I will say, however, that it is people like her, and actions such as her's that have made our religion such a target.

She is a city or state government employee who interjected her religious belief into a government function.

[Grumplestillskin]

How do you reconcile YOU saying "asking 'are you sure' = evangelizing"???

Why is she asking "are you sure?" in the first place? Out of concern? For religious reasons? Why? Once that is determined, you'll find the answer. If it is for religious reasons, it is a form of evangelising IMO...

[Mr. P]

How do you reconcile YOU saying "asking 'are you sure' = evangelizing"???

Cuz I never asked? :)

[Dilloduck]

Why is she asking "are you sure?" in the first place? Out of concern? For religious reasons? Why? Once that is determined, you'll find the answer. If it is for religious reasons, it is a form of evangelising IMO...

and when concern for others IS your religion?

[darin]

Cuz I never asked? :)


Wha? Josie said she'd ask the lady 'are you sure' - which YOU called 'evangelizing'. That's Christophobic if I've ever heard it. Relgion aside, it just doesnt make sense.

[darin]

Why is she asking "are you sure?" in the first place? Out of concern? For religious reasons? Why? Once that is determined, you'll find the answer. If it is for religious reasons, it is a form of evangelising IMO...

Are you a member of the Fantastic 4? Cuz the WAY your (quotey fingers)LOGIC(/fingers) strettttttttttttttttttches is amazing.

[Mr. P]

Wha? Josie said she'd ask the lady 'are you sure' - which YOU called 'evangelizing'. That's Christophobic if I've ever heard it. Relgion aside, it just doesnt make sense.

Post my post where I said that..Thanks

[darin]

Post my post where I said that..Thanks



Losing your short-term memory pardner? :) You even BOLDED that part.




The course of action I outlined was this: If a woman came in as the victim of a rape, I would touch her gently, look into her eyes, maybe cry with her. I could honestly cry now, just thinking of it. I would ask her if there was anything I could do for her, with all the compassion of my heart. I would tend to any injuries she had, listen to anything she wanted to talk about, give her any comfort it was in my power to give. If/when the request for the pill came up, I would tell her I could not administer that because of my religious beliefs, and ask her if she was sure she wanted it. If she replied "yes," then I would get someone to give her the pill. Afterward, I would continue to care for her in any way possible, with a loving and respectful attitude. If she asked questions about my beliefs, then I would answer them. If not, I would probably not say anything further.

I do not see how the above outlined course of action could possibly be considered "imposing" my beliefs on anyone.



I explained this above. I do not believe it to be absurd.

Why question her? If she ask for it she wanted it..NO? This is where the line is crossed IMO.

If an inmate asked for water, would you ask if they're sure they want it?

In YOUR context 'It' = asking 'are you sure' = crossing the line (it becomes 'evangelizing').

[shattered]

We're agreed as to that. Personally, I also think it's kind of odd to have someone working with a rape victim who won't allow the victim to take the morning after pill. I understand if someone has the objection (well, not really, but I accept the fact that's the case), but perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to work with rape victims.

Rape victims are pretty much the only reason I can see for dispensing a morning after pill. If your convictions are 100% against it, you need a new line of work - period. It's not your call. You need to do the job for which you were hired without bringing personal beliefs in to it.

That said, when you go to the police for anything that requires filing any type of report, if you have a prior conviction, you're going to get nailed. Expect it. She could have been checked into a hospital under close supervision while her rape case was being investigated, and THEN had her prior conviction dealt with.

Maybe this will be a learning experience for everyone involved.