Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again, I disagree, he didn't attempt to impose his morals by stopping her from doing what she wanted, he simply refused to be involved in the action. Had he walked over to the woman and taken a glass from her hand, that would be a different issue.

Also - strange as it may seem - I tend not to base my concepts of morality on the technicalities of the United States legal system.

Of course he was imposing his morals. It's not his decision to make, and he has no right to do it.

I gave that civil rights example as a way of making it really simple to understand the difference between being employed to provide a service, and having your own civil rights. But you already knew that.

[Tregard]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

You misunderstand what liberty and personal freedom actually are. The civil rights act in America actually abolished the the policy of allowing businesses to choose their clients based on superficial reasons.

I'd hardly call pregnancy a superficial reason.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Of course he was imposing his morals. It's not his decision to make, and he has no right to do it.

I gave that civil rights example as a way of making it really simple to understand the difference between being employed to provide a service, and having your own civil rights. But you already knew that.

I suppose then it depends on whether you're talking about civil rights, legal rights or moral rights. I personally was talking about moral rights and, as far as that goes, he had every right to do whatever he wanted to do. In fact, key here is that he didn't "do" anything - he simply refused to do something. And in my opinion, every person has the right to refuse to be involved in anything that they are not comfortable being involved in. As I said, had he grabbed a drink out of her hand - that would be imposing his morals. Refusing to PROVIDE her with a drink is simply refusing to compromise his own morals.

Whether or not his boss would / should / must fire him for his actions is completely irrelevant to that fact. It's his choice to do what he wants with his mind and body: he didnt want to pour her the drink so he absolutely did not have to. Risking his job is his decision to make.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I suppose then it depends on whether you're talking about civil rights, legal rights or moral rights. I personally was talking about moral rights and, as far as that goes, he had every right to do whatever he wanted to do. In fact, key here is that he didn't "do" anything - he simply refused to do something. And in my opinion, every person has the right to refuse to be involved in anything that they are not comfortable being involved in. As I said, had he grabbed a drink out of her hand - that would be imposing his morals. Refusing to PROVIDE her with a drink is simply refusing to compromise his own morals.

Whether or not his boss would / should / must fire him for his actions is completely irrelevant to that fact. It's his choice to do what he wants with his mind and body: he didnt want to pour her the drink so he absolutely did not have to. Risking his job is his decision to make.

His moral stance (which he is entitled to hold, but not enforce) is irrelevant. If his morals are that important to him, then he shouldn't be working in a place where those things can cross paths.

Doctors have to stand by constantly and let people kill themselves because of the wishes of individual patients, and sometimes because of ridiculous reasons like the blood transfusion issues with Jehovah's witnesses. These are people that dedicate their lives to the oath they make. Yet their moral stances don't overrule the wishes of the individual.

He absolutely has every right to feel uncomfortable about serving a pregnant woman, he has absolutely no right to act upon that.

[Livia]

If a barman refused to serve someone who was already drunk, is that an example of imposing his morals on someone else? After all, if someone who's drunk wants to keep on drinking, surely that's his or her own choice? Or is the barman within his rights to use his judgement as an adult who's job it is to serve a restricted substance?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

If a barman refused to serve someone who was already drunk, is that an example of imposing his morals on someone else? After all, if someone who's drunk wants to keep on drinking, surely that's his or her own choice? Or is the barman within his rights to use his judgement as an adult who's job it is to serve a restricted substance?

No, thats an example of him following the law and doing his job right. There are no laws against serving pregnant women.

[Kizzy]

Here we go again...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

His moral stance (which he is entitled to hold, but not enforce) is irrelevant. If his morals are that important to him, then he shouldn't be working in a place where those things can cross paths.

That decision lies with his employer, who I have said, is well within his rights to dismiss this employee if he deems appropriate.

Doctors have to stand by constantly and let people kill themselves because of the wishes of individual patients, and sometimes because of ridiculous reasons like the blood transfusion issues with Jehovah's witnesses. These are people that dedicate their lives to the oath they make. Yet their moral stances don't overrule the wishes of the individual.

In this case, the doctor has to comply with their wishes by NOT acting; by not forcing an action upon them. A doctor would not, for example, obliged to euthanize someone (in countries where this is legal) if they don't want to perform that action. Another doctor would do it.

He absolutely has every right to feel uncomfortable about serving a pregnant woman, he has absolutely no right to act upon that.

For the third or fourth time; he did not act upon anything, he explicitly did the opposite; he did not DO something against her wishes, he REFUSED to do something that she wished. There is a very clear distinction between those that you seem to be habitually overlooking or ignoring.

[Cherry Christmas]

Been an interesting one this. I would hazard a guess that some of the people coming down on the barmans side would uphold a woman's right to abortion on the grounds that it is her decision and her body, so why this is any different really puzzles me.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Been an interesting one this. I would hazard a guess that some of the people coming down on the barmans side would uphold a woman's right to abortion on the grounds that it is her decision and her body, so why this is any different really puzzles me.

lol that very point did cross my mind as well

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Been an interesting one this. I would hazard a guess that some of the people coming down on the barmans side would uphold a woman's right to abortion on the grounds that it is her decision and her body, so why this is any different really puzzles me.

..I'm not questioning his decision not to serve her on any moral grounds though Cherie or her choice to drink alcohol..just that he had a right to refuse anyone on any grounds because I think all bars and private establishments reserve that right...maybe someone would refuse to give a woman an abortion that she wanted, I guess that would be a more similar analogy for me...

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That decision lies with his employer, who I have said, is well within his rights to dismiss this employee if he deems appropriate.

So exactly what are the responsibilities of a barman, employed by a bar to provide services to paying customers?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In this case, the doctor has to comply with their wishes by NOT acting; by not forcing an action upon them. A doctor would not, for example, obliged to euthanize someone (in countries where this is legal) if they don't want to perform that action. Another doctor would do it.

He adheres to the wishes of the patient. Exactly. His moral opinions neither have nor hold any sway in this instance.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

For the third or fourth time; he did not act upon anything, he explicitly did the opposite; he did not DO something against her wishes, he REFUSED to do something that she wished. There is a very clear distinction between those that you seem to be habitually overlooking or ignoring.

I really have no idea how you can view "refusing" to provide a service for which he is employed and paid, as a different issue from my point. His job is to provide drinks to customers, so by refusing to do his job, he is automatically acting. It's quite basic.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

lol that very point did cross my mind as well

I agree that it is the womens moral right to drink while pregnant and her moral right to have an abortion is she wishes (as it is her body) , but it is also the Barman's moral right not to serve her if he so wishes.

By not serving her he has not changed her moral right to drink whilst pregnant she is quite capable of opening a bottle of whisky herself if she so wishes.

However the Barman simply decided not to DO something he objected to, he did not pyhsically interact with the woman by stopping her drinking as that would have been an infringement on her moral rights (and assault).

His inaction may cause him to lose his job but that is his decision as he must know the Bar will expect him to serve this lady as there are no laws currently forbidding pregnant woman being served in Pubs.

I think he his course of in(action) was acceptable by his moral standards and as I have said in an earlier thread he could have simply asked another member of the bar staff to serve her.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

No, thats an example of him following the law and doing his job right. There are no laws against serving pregnant women.

No, there aren't any laws against serving alcohol to pregnant women. Usually you'd think that pregnant women were smart enough not to drink alcohol... apparently not though. I'm sure there used to be this kind of tolerance of women smoking cigarettes while pregnant.

I wouldn't have served her. I wouldn't have stopped someone else serving her, but I myself would not have served alcohol to a pregnant women any more than I'd have served it to a child.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Livia

No, there aren't any laws against serving alcohol to pregnant women. Usually you'd think that pregnant women were smart enough not to drink alcohol... apparently not though. I'm sure there used to be this kind of tolerance of women smoking cigarettes while pregnant.

I wouldn't have served her. I wouldn't have stopped someone else serving her, but I myself would not have served alcohol to a pregnant women any more than I'd have served it to a child.

Looks like me, Vicky and Lee are all too stupid to have kids then

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

No, there aren't any laws against serving alcohol to pregnant women. Usually you'd think that pregnant women were smart enough not to drink alcohol... apparently not though. I'm sure there used to be this kind of tolerance of women smoking cigarettes while pregnant.

I wouldn't have served her. I wouldn't have stopped someone else serving her, but I myself would not have served alcohol to a pregnant women any more than I'd have served it to a child.

Considering there is no evidence to say that having one or two drinks a week harms your baby, I think this is a bit harsh.

As I said earlier, some midwives recommend you drink guinness, you are told that a glass or two of wine is fine, just not over 2 units.. and the hospital advised me to have a glass of wine to relax when actually in labor (and on codeine tht THEY gave me)

Personally I would serve (and have served in the past) pregnant women with the odd drink. I have only ever come across one woman who was actually out on the piss when heavily pregnant. She was drunk when she came in, so I refused her on the grounds of being drunk (though in my head it was because she was pregnant AND drunk..) I guess I did judge her..but I see a huge difference between refusing someone who is pregnant as they ARE being stupid, and refusing someone one glass of wine when sober.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Looks like me, Vicky and Lee are all too stupid to have kids then

I could have told you that.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

I could have told you that.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Considering there is no evidence to say that having one or two drinks a week harms your baby, I think this is a bit harsh.

As I said earlier, some midwives recommend you drink guinness, you are told that a glass or two of wine is fine, just not over 2 units.. and the hospital advised me to have a glass of wine to relax when actually in labor (and on codeine tht THEY gave me)

Personally I would serve (and have served in the past) pregnant women with the odd drink. I have only ever come across one woman who was actually out on the piss when heavily pregnant. She was drunk when she came in, so I refused her on the grounds of being drunk (though in my head it was because she was pregnant AND drunk..) I guess I did judge her..but I see a huge difference between refusing someone who is pregnant as they ARE being stupid, and refusing someone one glass of wine when sober.

Maybe it is harsh, but it's the way I feel. The woman had a right to put alcohol into her system; the barman had the right to refuse to aid and abet her to do that. With respect, Midwives used to say it was okay to smoke and to take all kinds of non-prescription drugs. It's only a generation or so since Thalidomide... If it was me, I'd prefer not to put any kind of substance into my body while I was pregnant, and that would be my choice. What surprises me most is that this woman, with her massive sense of entitlement, has made a crusade out of this. And we've only heard one side of the story too, which is always a little, erm... embroidered. We have an arse-kissing statement from the bar, blaming the barman and apologsing unreservedly for this incident, but not a word from the barman himself who, using the bar's own policy, reserved his right to refuse.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

So exactly what are the responsibilities of a barman, employed by a bar to provide services to paying customers?




He adheres to the wishes of the patient. Exactly. His moral opinions neither have nor hold any sway in this instance.




I really have no idea how you can view "refusing" to provide a service for which he is employed and paid, as a different issue from my point. His job is to provide drinks to customers, so by refusing to do his job, he is automatically acting. It's quite basic.

Responsibilities are not the same thing as rights or even vaguely related? I must have said at least 10 times, if the bar thinks he isn't fulfilling his role, they are free to dismiss him. It is his right to choose to not "do his job properly" and face the consequences of that, if he feels unable to do what has been asked of him.

Also, I would point out that doctors DO refuse requested care at times, if they disagree with it, on various grounds. They would refer the patient to a colleague. Someone else could have served her.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Responsibilities are not the same thing as rights or even vaguely related? I must have said at least 10 times, if the bar thinks he isn't fulfilling his role, they are free to dismiss him. It is his right to choose to not "do his job properly" and face the consequences of that, if he feels unable to do what has been asked of him.

Also, I would point out that doctors DO refuse requested care at times, if they disagree with it, on various grounds. They would refer the patient to a colleague. Someone else could have served her.

We have a fundamental but sincere disagreement. I view that he had no right to make decisions about her or her "condition".

You view that he can, but the employer can take action afterwards.

So did he provide the woman with an alternative bar tender? No, he refused to serve her and offered her no alternative.

Also, Doctors don't refuse care on moral grounds.

I'd also suggest that we agree to disagree here. Reply to this post if you see fit, but we're both going to go round in circles.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

We have a fundamental but sincere disagreement. I view that he had no right to make decisions about her or her "condition".

You view that he can, but the employer can take action afterwards.

So did he provide the woman with an alternative bar tender? No, he refused to serve her and offered her no alternative.

Also, Doctors don't refuse care on moral grounds.

TBF there may have been no alternative bartender. 9 times out of 10 when I was at work, there was just me. What a right hassle when I needed to change a barrel or something

[Kizzy]

He was not using the bars own policy, nowhere does it suggest it is.
There is no justification for trying to impose your will on others, no matter if you try to dress it up as a moral or ethical issue.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

TBF there may have been no alternative bartender. 9 times out of 10 when I was at work, there was just me. What a right hassle when I needed to change a barrel or something

What kind of place did you work in? If I was taking my pregnant wife/gf out to eat, it would have to be a fairly decent place for me to take her to a pub. In nice gastro pubs you get more than one person on duty (generally).

[DanaC]

As soon as a woman becomes pregnant total strangers feel they have some moral right to dictate how she conducts herself during that pregnancy.

Fathers to be smoking whilst their wives are pregnant also present a possible health risk to babies but nobody would go up to a man and ask him to stop smoking next to his pregnant partner. Yet strangers do go up to pregnant women and give them a piece of their mind if they see them smoking.