Court sides with pharmacists against emergency contraceptives

[GuyPinestra]

I get it now, only pharmacist have this mysterious ability to impose their views on others by not selling something. Do they have form of telepathy that they learn in pharmacy school, or do they use drugs?

Its because is has to do with abortion, and for some people, ANYTHING that interferes with that is a no go, personal choice (ironic isnt it?) and morality be damned.

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

The fact is that you are NOT the arbiter of someone else's morals, and that's a GOOD thing, too, based on your lack of comprehension of this case. The 2 pharmacists in question are the OWNERS of their pharmacies, NOT employees. As OWNERS, they have the right to stock or not stock whatever products they see fit, and the court has upheld that right.

Get the fuck over it!

 

[spectrumc01]

Its because is has to do with abortion, and for some people, ANYTHING that interferes with that is a no go, personal choice (ironic isnt it?) and morality be damned.

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

The fact is that you are NOT the arbiter of someone else's morals, and that's a GOOD thing, too, based on your lack of comprehension of this case. The 2 pharmacists in question are the OWNERS of their pharmacies, NOT employees. As OWNERS, they have the right to stock or not stock whatever products they see fit, and the court has upheld that right.

Get the fuck over it!

Wasn't referring to this particular case, as it is different because they own it. The SC was right to rule in their favor. The other pharmacists who don't own the pharmacy are not in their position yet they want the same protection. Can't happen.

Also, I can see your religious morality poking through. Your cussing is very Christ like, as many times in the bible he is often over heard telling the Pharisees to "get the Fuck over it". You do your religion proud sir.

 

[shock]

Is the decision limited to a refusal by a self employed pharmacist to fill the presicription.
Is the right of the owner of a pharmacy to hire and fire pharmacists affected?'
May, for example,
a Wal Mart type organizationt base hiring on the basis of the personal views of a pharmacist as to which prescriptions he or she would fill if called upon to do so?
By way of further example, may a WalMart fire a Wal Mart pharmacists who refuses to fill the prescription.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Is the decision limited to a refusal by a self employed pharmacist to fill the presicription.
Is the right of the owner of a pharmacy to hire and fire pharmacists affected?'
May, for example,
a Wal Mart type organizationt base hiring on the basis of the personal views of a pharmacist as to which prescriptions he or she would fill if called upon to do so?
By way of further example, may a WalMart fire a Wal Mart pharmacists who refuses to fill the prescription.

I don't think they'll be able to pull that off since they can't fire a Muslim checkout clerk who refuses to scan pork chops...

 

[spectrumc01]

Is the decision limited to a refusal by a self employed pharmacist to fill the presicription.
Is the right of the owner of a pharmacy to hire and fire pharmacists affected?'
May, for example,
a Wal Mart type organizationt base hiring on the basis of the personal views of a pharmacist as to which prescriptions he or she would fill if called upon to do so?
By way of further example, may a WalMart fire a Wal Mart pharmacists who refuses to fill the prescription.

It's hard to tell. You would think that fair hiring practices would give us the answer but it doesn't. Which has more weight is the question. Does a business have the right to sell what they want, or does the rights of the employees morality trump the right of the owner? I would hope that the right of the owner would win out.

 

[GuyPinestra]

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

The fact is that you are NOT the arbiter of someone else's morals, and that's a GOOD thing, too, based on your lack of comprehension of this case. The 2 pharmacists in question are the OWNERS of their pharmacies, NOT employees. As OWNERS, they have the right to stock or not stock whatever products they see fit, and the court has upheld that right.

Get the fuck over it!

Wasn't referring to this particular case, as it is different because they own it. The SC was right to rule in their favor. The other pharmacists who don't own the pharmacy are not in their position yet they want the same protection. Can't happen.

Also, I can see your religious morality poking through. Your cussing is very Christ like, as many times in the bible he is often over heard telling the Pharisees to "get the Fuck over it". You do your religion proud sir.

That faux superiority of yours comes shining through in this little example, doesn't it? I love it, a Godless liberal idiot wants to judge my 'religion' based on my swearing.

Are you this idiotic in real life, too?

 

[AmyNation]

You won't have to do that with me. I'm the guy who says women shouldn't need abortion because it's so insanely easy to not get pregnant to begin with.

Lol I remember, I believe we bickered over that before.

You think it is hard not to get pregnant? I would point out that millions of women go through their entire lives without getting pregnant, do you think they are smarter or stronger than the rest?

Considering half of all pregnancies in America are unplanned, I'd say it's not quiet as simple as some men seem to think.

 

[spectrumc01]

The fact is that you are NOT the arbiter of someone else's morals, and that's a GOOD thing, too, based on your lack of comprehension of this case. The 2 pharmacists in question are the OWNERS of their pharmacies, NOT employees. As OWNERS, they have the right to stock or not stock whatever products they see fit, and the court has upheld that right.

Get the fuck over it!

Wasn't referring to this particular case, as it is different because they own it. The SC was right to rule in their favor. The other pharmacists who don't own the pharmacy are not in their position yet they want the same protection. Can't happen.

Also, I can see your religious morality poking through. Your cussing is very Christ like, as many times in the bible he is often over heard telling the Pharisees to "get the Fuck over it". You do your religion proud sir.

That faux superiority of yours comes shining through in this little example, doesn't it? I love it, a Godless liberal idiot wants to judge my 'religion' based on my swearing.

Are you this idiotic in real life, too?

Not superiority, I'm who I am, and what you see or read is what you get. You on the other hand wave your morality around and then ditch it whenever you desire. Not judging your religion just noting that you are not a very good adhearant to your faith. It's not your religions fault you can't follow it, or that the standards are too tough for you to follow. Keep trying though you might make it someday. If you think it will help I could pray for you?

 

[Caroljo]

Big government and anti-freedom is "getting one right"?

How is allowing a businessperson to run thier business as they see fit anti-freedom?

Yep and i am free to not use any pharma chain that does not fire a pharmacist for not filling a legal prescription.

Yes, that's your right, and it's the pharmacist's right to not sell something that is against his religious belief. Why condemn someone for standing up for their belief? Go somewhere else then............

 

[GuyPinestra]

Wasn't referring to this particular case, as it is different because they own it. The SC was right to rule in their favor. The other pharmacists who don't own the pharmacy are not in their position yet they want the same protection. Can't happen.

Also, I can see your religious morality poking through. Your cussing is very Christ like, as many times in the bible he is often over heard telling the Pharisees to "get the Fuck over it". You do your religion proud sir.

That faux superiority of yours comes shining through in this little example, doesn't it? I love it, a Godless liberal idiot wants to judge my 'religion' based on my swearing.

Are you this idiotic in real life, too?

Not superiority, I'm who I am, and what you see or read is what you get. You on the other hand wave your morality around and then ditch it whenever you desire. Not judging your religion just noting that you are not a very good adhearant to your faith. It's not your religions fault you can't follow it, or that the standards are too tough for you to follow. Keep trying though you might make it someday. If you think it will help I could pray for you?

Care to provide an example, moron?

 

[martybegan]

I get it now, only pharmacist have this mysterious ability to impose their views on others by not selling something. Do they have form of telepathy that they learn in pharmacy school, or do they use drugs?

Its because is has to do with abortion, and for some people, ANYTHING that interferes with that is a no go, personal choice (ironic isnt it?) and morality be damned.

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

Forcing someone to do something against thier beliefs is a far worse precedent.

One should convince others to beleive in what you do, not force them by governmental fiat, and not for things that only lead to a momentary inconvience, or a little bit of uncomfortableness on the part of another person.

 

[bodecea]

Fine...but they should make sure they put this in big letters at their pharmacy so people don't bother to go there. Let the market determine.

 

[spectrumc01]

Its because is has to do with abortion, and for some people, ANYTHING that interferes with that is a no go, personal choice (ironic isnt it?) and morality be damned.

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

Forcing someone to do something against thier beliefs is a far worse precedent.

One should convince others to beleive in what you do, not force them by governmental fiat, and not for things that only lead to a momentary inconvience, or a little bit of uncomfortableness on the part of another person.

Everyone has a choice to do or not to do something. It is the consequences of that choice that are being brought into question. As a person looking for a job one should always decide if they can do the job before they accept the position. The owner has a responsibility to explain what the position entails before the hiring process continues forward. If the owner explains that the pill is offered and sold here the employee should voice their concerns then turn the job down.

 

[AmyNation]

Fine...but they should make sure they put this in big letters at their pharmacy so people don't bother to go there. Let the market determine.

I agree, I think there is an assumption when you visit a pharmacy that they will dispense you whatever medicine is prescribed. Any pharmacy that wishes to not dispense on religious/moral grounds should have a posted sign saying so.

 

[spectrumc01]

The fact is that you are NOT the arbiter of someone else's morals, and that's a GOOD thing, too, based on your lack of comprehension of this case. The 2 pharmacists in question are the OWNERS of their pharmacies, NOT employees. As OWNERS, they have the right to stock or not stock whatever products they see fit, and the court has upheld that right.

Get the fuck over it!

Wasn't referring to this particular case, as it is different because they own it. The SC was right to rule in their favor. The other pharmacists who don't own the pharmacy are not in their position yet they want the same protection. Can't happen.

Also, I can see your religious morality poking through. Your cussing is very Christ like, as many times in the bible he is often over heard telling the Pharisees to "get the Fuck over it". You do your religion proud sir.

That faux superiority of yours comes shining through in this little example, doesn't it? I love it, a Godless liberal idiot wants to judge my 'religion' based on my swearing.

Are you this idiotic in real life, too?

Calling me a godless liberal implies that you are a god fearing conservative. You have admitted you religiosity when you said ,"liberal idiot wants to judge my 'religion' based on my swearing."

"The fact is that you are NOT the arbiter of someone else's morals," this is what you said, and it also imparts to me that you view your morals as being superior to mine.

Here are your examples.

 

[Caroljo]

Big government and anti-freedom is "getting one right"?

So forcing someone to do something they don't want to is freedom to you? Yeah....statist's unite....They got this correct. If you want it then take it to a pharmacist that will fill it...its just like when my pharmacy doesn't have a medicine I may need I go to a different one...

Religion has no place when it comes to what pharmaceuticals someone can, and can not get just because some nuts want to force their religion on others.

If they have an issue with this, they are in the wrong line of work.

So you think forcing someone to go against their religious values is ok....just because YOU want something. Figures......
Where's the tolerance for others that liberals always talk about? Read my avatar....it's EXACTLY what liberals do!

 

[spectrumc01]

So forcing someone to do something they don't want to is freedom to you? Yeah....statist's unite....They got this correct. If you want it then take it to a pharmacist that will fill it...its just like when my pharmacy doesn't have a medicine I may need I go to a different one...

Religion has no place when it comes to what pharmaceuticals someone can, and can not get just because some nuts want to force their religion on others.

If they have an issue with this, they are in the wrong line of work.

So you think forcing someone to go against their religious values is ok....just because YOU want something. Figures......
Where's the tolerance for others that liberals always talk about? Read my avatar....it's EXACTLY what liberals do!

I have to agree with you to a point. No one should be forced to go against their religious beliefs. You however must admitt that when it comes to tolerance, religion is the last place you should look for tolerance. Do they tolerate gays? Do they tolerate a womans choice to choose? and so on and so on. If you support the boy scouts right to decide who can be a scout master or not you have to support the right of a pharmacy to decide to fire a pharmacist for not selling the pill.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Well, whattya know -- the court got one right.

Big government and anti-freedom is "getting one right"?

Boy, you are an idiot. No, the pharmacist cannot be forced by the idiots to sell something he doesn't want to, his right not to. Boy, socialists like you are stupid.

 

[AmyNation]

Religion has no place when it comes to what pharmaceuticals someone can, and can not get just because some nuts want to force their religion on others.

If they have an issue with this, they are in the wrong line of work.

So you think forcing someone to go against their religious values is ok....just because YOU want something. Figures......
Where's the tolerance for others that liberals always talk about? Read my avatar....it's EXACTLY what liberals do!

I have to agree with you to a point. No one should be forced to go against their religious beliefs. You however must admitt that when it comes to tolerance, religion is the last place you should look for tolerance. Do they tolerate gays? Do they tolerate a womans choice to choose? and so on and so on. If you support the boy scouts right to decide who can be a scout master or not you have to support the right of a pharmacy to decide to fire a pharmacist for not selling the pill.

Tolerence is not the same as acceptance.

 

[spectrumc01]

The common ground for both acceptance and tolerance is that they both adhere to "live and let live". "Acceptance" is more friendly than "tolerance" but again both "live and let live".