Court sides with pharmacists against emergency contraceptives

[Sinjorri]

Economy recovering.....check

Bin Laden killed.....check

GM rebuilt.......check

What will the Republicans run on?

Anticontraception????

Check.

Brian Terry still dead and no accountability CHECK

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

I am an atheist so not a big fan of religion anyways but this has nothing to do with religion other than the fact it was against their religion to give the pill out. It has to do with the fact the government was trying to force them to do something they don't want to.You allow government to control everything in our lives what's the point of living? We will just be little drones to do as we are told when we are told to do it.Oh and they forced nothing on anyone,they merely will not prescribe the pill,unlike the government who is forcing them to do as they are told or else.Its the government doing the forcing here and not its been shot down as it should be.

Again pharmacies should not have the power to play god to pick and choose what pharmaceuticals they only want to be filled. This is the epitome of big government and anti-freedom because they are forcing their region on people.

Even if it is true that pharmacists are forcing their religion on others, by freely practicing that religion themselves, this is not governmental action. This is an action by an individual doing what they feel is best for themselves. It would be governmental action if the government prohibited the sale of contraceptives. Picking and choosing what prescriptions a pharmacist will fill is not playing God, and in any event they have a right play God in their own lives if they so choose. We already have middle eastern grocery stores that don't sell pork products or meat that's not halal. Aren't they playing God too?

The Court was correct at least this one time. If someone wants to purchase contraceptives they should exercise their own freedoms and go someplace else.

 

[AmyNation]

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".

I would say generally speaking religion in America is tolerant. No religion is promoting discrimination or abuse of anyone else.

 

[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".

I would say generally speaking religion in America is tolerant. No religion is promoting discrimination or abuse of anyone else.

Religion in America is tolerant of other religions for the most part. The only area of concern for me is the pressure that religion is placing on the government to make equal rights for gays a non reality.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Well first religions dont say they practice a blank, undefined tolerance.....that's where liberals go wrong, to get people to support gays they have this huge over arching view of tolerance, but dont practice it.

And then we can get into details, tolerating gays. what does that mean? you let them get married? let them do their thing? or let them live? Some people believe in those ideas. I as a christian will let them live and do their thing (privately), but marriage no.. .So am I intolerant?
So compared to a mullah in Iran, I am tolerant? correct?

But comapred to a liberal, maybe not on this issue, but lets look at all issues, and you'lre be quite suprised that the people wanting gay marriage arent really that tolerant of other points of view, even less so then most conservative christians....

 

[spectrumc01]

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.

Well first religions dont say they practice a blank, undefined tolerance.....that's where liberals go wrong, to get people to support gays they have this huge over arching view of tolerance, but dont practice it.

And then we can get into details, tolerating gays. what does that mean? you let them get married? let them do their thing? or let them live? Some people believe in those ideas. I as a christian will let them live and do their thing (privately), but marriage no.. .So am I intolerant?
So compared to a mullah in Iran, I am tolerant? correct?

But comapred to a liberal, maybe not on this issue, but lets look at all issues, and you'lre be quite suprised that the people wanting gay marriage arent really that tolerant of other points of view, even less so then most conservative christians....

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

 

[Plasmaball]

interesting. If they take on the job of handing out pills and such, and then decide to pick and choose which they will hand out. Thats not doing their jobs correctly. Why bother get into that field anyways if you are not going to do the job correctly?

If i decide at my job not to sell Cigarettes to customers because i choose not to i will be fired. ( this excludes under age or no ID ).

 

[AmyNation]

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.

Well first religions dont say they practice a blank, undefined tolerance.....that's where liberals go wrong, to get people to support gays they have this huge over arching view of tolerance, but dont practice it.

And then we can get into details, tolerating gays. what does that mean? you let them get married? let them do their thing? or let them live? Some people believe in those ideas. I as a christian will let them live and do their thing (privately), but marriage no.. .So am I intolerant?
So compared to a mullah in Iran, I am tolerant? correct?

But comapred to a liberal, maybe not on this issue, but lets look at all issues, and you'lre be quite suprised that the people wanting gay marriage arent really that tolerant of other points of view, even less so then most conservative christians....

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

I really think you are taking extremists and stamping them as Christian.

I know many many christains who supported the repeal of DADT, who support homosexuals having the right to adopt and who even support gay marriage. I also know many who support some but not all. Being anti-gay is not a Christain thing and intolerance is not written in stone for them.

 

[Againsheila]

Court sides with pharmacists against emergency contraceptives

CHICAGO, Ill.— An Illinois appellate court has ruled in favor of two pharmacists who objected to providing emergency contraception because they said it infringed upon their religious beliefs.

A lawsuit by Luke Vander Bleek and Glenn Kosirog challenged a 2005 executive order by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich requiring all pharmacists to fill prescriptions for the so-called morning-after pill.

They argued they were protected by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. That law says health professionals cannot be punished if they refuse to offer a service because of their conscientious convictions.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Friday's ruling applies only to the two pharmacists. But their lawyer, Francis Manion, says the precedent means the state cannot go after other pharmacists who similarly refuse to provide the pill.​

good, besides being against their religion, it's just not good. It doesn't always work and if it doesn't abort the baby it WILL lead to birth defects. Only a doctor should be handing out those pills and then he should be following up with the patients. And yes, the doctors should also be able to refuse based on their religion.

 

[Againsheila]

Well first religions dont say they practice a blank, undefined tolerance.....that's where liberals go wrong, to get people to support gays they have this huge over arching view of tolerance, but dont practice it.

And then we can get into details, tolerating gays. what does that mean? you let them get married? let them do their thing? or let them live? Some people believe in those ideas. I as a christian will let them live and do their thing (privately), but marriage no.. .So am I intolerant?
So compared to a mullah in Iran, I am tolerant? correct?

But comapred to a liberal, maybe not on this issue, but lets look at all issues, and you'lre be quite suprised that the people wanting gay marriage arent really that tolerant of other points of view, even less so then most conservative christians....

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

I really think you are taking extremists and stamping them as Christian.

I know many many christains who supported the repeal of DADT, who support homosexuals having the right to adopt and who even support gay marriage. I also know many who support some but not all. Being anti-gay is not a Christain thing and intolerance is not written in stone for them.

I'm a Christian and I know that children need 2 parents. IMO, when it comes to adoption, first dibs should be heterosexual couples so the child has role models of both sexes. Second should be gay couples because 2 parents, even of the same sex are better than one parent. Last should be single people because 1 parent is better than no parent.

I used to be on the fence of gay marriage but now I've decided let them. I just would like to see one caveat...no more gay pride parades. Even my friends who are gay are ashamed of those things.

 

[spectrumc01]

Well first religions dont say they practice a blank, undefined tolerance.....that's where liberals go wrong, to get people to support gays they have this huge over arching view of tolerance, but dont practice it.

And then we can get into details, tolerating gays. what does that mean? you let them get married? let them do their thing? or let them live? Some people believe in those ideas. I as a christian will let them live and do their thing (privately), but marriage no.. .So am I intolerant?
So compared to a mullah in Iran, I am tolerant? correct?

But comapred to a liberal, maybe not on this issue, but lets look at all issues, and you'lre be quite suprised that the people wanting gay marriage arent really that tolerant of other points of view, even less so then most conservative christians....

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

I really think you are taking extremists and stamping them as Christian.

I know many many christains who supported the repeal of DADT, who support homosexuals having the right to adopt and who even support gay marriage. I also know many who support some but not all. Being anti-gay is not a Christain thing and intolerance is not written in stone for them.

Well maybe I am and maybe I'm in error. I have Catholic relatives who say if you support gay marriage you are not a Catholic. The Angelican church recently split over gay clergy. I have co-workers who are Born again Christians and they are rabidly anti gay. I honestly don't know any Christians who support equal rights for gays.

Most Christians that I know say that if you support gays you are not a Christian.

 

[AmyNation]

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

I really think you are taking extremists and stamping them as Christian.

I know many many christains who supported the repeal of DADT, who support homosexuals having the right to adopt and who even support gay marriage. I also know many who support some but not all. Being anti-gay is not a Christain thing and intolerance is not written in stone for them.

I'm a Christian and I know that children need 2 parents. IMO, when it comes to adoption, first dibs should be heterosexual couples so the child has role models of both sexes. Second should be gay couples because 2 parents, even of the same sex are better than one parent. Last should be single people because 1 parent is better than no parent.

I used to be on the fence of gay marriage but now I've decided let them. I just would like to see one caveat...no more gay pride parades. Even my friends who are gay are ashamed of those things.

You are completely wrong what the morning after pill does, and about how it works.

It prevents conception, it does not abort already implanted eggs, and it does not cause birth defects.

 

[AmyNation]

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

I really think you are taking extremists and stamping them as Christian.

I know many many christains who supported the repeal of DADT, who support homosexuals having the right to adopt and who even support gay marriage. I also know many who support some but not all. Being anti-gay is not a Christain thing and intolerance is not written in stone for them.

Well maybe I am and maybe I'm in error. I have Catholic relatives who say if you support gay marriage you are not a Catholic. The Angelican church recently split over gay clergy. I have co-workers who are Born again Christians and they are rabidly anti gay. I honestly don't know any Christians who support equal rights for gays.

Most Christians that I know say that if you support gays you are not a Christian.

75% of our nation identifies as Christain, which means a majority of democrats are Christain. It sounds like you know some rabid christains, but christains don't all think alike, and they all aren't anti-gay.

 

[spectrumc01]

So you could say they are the "Silent majority", who stand back and let the rabid Chistians ruin their good name. For evil to succeed good people must do nothing.

 

[AmyNation]

So you could say they are the "Silent majority", who stand back and let the rabid Chistians ruin their good name. For evil to succeed good people must do nothing.

When you see rallies and protests for gay rights, you're seeing Christians.
When you see bills purposed that give rights to homosexuals, those bills were written by Christians.
When you see calls to give equal rights to gays, many of those calls are made by Christians.

We are a majority Christain nation. They are the majority in both the things you agree with, and the things you disagree with.

 

[spectrumc01]

So you could say they are the "Silent majority", who stand back and let the rabid Chistians ruin their good name. For evil to succeed good people must do nothing.

When you see rallies and protests for gay rights, you're seeing Christians.
When you see bills purposed that give rights to homosexuals, those bills were written by Christians.
When you see calls to give equal rights to gays, many of those calls are made by Christians.

We are a majority Christain nation. They are the majority in both the things you agree with, and the things you disagree with.

Is it possible to support Gay rights and be a christian at the same time?
How is that for a poll question?

 

[AmyNation]

So you could say they are the "Silent majority", who stand back and let the rabid Chistians ruin their good name. For evil to succeed good people must do nothing.

When you see rallies and protests for gay rights, you're seeing Christians.
When you see bills purposed that give rights to homosexuals, those bills were written by Christians.
When you see calls to give equal rights to gays, many of those calls are made by Christians.

We are a majority Christain nation. They are the majority in both the things you agree with, and the things you disagree with.

Is it possible to support Gay rights and be a christian at the same time?
How is that for a poll question?

Or you could just google "Christains for gay rights" and see all the groups that come up.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no equality of evil and good. Some Christians rationalize it out but it doesn't change the facts. What gays do and who they live with is none of my business. Whether a woman uses contraceptives or not is no business of the pharmacist. When pharmacists must comply with laws they clearly don't agree with it becomes their business. Whatever rights the person looking for contraception has does not impose, or at least should not impose an obligation on anyone else to make sure they get what they want. It is no different than a doctor who determines that they can't in good conscience give children vaccinations. Or a drug store that won't sell ephedra containing cough syrup.

If someone doesn't like the business decisions of a given enterprise, go someplace else.

 

[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?

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.

Calling you a Godless liberal implies that you are a Godless liberal. Nothing more, nothing less.

So observing and commenting on your penchant for judgmentalism equates to "admitting my religiosity"?

Where in my statement did I claim to have ANY morals? I simply stated that you were not the arbiter of SOMEONE ELSE'S.

You should try reading what is in front of you instead of reading INTO IT your own predilections and prejudices.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pepsi and coke don't prevent a pregnancy, and no one refuses to sell them because of their religion.
If you can't keep your religion out of your job, then find another damned job.

If you don't have an answer, just admit it. How does the fact that a pharmacist doesn't sell something mean he is imposing his views on someone? Does he take the people that come in for that product into a back room and not let them leave until they convert to his views? Explain the thought process here, because it doesn't make sense to anyone that can think.

It's like the whites and blacks only drinking fountains. No one forced the blacks to drink from that fountain, they could have gone elsewhere. Blacks riding the back of the bus, what was there complaint, they still got to ride the bus. Jim crow laws, they weren't denied the right to vote they just had to qualify. Pharmacists have the morning after pill they just won't sell it. They aren't saying you can't have it, you just can't get it there. This is corelation that people make, if you can't see that your blind. Weather you agree or disagree with it wrong is wrong. When people are allowed to start using their personal beliefs when deciding which part of their jobs they wish to do then we are in trouble. We seen this type of thing before in our military. People join and when war breaks out they become conscientious objectors. Now we have gays trying to sue churches because they won't let them get married, and their precedent is the pharmacists. This is a bad idea all the way around.

Wow. Not only is that analogy completely wrong, you just proved how impossible it is to defend the claim that not selling something is forcing your beliefs on others. We need to immediately pass laws forcing McDonald's to start selling KFC in order to prevent them from forcing us to believe in hamburgers.