pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Immanuel]

Sigh. States Can decide what products a pharmacy can sell, They can also have optout laws ( four states currently that i read have said laws.)

What i have said and it would seem you are too fucking stupid to realize that we actually agree about the Owner of a drug store. Is that an Owner has the right to not stock certain products that owner chooses not to sell.

With that in mind it has come up where EMPLOYEES have taken it upon themselves to not issue out drugs because of their religious beliefs.

One was fired and the other SUED. I've said the OWNER should either FIRE said employee or just to find some opt out system for said employee. That is up to the Owner to deal with.

Now i'm not sure how fucking stupid you are, but i clearly stated my opinion here. If you can't understand this Or you Immie then you both are hopeless morons.

I understand all of that just fine. That has not been the issue between you and I. The issue between you and I has been your claim to be a protector of liberty when, in fact, in the post right before your claim, you were willing to remove other people's personal liberties.

In regards to this post, we don't have an issue. We have been on the same page in that regard all along.

If you can't understand that, then you are a hopeless moron.

Immie

See now you are just lying to my face.you cant say we dont have any issue and then like other peoples posts who say exactly what you started off doing in this thread.

I am for liberty and ive explained my reason behind it already. Feel free to go back and look...again...

You frigging just lied again. Are you stupid? Don't answer that, we already know the answer.

We don't have an issue regarding the actions of the owner and the employee. We never have. We have a problem with your deceitful statements when you claim to be for personal liberties and right before that you very clearly preached removing the personal liberties of people you do not agree with.

How can you be so stupid? You represent personal liberties in the same manner that TM represents truthfulness or intelligence.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not how it works.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, you need to show how they are prohibited from doing it.

Read the 14th Amendment sometime, you might learn something.

The 14th Amendment does not supercede the rest of the Constitution. And it's not the all encompassing powerful doctrine the right makes it out to be. It's more of a catch all. The Constitution provides some very broad powers to the Federal Government. And for a reason. It's so that the rights of citizens are uniform within the country.

That the right makes it out to be? It was the Supreme Court who declared that federal civil rights laws were unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it says. For the record, the 14th doesn't supersede anything, it simply means that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States cannot be taken away by the states. Without it you could not argue that the constitution prevents a state from requiring you to pray in school, go to church, or any of the other things you don't like that some people would love to be able to make you do. In other words, you cannot use the 14th to preserve the rights you like and then pretend it does not apply to the ones you do not like.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.

Wow.

That really puts a damper on Obama's war against the first amendment.

 

[Immanuel]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

you think birth control is killing babies?

I know you know what sarcasm means.

Immie

 

[elvis]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

you think birth control is killing babies?

I know you know what sarcasm means.

Immie

yes I do. the sarcasm seemed to be aimed at "horrible pharmacists" not at the "killing babies"

 

[Uncensored2008]

People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.

Of course, seeing you and the other unbathed Marxists "boycotting" a pharmacy is probably the best advertisement the pharmacy could as for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why are atheist less tolerant of people of faith than people of faith are of atheist?

Because Atheists are insecure in their faith.

 

[uscitizen]

Pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill what they want to refruse to fill. And their customers should have every right to take their business elsewhere. When did the consumer forget that he is king?

I completely agree.

Immie

Umm with the day after pill they only have to delay the customer of a day or so.


I once had a pharmicist refuse to fill a pain pill prescription for me.
I complained to the state medical board.
I heard the pharmacist was put on probation for his sins.

Would it be a religious thing for a pharmacist to refuse to prescribe other non pregnancy related medicines? Where would it stop?
NO viagra prescriptions?

 

[Immanuel]

you think birth control is killing babies?

I know you know what sarcasm means.

Immie

yes I do. the sarcasm seemed to be aimed at "horrible pharmacists" not at the "killing babies"

Actually, it was aimed at politicians who think they can dictate to the owners of a business what products they will sell.

Immie

 

[boilermaker55]

Where is all of this taking place? Is it concetrated to a certain part of the country?
Where I live I find no evidence of this happening or has it ever happened.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.

Of course, seeing you and the other unbathed Marxists "boycotting" a pharmacy is probably the best advertisement the pharmacy could as for.

I can see it now, Occupy Wal Greens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

Strawman.

No it's not.

That's a very real possibility. That's what the whole case is about.

It is only a real possibility to idiots that think a Christian Scientists would go to school for years studying how medicine, something he thinks is the equivalent to believing in the healing powers of snake oil, and its affects on the human body just to become a licensed pharmacist so he could deny other people access to medicine. There are a lot of easier ways for them to get their message across, like reading rooms in every city.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I agree. I should have the right to refuse to inspect whatever plane I want to refuse to inspect and I shouldn't have to tell anyone about it.

Hell, I should even sign off the inspection without doing the work, it's my right.

Should an American inspector have the right to refuse to inspect North Korean fighter bombers on the grounds that he opposes the goal of North Korea? Do you think Obama should be able to force that person to inspect planes that may be used against him?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Strawman.

No it's not.

That's a very real possibility. That's what the whole case is about.

It is only a real possibility to idiots that think a Christian Scientists would go to school for years studying how medicine, something he thinks is the equivalent to believing in the healing powers of snake oil, and its affects on the human body just to become a licensed pharmacist so he could deny other people access to medicine. There are a lot of easier ways for them to get their message across, like reading rooms in every city.

And that is totally ignoring the fact that if some idiot wants to buy a building , hang a sign on the outside that says Pharmacy and just sit there all day long every day with NO product to sell that is HIS absolute right. Hell, he can even call it a pharmacy and sell shoes if he likes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Marriage is a religious/social issue, not a state, or federal one. Unfortunately, states decided they have the power to regulate marriage, and actually require people to pay a fee before they get married. That makes them wrong, in my opinion.
...

Marriage is a religious issue, not a state, or federal, one.

I figured it was worth dealing with this part of your post seperately.

Marriage is a religious issue. You can go to your church and marry whomever the church will allow you to marry. It is not legally binding until you get it done through the state. Since you are asking the state to validate a contract there are certain requirements you must fulfill. THAT is what you go to the state for.

Stop trying to use the Constitution and start reading it.

Mike

I am not asking the state to validate anything, I do not need their validation to get married. In most states all it takes to be married is that you live together and tell other people that you are married, no validation required. States prefer that you get officially married so they can track you better, and restrict who you can, and cannot, marry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

If that Christian Scientist were the owner of the pharmacy, he would have every right to do as you state. He'd go out of business but that is his perrogative. Why would you deny him this right?

If he were an employee, his boss would have every right to terminate him if the employer so desired. Again, why do you feel you have the right to make that decision for the employer?

Do you really believe you are better than these two individuals? Wait, you don't really need to answer that last question. I expect most of us know what your answer will be.

Immie

we have a liquor store in town who's owner refuses to stock Heineken. I think I'll sue him, I have a right to buy Heineken from him.

It is discrimination because he is Jewish and Heineken is German, I award you $40 million.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Read the 14th Amendment sometime, you might learn something.

The 14th Amendment does not supercede the rest of the Constitution. And it's not the all encompassing powerful doctrine the right makes it out to be. It's more of a catch all. The Constitution provides some very broad powers to the Federal Government. And for a reason. It's so that the rights of citizens are uniform within the country.

No. It is so that the rights of the citizens are uniform within the state. It does not say that you must respect the laws of another state, only that you must uniformly apply the laws in your own state.

It also says that No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States. Look up abridge for me quickly. The amendment was not intended to create new freedoms, it was not intended to catch all.

People have become so accustomed to listening to the "legal elite" that they refuse to read the documents for themselves, instead finding their opinions merely repeat whatever they have been told.

Mike

How is freedom of religion something new?

 

[Mustang]

I remember the first time I ever read about a pharmacist refusing to honor a valid prescription from a doctor to his patient because of so-called conscience. It flabbergasted me that any pharmacist could try to interject him or herself into the doctor patient relationship.

The pharmacist is asked to prescribe the medication and isn't asked to take the medication. He isn't really involved in the doctor patient relationship in any relevant way.

The good analogy would be this: If a man came into a restaurant and ordered pork chops which were on the menu and a Jewish waiter refused to serve the meal due to religious objections.

Where does this silliness end? There's all manner of products and medicines that are sold in pharmacies that can be used and are used in ways that religious and nonreligious people might find objectionable. What business is it of theirs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You realize if they say they object to you having that item because of their religious reasons, you can sue them, right?

No you cannot.

When a Pharmacist Refuses To Fill a Prescription

yes you can.

In several highly publicized incidents in Texas and Wisconsin, pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pill based on religious or ethical beliefs. The Texas pharmacists lost their jobs, and the Wisconsin pharmacist was sued. Though such severe consequences are rare, these cases have generated a lot of controversy, and state and federal legislation.

Four states—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota—have passed laws allowing pharmacists to "opt out" of filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable, and at least 13 others are considering doing so.1 The governor of Illinois, on the other hand, introduced legislation to compel pharmacies that carry contraceptives to fill all prescriptions for birth control. At least four other states are considering legislation that would require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions presented to them.

Can I sue you because you are annoying?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I remember the first time I ever read about a pharmacist refusing to honor a valid prescription from a doctor to his patient because of so-called conscience. It flabbergasted me that any pharmacist could try to interject him or herself into the doctor patient relationship.

The pharmacist is asked to prescribe the medication and isn't asked to take the medication. He isn't really involved in the doctor patient relationship in any relevant way.

The good analogy would be this: If a man came into a restaurant and ordered pork chops which were on the menu and a Jewish waiter refused to serve the meal due to religious objections.

Where does this silliness end? There's all manner of products and medicines that are sold in pharmacies that can be used and are used in ways that religious and nonreligious people might find objectionable. What business is it of theirs?

On your first point. No pharmacist is interjecting himself between a doctor/client relationship. BUT why are you okay with the government interjecting itself into a business/customer relationship?

As to your analogy. If the owner of the restaurant Jewish I doubt the pork chops would be on the menu, and if not I'm reasonably certain he would have approved of the dirty Jew not serving them when ordered.