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

[Unknown_Soldier]

So, the person you like has a right but not a must. The person you don't like does have a must. Yes, that's very logical.

See, once again you're worried about the rights that YOU care about, and fuck everyone else.

No, you're the one doing that. All I did was point out how your method of argument is doing that.

Incorrect stupid.

If I have a house and you want to rent it, it is my right to either rent it to you or not. It is NOT your right to make me rent it to you. The ONLY right you have is to either accept the offer of renting it to you or not. If no offer is made you have no recourse.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Stop with your bullshit. This has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

Are you paying attention? Did you read the OP? Did you read the link?

If I own a business and I don't want to carry a product or sell a product, I don't have to have a reason. I can just say "nope, it's mine and I have the right to do what I please."

But if your type of business is regulated by law, you have to comply with the law. If the law says you must dispense, then you must dispense.

You have the right to do business elsewhere.

The pharmasist has the right to get another job if his/hers involves things that offend their religious sensitivities.

 

[Syphon]

the reason things are controlled at the federal level is so that there are uniformity and consistency across state lines. this is why we are called the United States. Lets use the example of Europe, which with the establishment of the EU made things uniform across country lines to promote trade. this was modeled after the US. as we move good and services across state line. the commerce clause allows for the fed to regulate those good and services. if we did not have uniformity with interstate products, the states would need to have individual agreements with other states, and thus would not have to honor certain states laws or regulations. what if say the DMV was returned to the state level. and california had one standard and nevada had another. to be even more specific, ca driving age was 18 and NV was 16. would california be forced to accept nevada law?

yes, they would and have recognized a nevada driver's license as valid in CA

duh, the dmv is at the state level

What kind of dope doesn't understand the concept of reciprocity? Be like moving from Texas to New Hampshire and NH officials saying "oh too bad , we don't recognize your high school diploma as being valid" and poof you're a high school dropout LOL

my exact point as to why things are regulated at the federal level. some things at the state. hence why a drivers license and car insurance are transferable between states. because the fed regulates them. however a license to practice law is not always transferable between states as laws from state to state differ and the bar exam differs. because a law license is regulated at the state level. a state does not automatically have to recognize the laws of another state. medical marijuana and gay marriage are prime examples of this.

also, the way the fed regulate licenses is by not allowing states access to federal highway money if they dont not adhere to certain standards. such as a minimum age to drive and a consistent BAC limit.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Are you paying attention? Did you read the OP? Did you read the link?

If I own a business and I don't want to carry a product or sell a product, I don't have to have a reason. I can just say "nope, it's mine and I have the right to do what I please."

But if your type of business is regulated by law, you have to comply with the law. If the law says you must dispense, then you must dispense.

You have the right to do business elsewhere.

The pharmasist has the right to get another job if his/hers involves things that offend their religious sensitivities.

cite the law, or admit you're a retard and slink away.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Go read some case law? Like what, for example?

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnett where the court ruled that anyone who objects to the pledge of allegiance for religious reasons can refuse to say it, or is the pledge inherently religious in some way?

That's a free speech case. Nice try, though.

How about Cantwell v Connecticut that found that governments could not restrict people from going door to door without a license.

Again, that's a free speech issue.

Or, my personal favorite, Wooley v Maynard where the courts ruled that a person who had a religious objection to a state slogan on a license plate could tape it over.

Once again, that case was decided upon free speech, not religious freedom.

Seriously, what case law are you talking about. Don't challenge me to read case law because I actually have

Apparently, you've not read anything that deals with religious freedom under the first amendment. Because all you can come up with is free speech cases, which have no bearing on this subject.

and I know what it says, go read it yourself, or find something that backs up your claim and prove me wrong.

I dare you.

I've done that several times before, like in the thread about church employers being required to provide health insurance plans that will cover birth control. You continue to ignore it, even when the snake is biting you in the jugular vein.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, my point is that normally, the conservative wing nuts would be making exactly that argument if we were talking about, for example, an employee complaining about their employer not providing birth control coverage as part of their health care coverage, or pretty much any other scenario. But now, when the argument goes against the ideology, people want to insist it's no longer valid. Either it's always valid, or never valid. Validity of an argument does not change based on subject matter.

No they wouldn't, but nice try.

Really? Because that's exactly what has been said by some in the thread about the gay judge who refuses to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples.

So? Prove those people are conservatives. Can I point to the idiotic people who agree with you here and yet take the opposite position there and argue that, because they do it that is what liberals do? Or do they not count?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right? Yes. Must? No

Same as you have the right to go somewhere else to buy your pill. Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

So, the person you like has a right but not a must. The person you don't like does have a must. Yes, that's very logical.

See, once again you're worried about the rights that YOU care about, and fuck everyone else.

No, you're the one doing that. All I did was point out how your method of argument is doing that.

That certainly seems to be your position, doesn't it? On the other hand, I, at least, am consistent, and I always support the right of individuals not to be compelled by the government to do something they disagree with.

 

[saveliberty]

Actually, my point is that normally, the conservative wing nuts would be making exactly that argument if we were talking about, for example, an employee complaining about their employer not providing birth control coverage as part of their health care coverage, or pretty much any other scenario. But now, when the argument goes against the ideology, people want to insist it's no longer valid. Either it's always valid, or never valid. Validity of an argument does not change based on subject matter.

Then you're going to eat it on this one. What this means is the nonCatholic employees should quit or be fired for refusing the healthcare coverage they are offered.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But if your type of business is regulated by law, you have to comply with the law. If the law says you must dispense, then you must dispense.

First, it is not a law, it is a regulation.

Second, you are flat out wrong because the regulation does not actually require a pharmacy to carry and dispense Plan B, it just prohibits you from not carrying for religious reasons. I actually posted links to the actual decision and the findings of facts, you should go read them.

The pharmasist has the right to get another job if his/hers involves things that offend their religious sensitivities.

And you have a right to be a blithering idiot, I would advise you not to advertise it though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes, they would and have recognized a nevada driver's license as valid in CA

duh, the dmv is at the state level

What kind of dope doesn't understand the concept of reciprocity? Be like moving from Texas to New Hampshire and NH officials saying "oh too bad , we don't recognize your high school diploma as being valid" and poof you're a high school dropout LOL

my exact point as to why things are regulated at the federal level. some things at the state. hence why a drivers license and car insurance are transferable between states. because the fed regulates them. however a license to practice law is not always transferable between states as laws from state to state differ and the bar exam differs. because a law license is regulated at the state level. a state does not automatically have to recognize the laws of another state. medical marijuana and gay marriage are prime examples of this.

also, the way the fed regulate licenses is by not allowing states access to federal highway money if they dont not adhere to certain standards. such as a minimum age to drive and a consistent BAC limit.

The federal government does not regulate driver's licenses. In fact, if you move from Texas to California you have to get a new drivers license, and California can actually require you to retake both the written and the driven test before they issue it.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Actually, my point is that normally, the conservative wing nuts would be making exactly that argument if we were talking about, for example, an employee complaining about their employer not providing birth control coverage as part of their health care coverage, or pretty much any other scenario. But now, when the argument goes against the ideology, people want to insist it's no longer valid. Either it's always valid, or never valid. Validity of an argument does not change based on subject matter.

Then you're going to eat it on this one. What this means is the nonCatholic employees should quit or be fired for refusing the healthcare coverage they are offered.

No, the government should be fired for trying to force people to buy a product.

 

[saveliberty]

Actually, my point is that normally, the conservative wing nuts would be making exactly that argument if we were talking about, for example, an employee complaining about their employer not providing birth control coverage as part of their health care coverage, or pretty much any other scenario. But now, when the argument goes against the ideology, people want to insist it's no longer valid. Either it's always valid, or never valid. Validity of an argument does not change based on subject matter.

Then you're going to eat it on this one. What this means is the nonCatholic employees should quit or be fired for refusing the healthcare coverage they are offered.

No, the government should be fired for trying to force people to buy a product.

I think you meant deported.

 

[Syphon]

What kind of dope doesn't understand the concept of reciprocity? Be like moving from Texas to New Hampshire and NH officials saying "oh too bad , we don't recognize your high school diploma as being valid" and poof you're a high school dropout LOL

my exact point as to why things are regulated at the federal level. some things at the state. hence why a drivers license and car insurance are transferable between states. because the fed regulates them. however a license to practice law is not always transferable between states as laws from state to state differ and the bar exam differs. because a law license is regulated at the state level. a state does not automatically have to recognize the laws of another state. medical marijuana and gay marriage are prime examples of this.

also, the way the fed regulate licenses is by not allowing states access to federal highway money if they dont not adhere to certain standards. such as a minimum age to drive and a consistent BAC limit.

The federal government does not regulate driver's licenses. In fact, if you move from Texas to California you have to get a new drivers license, and California can actually require you to retake both the written and the driven test before they issue it.

the fed does regulate it in the manner i previously described. it just does not regulate every aspect of it. it regulates the age, and BAC limit by witholding federal highway dollars for road maintenance. Thus states would rather comply than lose those funds.

this is just one example. the fed also regulates transportation and shipping between states. every see a diesel rig with DOT sticker? that means they are regulated by the federal government. it provides consistency.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

my exact point as to why things are regulated at the federal level. some things at the state. hence why a drivers license and car insurance are transferable between states. because the fed regulates them. however a license to practice law is not always transferable between states as laws from state to state differ and the bar exam differs. because a law license is regulated at the state level. a state does not automatically have to recognize the laws of another state. medical marijuana and gay marriage are prime examples of this.

also, the way the fed regulate licenses is by not allowing states access to federal highway money if they dont not adhere to certain standards. such as a minimum age to drive and a consistent BAC limit.

The federal government does not regulate driver's licenses. In fact, if you move from Texas to California you have to get a new drivers license, and California can actually require you to retake both the written and the driven test before they issue it.

the fed does regulate it in the manner i previously described. it just does not regulate every aspect of it. it regulates the age, and BAC limit by witholding federal highway dollars for road maintenance. Thus states would rather comply than lose those funds.

this is just one example. the fed also regulates transportation and shipping between states. every see a diesel rig with DOT sticker? that means they are regulated by the federal government. it provides consistency.

ANd you're wrong again. What a shock.

The feds only have regulations for speed limits and BAC on interstate highways, which are actually "owned" by the federal government even though each state takes care of that that is located in their own states as far as maintenance and policing. IOW the feds don't know nor care what each state is doing in regards to speed limits on state highways and they don't help fund maintaining them either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a free speech case. Nice try, though.

Let me get this straight, the court specifically ruling that there is a religious exemption to being required to salute the flag means they actually meant it is a free speech issue and that the religious exemption doesn't actually exist.

Again, that's a free speech issue.

Again, despite the fact that the court specifically ruled that the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment applies to states, this was actually a free speech issue, and when they mentioned religion they actually were talking about something else.

Once again, that case was decided upon free speech, not religious freedom.

A free speech issue based on a strong moral stance. By the way, Rhenquist actually argued that the right to free speech could better be served by anyone who objected to the motto could obtain a bumber sticker that proclaimed their opposition to the motto, but the court held that people have a moral right to not say, or do, things that run counter to their beliefs.

Apparently, you've not read anything that deals with religious freedom under the first amendment. Because all you can come up with is free speech cases, which have no bearing on this subject.

Your assertion that cases that are universally recognized as being pivotal religious rights issues have nothing to do with religion does not make them have nothing to do with religion.

I've done that several times before, like in the thread about church employers being required to provide health insurance plans that will cover birth control. You continue to ignore it, even when the snake is biting you in the jugular vein.

You have? Where? All you have done is make unsupported assertions, and then claim that you actually did something else. What are the cases you think are key in religion? Perhaps it is the recent unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC that there are ministerial exceptions to employment laws even in church run schools. Is that the one you are thinking of?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Get in line.

In line for what?

suing me

If I sued you I would have to care enough about you to make my life more difficult, I don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

my exact point as to why things are regulated at the federal level. some things at the state. hence why a drivers license and car insurance are transferable between states. because the fed regulates them. however a license to practice law is not always transferable between states as laws from state to state differ and the bar exam differs. because a law license is regulated at the state level. a state does not automatically have to recognize the laws of another state. medical marijuana and gay marriage are prime examples of this.

also, the way the fed regulate licenses is by not allowing states access to federal highway money if they dont not adhere to certain standards. such as a minimum age to drive and a consistent BAC limit.

The federal government does not regulate driver's licenses. In fact, if you move from Texas to California you have to get a new drivers license, and California can actually require you to retake both the written and the driven test before they issue it.

the fed does regulate it in the manner i previously described. it just does not regulate every aspect of it. it regulates the age, and BAC limit by witholding federal highway dollars for road maintenance. Thus states would rather comply than lose those funds.

this is just one example. the fed also regulates transportation and shipping between states. every see a diesel rig with DOT sticker? that means they are regulated by the federal government. it provides consistency.

You can get a drivers license at 14 in some states, and can legally drive at 12 as long as you stay off highways and public roads. There is no federal oversight of driver's licenses. The drunk driving thing has nothing to do with drivers licenses.

 

[Syphon]

The federal government does not regulate driver's licenses. In fact, if you move from Texas to California you have to get a new drivers license, and California can actually require you to retake both the written and the driven test before they issue it.

the fed does regulate it in the manner i previously described. it just does not regulate every aspect of it. it regulates the age, and BAC limit by witholding federal highway dollars for road maintenance. Thus states would rather comply than lose those funds.

this is just one example. the fed also regulates transportation and shipping between states. every see a diesel rig with DOT sticker? that means they are regulated by the federal government. it provides consistency.

ANd you're wrong again. What a shock.

The feds only have regulations for speed limits and BAC on interstate highways, which are actually "owned" by the federal government even though each state takes care of that that is located in their own states as far as maintenance and policing. IOW the feds don't know nor care what each state is doing in regards to speed limits on state highways and they don't help fund maintaining them either.

look it up again. i didnt say they regulated everything. they regulated part.
see what happens if a state decides to making the legal driving age 14. or wants to make the BAC minimum .10, or wants to allow people to drink while a passenger in a motor vehicle. youre federal funding will be pulled so fast you wont know what hit you.

this proves my point.
Federal requirements for driver's licenses a costly headache for states
"The Real ID Act sets minimum security standards for state IDs, a response to the fact that several Sept. 11 hijackers had U.S. driver's licenses, some of them fraudulent. But the act was tacked onto a military appropriations bill, and critics say it was passed with little debate by Congress and no input from the states, which will wind up footing 99 percent of a very big bill."
and before you go into the see federal regulation costs money, that is not part of the debate here. (oh and Bush signed this into to law when he had a change to veto it and he didnt)

 

[Syphon]

The federal government does not regulate driver's licenses. In fact, if you move from Texas to California you have to get a new drivers license, and California can actually require you to retake both the written and the driven test before they issue it.

the fed does regulate it in the manner i previously described. it just does not regulate every aspect of it. it regulates the age, and BAC limit by witholding federal highway dollars for road maintenance. Thus states would rather comply than lose those funds.

this is just one example. the fed also regulates transportation and shipping between states. every see a diesel rig with DOT sticker? that means they are regulated by the federal government. it provides consistency.

You can get a drivers license at 14 in some states, and can legally drive at 12 as long as you stay off highways and public roads. There is no federal oversight of driver's licenses. The drunk driving thing has nothing to do with drivers licenses.

you can get a permit at 14 in some states but not a license, the only state i could find that an age of 15 was acceptable was montana. and these licenses came with huge restrictions as to appease the fed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the fed does regulate it in the manner i previously described. it just does not regulate every aspect of it. it regulates the age, and BAC limit by witholding federal highway dollars for road maintenance. Thus states would rather comply than lose those funds.

this is just one example. the fed also regulates transportation and shipping between states. every see a diesel rig with DOT sticker? that means they are regulated by the federal government. it provides consistency.

ANd you're wrong again. What a shock.

The feds only have regulations for speed limits and BAC on interstate highways, which are actually "owned" by the federal government even though each state takes care of that that is located in their own states as far as maintenance and policing. IOW the feds don't know nor care what each state is doing in regards to speed limits on state highways and they don't help fund maintaining them either.

look it up again. i didnt say they regulated everything. they regulated part.
see what happens if a state decides to making the legal driving age 14. or wants to make the BAC minimum .10, or wants to allow people to drink while a passenger in a motor vehicle. youre federal funding will be pulled so fast you wont know what hit you.

this proves my point.
Federal requirements for driver's licenses a costly headache for states
"The Real ID Act sets minimum security standards for state IDs, a response to the fact that several Sept. 11 hijackers had U.S. driver's licenses, some of them fraudulent. But the act was tacked onto a military appropriations bill, and critics say it was passed with little debate by Congress and no input from the states, which will wind up footing 99 percent of a very big bill."
and before you go into the see federal regulation costs money, that is not part of the debate here. (oh and Bush signed this into to law when he had a change to veto it and he didnt)

REAL ID is about making it harder to make fake IDs, not about the requirements for actually getting a drivers license. You are seriously loosing this debate, stop while you still have some dignity.