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

[Uncensored2008]

suing me

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

so you backpedal because its annoying.......Awesome

I'm willing to stand in line to piss on you, Pussball!

Standard Disclaimer: As long as you're not on fire, that is....

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would side with the cabbies. However, that doesn't mean that if I stood in line waiting for a cab and there were no more cabs around and the driver refused me service that I wouldn't call him every dirty name in the book, but I would still side with them... after I had simmered down.

Immie

I would be irritated with the airport for limiting competition by issuing licenses rather than letting the free market take care of the issue.

Wow, this is dusting off some cobwebs and goes back a couple of years, but my undergraduate field of study was Industrial Technology. One of the areas of study was Motion and Time Analysis which included a section on Queue Line Management.

As the airline industry enjoyed rapid expansion in the 70's, 80's, and even into the 90's. Unfettered competition actually caused problems at airports because they tend to provide longer more lucrative fairs then normal short-haul urban runs since most airport tended to be outside heavy urban areas. As a result, unregulated cabs would flock to airports and either park in passenger areas or continually circle the streets in loading/unloading zones. This parking and cruising, caused issues and delays for non-cab passengers trying to use the same space.

So using Queue Line Theory, the result was to designate certain areas for cabs. Passengers needing a cab where directed to a specific area where the cabs would be waiting. This improved the efficiency in the loading/unloading zones because empty cabs were not parking and cruising cabs were eliminated from the travel lanes.

Passengers win because they have one (or a few) places where they can find a cab. Cabs win because of the queue they usually spent less time hunting for fares, wasted less gas cruising, and received fewer hassles from airport police/security for blocking loading/unloading zones.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then related to this...

If a pharmacist thus has the religious right not to perform all of the duties of a pharmacist,

does that thus give the employer the right, during the hiring process, to determine this fact and, if he chooses,

then hire someone other than the religious person on the grounds that the other person would be better able to fulfill all of his duties??

Does the employer have the right to directly ask an applicant if they will actually do the job? If they don't it is because the government is full of idiots that support unions over common sense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then related to this...

If a pharmacist thus has the religious right not to perform all of the duties of a pharmacist,

does that thus give the employer the right, during the hiring process, to determine this fact and, if he chooses,

then hire someone other than the religious person on the grounds that the other person would be better able to fulfill all of his duties??

Does the employer have the right to directly ask an applicant if they will actually do the job? If they don't it is because the government is full of idiots that support unions over common sense.

"Does the employer have the right to directly ask an applicant if they will actually do the job?"

Yes.

An employer cannot ask about religion, marital status, children, medical conditions, etc.

However they can define the duties the job is expected to perform and whether the individual will be able to perform those duties as expected.



>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then related to this...

If a pharmacist thus has the religious right not to perform all of the duties of a pharmacist,

does that thus give the employer the right, during the hiring process, to determine this fact and, if he chooses,

then hire someone other than the religious person on the grounds that the other person would be better able to fulfill all of his duties??

Does the employer have the right to directly ask an applicant if they will actually do the job? If they don't it is because the government is full of idiots that support unions over common sense.

Yes. So the answer should be, yes, no employer should have to hire anyone whose religious beliefs prevent him from performing the duties of the job he's being hired for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most people who find a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions that conflict with religious belief totally unacceptable and abhorrent understand that a muslim checkout clerk at the grocery has the right to refuse to check out the bacon and pork chops.

Do you personally believe that a bar owner, for example, should be forced to employ a Muslim bartender whose religion won't allow him to serve alcohol?

Do you personally understand the difference between the state forcing a Muslim who has a religious objection to alcohol to sell beer at the gas station he owns and your absurd attempts to make your analogies actually fit the situation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

This is bullshit. The Courts have NO authority to compel a cab driver to pick up any person for any reason. I don't care who the cab driver is, if they own their cab, they have the right to pick up or NOT pick up, anyone they damn well choose.

Free country - there is a concept here.

I agree. Either we have freedom in this country or we don't. If some nitwit wants to turn down money at his business because he doesn't like someone, by God they have that right, or rather they SHOULD.

You're ignoring the fact that these cab drivers are choosing to work the airport, where the Metropolitan Airports Commission has legitimate jurisdiction.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Do you personally understand the difference between the state forcing a Muslim who has a religious objection to alcohol to sell beer at the gas station he owns and your absurd attempts to make your analogies actually fit the situation?

Nobody is forcing a person to become a pharmacist.

 

[Texanmike]

When I watch this debate and as I read back through it I can't help but wonder who wants to export and who wants to import their ideas and how far do they want this to go?

Everyone keeps ranting and raving about "individual liberty". I'm the biggest advocate of individual liberty you will see. What I don't understand is how does that not include the ability to cede your sovereignty? Are you telling me that a group of people is not free to be part of a collective? What if a large group of people want to live in a place where they can get plan B on demand? Isn't that the idea behind self governance? I have (and I can't stand him) but long defended Romeny's "Romneycare" because it was done at the state level. I don't agree with it, I'm not a proponent of universal healthcare and I hate the idea. Even though I wouldn't vote for anyone who tried to institute such a policy in Texas, (or Lousyanna) I would move the *#$% out if they did institute such a policy but they have the right to govern themselves. I also have the right to be a part of it or to leave.

If you, as an individual, are sovereign and you wish to submit your sovereignty to a government, why are you not allowed to do so? I think it is foolish. I think that it is the ideology of cowards and makes you ripe for exploitation but if that is your desire then do it. In this case, clearly, the people of Washington have elected representatives who had that in mind. They have not demanded (by way of election) a change either. Enjoy the fruits of your decisions. Suffer your consequences. Hell, if the people of Michigan decide to go the way of the 20th century motor company and tax 100% of all income and this distribute it according to need, GO FOR IT. Just leave me out of it.

Now, I have the freedom to be free from it. (Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you). Now you have the argument for State Sovereignty, as made my Mason, Henry, Randolph, Monroe, Jefferson, Taylor and the Republicans (of the 1790's not the crap that call themselves Republicans today). How is it possible for one man to cede his sovereignty to a government while another man retains his own? The only possible way to do that is through the preservation of States Sovereignty. This is the idea that the Republicans argued during the ratification and it is the idea that carried the day in the ratification of the Constitution. Madison eventually signed onto that idea too. Though made some questionable appealings, lets remember he was a monarchist to begin with. He wanted an executive and senate for life. That isn't where he ended up. He vetoed the bonus bill with the second national bank, after proposing the second national bank. How is that significant? Because many of the arguments that the Federalists made were expressly stricken from the Constitution. A lot of the authority (of the federal courts for example) that is claimed today was refuted and defeated during the writing and ratification of the Constitution.

To all of you who declare it a right, please tell me this... if the people of Washington have elected to give up their individual sovereignty to the State then why are you fighting for them? This little mandate will turn into other things. I feel sorry for the pharmacist but there is a problem with the people of the state that would allow such a thing. Encourage the pharmacist to go find employment elsewhere. Why hasn't an advocate of free enterprise offered her a job at another pharmacy elsewhere? That is what should come out of this. Lets just watch them give more and more over to the state and perhaps we can use that as the model for what NOT to do in OUR states.



Mike

 

[Immanuel]

When I watch this debate and as I read back through it I can't help but wonder who wants to export and who wants to import their ideas and how far do they want this to go?

Everyone keeps ranting and raving about "individual liberty". I'm the biggest advocate of individual liberty you will see. What I don't understand is how does that not include the ability to cede your sovereignty? Are you telling me that a group of people is not free to be part of a collective? What if a large group of people want to live in a place where they can get plan B on demand? Isn't that the idea behind self governance? I have (and I can't stand him) but long defended Romeny's "Romneycare" because it was done at the state level. I don't agree with it, I'm not a proponent of universal healthcare and I hate the idea. Even though I wouldn't vote for anyone who tried to institute such a policy in Texas, (or Lousyanna) I would move the *#$% out if they did institute such a policy but they have the right to govern themselves. I also have the right to be a part of it or to leave.

If you, as an individual, are sovereign and you wish to submit your sovereignty to a government, why are you not allowed to do so? I think it is foolish. I think that it is the ideology of cowards and makes you ripe for exploitation but if that is your desire then do it. In this case, clearly, the people of Washington have elected representatives who had that in mind. They have not demanded (by way of election) a change either. Enjoy the fruits of your decisions. Suffer your consequences. Hell, if the people of Michigan decide to go the way of the 20th century motor company and tax 100% of all income and this distribute it according to need, GO FOR IT. Just leave me out of it.

Now, I have the freedom to be free from it. (Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you). Now you have the argument for State Sovereignty, as made my Mason, Henry, Randolph, Monroe, Jefferson, Taylor and the Republicans (of the 1790's not the crap that call themselves Republicans today). How is it possible for one man to cede his sovereignty to a government while another man retains his own? The only possible way to do that is through the preservation of States Sovereignty. This is the idea that the Republicans argued during the ratification and it is the idea that carried the day in the ratification of the Constitution. Madison eventually signed onto that idea too. Though made some questionable appealings, lets remember he was a monarchist to begin with. He wanted an executive and senate for life. That isn't where he ended up. He vetoed the bonus bill with the second national bank, after proposing the second national bank. How is that significant? Because many of the arguments that the Federalists made were expressly stricken from the Constitution. A lot of the authority (of the federal courts for example) that is claimed today was refuted and defeated during the writing and ratification of the Constitution.

To all of you who declare it a right, please tell me this... if the people of Washington have elected to give up their individual sovereignty to the State then why are you fighting for them? This little mandate will turn into other things. I feel sorry for the pharmacist but there is a problem with the people of the state that would allow such a thing. Encourage the pharmacist to go find employment elsewhere. Why hasn't an advocate of free enterprise offered her a job at another pharmacy elsewhere? That is what should come out of this. Lets just watch them give more and more over to the state and perhaps we can use that as the model for what NOT to do in OUR states.



Mike

This is in reference to your point about the people of the state choosing to give up their rights. I completely disagree with you. They did not choose to give up their rights. They elected official who promised them things that were important to them. I highly doubt any candidate for any office promised to legislate that Pharmacists would soon be required to assist in providing abortions to their customers or be faced with fines and penalties.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is that a yes or a no?

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

What if you change the question a million times?

Muslim bartender, that was a well thought out scenario.

Here's the thing, if anyone hires someone and that person preforms the job well, and then the job duties are changed to something that violates their religion, its the fault of the person or state that changed the rules or duties.

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

When are you going to ask a question about religious rights instead of absurd positions? Do you understand that there are Muslims that oppose Plan B, don't you? That this position actually protects them, and Jews, and everyone else who has a religious objection to doing something simply because idiots like you think it is a good idea?

 

[Texanmike]

When I watch this debate and as I read back through it I can't help but wonder who wants to export and who wants to import their ideas and how far do they want this to go?

Everyone keeps ranting and raving about "individual liberty". I'm the biggest advocate of individual liberty you will see. What I don't understand is how does that not include the ability to cede your sovereignty? Are you telling me that a group of people is not free to be part of a collective? What if a large group of people want to live in a place where they can get plan B on demand? Isn't that the idea behind self governance? I have (and I can't stand him) but long defended Romeny's "Romneycare" because it was done at the state level. I don't agree with it, I'm not a proponent of universal healthcare and I hate the idea. Even though I wouldn't vote for anyone who tried to institute such a policy in Texas, (or Lousyanna) I would move the *#$% out if they did institute such a policy but they have the right to govern themselves. I also have the right to be a part of it or to leave.

If you, as an individual, are sovereign and you wish to submit your sovereignty to a government, why are you not allowed to do so? I think it is foolish. I think that it is the ideology of cowards and makes you ripe for exploitation but if that is your desire then do it. In this case, clearly, the people of Washington have elected representatives who had that in mind. They have not demanded (by way of election) a change either. Enjoy the fruits of your decisions. Suffer your consequences. Hell, if the people of Michigan decide to go the way of the 20th century motor company and tax 100% of all income and this distribute it according to need, GO FOR IT. Just leave me out of it.

Now, I have the freedom to be free from it. (Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you). Now you have the argument for State Sovereignty, as made my Mason, Henry, Randolph, Monroe, Jefferson, Taylor and the Republicans (of the 1790's not the crap that call themselves Republicans today). How is it possible for one man to cede his sovereignty to a government while another man retains his own? The only possible way to do that is through the preservation of States Sovereignty. This is the idea that the Republicans argued during the ratification and it is the idea that carried the day in the ratification of the Constitution. Madison eventually signed onto that idea too. Though made some questionable appealings, lets remember he was a monarchist to begin with. He wanted an executive and senate for life. That isn't where he ended up. He vetoed the bonus bill with the second national bank, after proposing the second national bank. How is that significant? Because many of the arguments that the Federalists made were expressly stricken from the Constitution. A lot of the authority (of the federal courts for example) that is claimed today was refuted and defeated during the writing and ratification of the Constitution.

To all of you who declare it a right, please tell me this... if the people of Washington have elected to give up their individual sovereignty to the State then why are you fighting for them? This little mandate will turn into other things. I feel sorry for the pharmacist but there is a problem with the people of the state that would allow such a thing. Encourage the pharmacist to go find employment elsewhere. Why hasn't an advocate of free enterprise offered her a job at another pharmacy elsewhere? That is what should come out of this. Lets just watch them give more and more over to the state and perhaps we can use that as the model for what NOT to do in OUR states.



Mike

This is in reference to your point about the people of the state choosing to give up their rights. I completely disagree with you. They did not choose to give up their rights. They elected official who promised them things that were important to them. I highly doubt any candidate for any office promised to legislate that Pharmacists would soon be required to assist in providing abortions to their customers or be faced with fines and penalties.

Immie

Then recall them or defeat them in the next election. Use whatever remedy is available but do not go above the state level. You (they) elected them, you suffer the consequences. Don't bring me into this which is what you are doing when it comes to using the federal courts. I have much greater influence on my state judges than I do on the federal level. That is exactly the problem. Suppose that this goes all of the way to the SCOTUS and they rule in favor of the state. I doubt it but it is a possibility. Now the federal court has set the precedent that they may make decisions involving the state and what may or may not be sold or required to be sold by private businesses in my state. Now in trying to reverse their fortunes they are going to export their ideas to my state by way of the Supreme court. I had nothing to do with their election and so long as they keep it at the state level, what they do does not affect me. Once you involve courts above the state level you include the possiblity that the federal courts will decide that they need to be more inolved in my life. Not my fault that Washington screwed up and elected people that made a bad law... don't export the consequences to me.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

When I watch this debate and as I read back through it I can't help but wonder who wants to export and who wants to import their ideas and how far do they want this to go?

Everyone keeps ranting and raving about "individual liberty". I'm the biggest advocate of individual liberty you will see. What I don't understand is how does that not include the ability to cede your sovereignty? Are you telling me that a group of people is not free to be part of a collective? What if a large group of people want to live in a place where they can get plan B on demand? Isn't that the idea behind self governance? I have (and I can't stand him) but long defended Romeny's "Romneycare" because it was done at the state level. I don't agree with it, I'm not a proponent of universal healthcare and I hate the idea. Even though I wouldn't vote for anyone who tried to institute such a policy in Texas, (or Lousyanna) I would move the *#$% out if they did institute such a policy but they have the right to govern themselves. I also have the right to be a part of it or to leave.

If you, as an individual, are sovereign and you wish to submit your sovereignty to a government, why are you not allowed to do so? I think it is foolish. I think that it is the ideology of cowards and makes you ripe for exploitation but if that is your desire then do it. In this case, clearly, the people of Washington have elected representatives who had that in mind. They have not demanded (by way of election) a change either. Enjoy the fruits of your decisions. Suffer your consequences. Hell, if the people of Michigan decide to go the way of the 20th century motor company and tax 100% of all income and this distribute it according to need, GO FOR IT. Just leave me out of it.

Now, I have the freedom to be free from it. (Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you). Now you have the argument for State Sovereignty, as made my Mason, Henry, Randolph, Monroe, Jefferson, Taylor and the Republicans (of the 1790's not the crap that call themselves Republicans today). How is it possible for one man to cede his sovereignty to a government while another man retains his own? The only possible way to do that is through the preservation of States Sovereignty. This is the idea that the Republicans argued during the ratification and it is the idea that carried the day in the ratification of the Constitution. Madison eventually signed onto that idea too. Though made some questionable appealings, lets remember he was a monarchist to begin with. He wanted an executive and senate for life. That isn't where he ended up. He vetoed the bonus bill with the second national bank, after proposing the second national bank. How is that significant? Because many of the arguments that the Federalists made were expressly stricken from the Constitution. A lot of the authority (of the federal courts for example) that is claimed today was refuted and defeated during the writing and ratification of the Constitution.

To all of you who declare it a right, please tell me this... if the people of Washington have elected to give up their individual sovereignty to the State then why are you fighting for them? This little mandate will turn into other things. I feel sorry for the pharmacist but there is a problem with the people of the state that would allow such a thing. Encourage the pharmacist to go find employment elsewhere. Why hasn't an advocate of free enterprise offered her a job at another pharmacy elsewhere? That is what should come out of this. Lets just watch them give more and more over to the state and perhaps we can use that as the model for what NOT to do in OUR states.



Mike

This is in reference to your point about the people of the state choosing to give up their rights. I completely disagree with you. They did not choose to give up their rights. They elected official who promised them things that were important to them. I highly doubt any candidate for any office promised to legislate that Pharmacists would soon be required to assist in providing abortions to their customers or be faced with fines and penalties.

Immie

Then recall them or defeat them in the next election. Use whatever remedy is available.

Mike

Easier said than done.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if you change the question a million times?

Muslim bartender, that was a well thought out scenario.

Here's the thing, if anyone hires someone and that person preforms the job well, and then the job duties are changed to something that violates their religion, its the fault of the person or state that changed the rules or duties.

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

What makes you think Muslims weren't included in my answer?

You really don't understand liberals, do you? They assume everyone is a racist/sexist/bigot because they are. They truly cannot comprehend that people who do not judge people on a superficial level actually exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if you change the question a million times?

Muslim bartender, that was a well thought out scenario.

Here's the thing, if anyone hires someone and that person preforms the job well, and then the job duties are changed to something that violates their religion, its the fault of the person or state that changed the rules or duties.

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

When are you going to ask a question about religious rights instead of absurd positions? Do you understand that there are Muslims that oppose Plan B, don't you? That this position actually protects them, and Jews, and everyone else who has a religious objection to doing something simply because idiots like you think it is a good idea?

A Muslim who won't sell beer is no different than a Christian who won't sell Plan B,

so the question is, if you want to dodge it again,

Should an employer have the right to refuse to hire Muslim to work in his convenience store if the Muslim won't sell beer, and should the employer have the right to determine that?

 

[Texanmike]

This is in reference to your point about the people of the state choosing to give up their rights. I completely disagree with you. They did not choose to give up their rights. They elected official who promised them things that were important to them. I highly doubt any candidate for any office promised to legislate that Pharmacists would soon be required to assist in providing abortions to their customers or be faced with fines and penalties.

Immie

Then recall them or defeat them in the next election. Use whatever remedy is available.

Mike

Easier said than done.

Immie

I went back and explained why. Just wanted to point that out.

Mike

 

[Syphon]

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

What makes you think Muslims weren't included in my answer?

You really don't understand liberals, do you? They assume everyone is a racist/sexist/bigot because they are. They truly cannot comprehend that people who do not judge people on a superficial level actually exist.

a GOP/TP member saying that they dont judge people based on a superficial level is quite hilarious.

the GOP is against Gay marriage and gay rights
the GOP would not let Muslims build a mosque in lower Manhattan
the GOP was against the repeal of DADT
the GOP is for forcing prayer into public school, even on people who may not be christian.

your comment is laughable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most people who find a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions that conflict with religious belief totally unacceptable and abhorrent understand that a muslim checkout clerk at the grocery has the right to refuse to check out the bacon and pork chops.

Do you personally believe that a bar owner, for example, should be forced to employ a Muslim bartender whose religion won't allow him to serve alcohol?

Do you personally understand the difference between the state forcing a Muslim who has a religious objection to alcohol to sell beer at the gas station he owns and your absurd attempts to make your analogies actually fit the situation?

The original issue here was about pharmacists EMPLOYED at pharmacies.

The analogy was Muslims EMPLOYED at bars or convenience stores.

What's wrong with the analogy, exactly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

Problem here is not that I support the Muslim cab drivers, it is that you don't. You oppose allowing restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that are public accommodations to discriminate. Taxis are public accommodation and regulated as public transportation in NYC. You support laws and court decisions that tell people they have to serve people they prefer not to do business with, which means you support laws that tell Muslims that drive cabs they have to transport alcohol.

Go ahead, tell me I am the one that is wrong again by trying to trap me into being inconsistent when you are the one that is inconsistent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

What makes you think Muslims weren't included in my answer?

You really don't understand liberals, do you? They assume everyone is a racist/sexist/bigot because they are. They truly cannot comprehend that people who do not judge people on a superficial level actually exist.

In case you missed it, after we finally dragged it out of him, saveliberty agreed that an employer should not have to employ someone who can't do his job because of his religion.