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

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

why would anyone have to have that dragged out of them. The simple facts are the government should have NO business telling us who we can hire or do business with at all. That's right if some moron wants to open a restaurant and hang a sign out that so no blacks, no gays . He should have that right.

He'd go broke and be ridiculed, but he should have that right.

BUT he shouldn't be FORCED to hire only people who are willing to do whatever either, that's HIS , or her, choice.

 

[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.

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.

How would I be inconsistent, given that I do not support the cab drivers OR the pharmacists?

Explain that to me in something remotely resembling a coherent response.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, nice try.

The case specifically deals with a teacher employed by a church run school school, and clearly rejected the governments position that only employees with exclusively religious functions were covered by the ministerial exception, which probably doesn't exist anyway.

Go read the decision before you try to tell me it only deals with ministers.

That's the exact opposite of what it says! Just shut the fuck up already. Either you haven't read it at all, or you are deliberately lying. Either way, just shut the fuck up because you have no business talking about this because you're 100% ignorant.

The Opinion of the Court

The question presented is whether the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an action when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.

In light of these considerations—the formal title given Perich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church—we conclude that Perich was a minister covered by the ministerial exception.

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit.

It doesn't say she is a teacher? IS that honestly your position?

The Roberts opinion dismissed as an “extreme position” the plea of EEOC to limit any “ministerial exception” solely to workers who perform “exclusively religious functions.” While the opinion said the Court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,” the opinion went on to describe some key factors that courts are to take into account in judging whether a given denomination has proved its claim to the exception.
In this particular case, involving a parochial school teacher in Redford, Mich., who spent most of her work time on non-religious duties, the Court found these to be decisive factors: that she was formally commissioned or ordained as a “minister” in the Lutheran denomination’s internal practices, that she did perform “important religious functions” in addition to her teaching of lay subjects in the classroom, and that her non-religious duties, however extensive, did not make a difference. The Chief Justice said the Court was unsure whether any church employee would ever do exclusively religious chores.

Opinion recap: A solid “ministerial exception” : SCOTUSblog

The government's position was that, in the first place, ministerial exceptions don't even exist and that even churches and ministers are subject to employment law. That would actually jibe with your moronic attempt to argue that religious freedom only applies to religion itself, not people. They then argued that, if a ministerial exception actually exists,, it only applies to ministers, not teachers.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

I'm not a liberal so no I don't. There is a place for religious discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

why would anyone have to have that dragged out of them. The simple facts are the government should have NO business telling us who we can hire or do business with at all. That's right if some moron wants to open a restaurant and hang a sign out that so no blacks, no gays . He should have that right.

He'd go broke and be ridiculed, but he should have that right.

BUT he shouldn't be FORCED to hire only people who are willing to do whatever either, that's HIS , or her, choice.

You want to amend the Constitution to allow businesses to resume discriminating because of race?

Good luck with that.

 

[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.

"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.



>>>>

Which is why I phrased my answer the way I did. If anyone asked me about my religions or politics in a job interview I would point out they cannot ask me that. They can, however, ask me about the duties of the job and if I would have a problem performing them.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

why would anyone have to have that dragged out of them. The simple facts are the government should have NO business telling us who we can hire or do business with at all. That's right if some moron wants to open a restaurant and hang a sign out that so no blacks, no gays . He should have that right.

He'd go broke and be ridiculed, but he should have that right.

BUT he shouldn't be FORCED to hire only people who are willing to do whatever either, that's HIS , or her, choice.

You want to amend the Constitution to allow businesses to resume discriminating because of race?

Good luck with that.

The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating, it doesn't apply to private enterprises nor people. Of course the Civil Rights Act does, but I believe THAT portion of the bill is unconstitutional. Or do you also believe the First Amendment means a private company can't restrict your speech in their business?

In this country we absolutely have the right to be discriminatory even to the point of being pigs if we so wish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Someone, however, is trying to force people who own a business to do something that is against their religion.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

They are also ignoring the fact that the cab drivers do not merely show up with their cab. They have a contract with the Commission to transport passengers. They give up the right to refuse service when they sign that contract.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.



>>>>

Which is why I phrased my answer the way I did. If anyone asked me about my religions or politics in a job interview I would point out they cannot ask me that. They can, however, ask me about the duties of the job and if I would have a problem performing them.

Exactly right " Could you disperse Plan B without problems if asked?"

Problem solved.

Even thought I believe an employer should be able to ask "are you a christian and would you let that dictate how you do your job?"

 

[Inthemiddle]

The government's position was that, in the first place, ministerial exceptions don't even exist and that even churches and ministers are subject to employment law.

And that is the exact opposite of what you said earlier. So now, you're going to back pedal all the way into an about face? *shakes head*

That would actually jibe with your moronic attempt to argue that religious freedom only applies to religion itself, not people.

I never said anything like that. Hello!!!!!! Is anyone home? I said that constitutional protections on religious grounds only extends to inherently religious activity. Like holding a church service, praying, selecting the church's ministers.....

They then argued that, if a ministerial exception actually exists,, it only applies to ministers, not teachers.

Actually, the argument was that the plaintiff was not a minister. The court said otherwise, noting several reasons why in its view the plaintiff was indeed a minister for the purposes of a ministerial exception for first amendment purposes.

The opinion of the court does absolutely nothing to support anything you've said. The case involves the church engaging in inherently religious activity (selecting its own ministers) and the court held that the church had a protection against government involvement in that religious activity. The case does nothing to suggest or allege that a person engaged in non religious activities (dispensing legally prescribed medication) has any religious freedom protection that trumps any law regulating the profession, or any law regulating employment.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

They are also ignoring the fact that the cab drivers do not merely show up with their cab. They have a contract with the Commission to transport passengers. They give up the right to refuse service when they sign that contract.

I would have to see this contract to judge if it is legal or not. I've never heard before that a cabbie has signed a contract to pick up every fare that wants to utilize their services. You gotta link?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

As usual, you are asking the wrong fucking question. The question here is do people have the right to cede other people's sovereignty?

So, do they? If you think they do then you are not as big an advocate of individual liberty as you think you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I never dodged the question, I answered it. That is not the issue that is being discussed in this thread, despite your attempt to say otherwise. The issue is does the state have the power to force people to do something against their religion. You keep trying to deflect it into employment issues, which just makes you look really stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Thanks for proving my point. I am not a member of the GOP or the TP, which makes your judgement of me pretty superficial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Everything.

 

[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

As usual, you are asking the wrong fucking question. The question here is do people have the right to cede other people's sovereignty?

So, do they? If you think they do then you are not as big an advocate of individual liberty as you think you are.

The answer to your question is self evident. They are one in the same. Clearly you cannot cede your sovereignty without affecting my sovereignty. How then can you preserve your right to your individual sovereignty and I preserve my right to my sovereignty. The answer is by having two sovereign states.

Again you just don't get it. You have repeatedly shown that all of your information was fed to you without you questioning it. You have nothing to back up your assertions. Here is the key difference between me and you. If you gave me a book from a credible source, I would read it and consider it. If I gave you a book from a credible source that disagreed with your opinion you would discredit the source rather than alter your opinion.

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No he didn't, he agreed an employer should not have to hire anyone who refuses to do his job even if the reason he refuses to do it is religion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I never dodged the question, I answered it. That is not the issue that is being discussed in this thread, despite your attempt to say otherwise. The issue is does the state have the power to force people to do something against their religion. You keep trying to deflect it into employment issues, which just makes you look really stupid.

I'm going to ask you a very simple question:

Did you read any of the actual court decision cited in the OP of this thread, and linked in the link?

That is a yes or no.

 

[Cuyo]

I don't have time to read 32 pages, but this seems silly to me. If you're required by the State to dispense certain things in order to receive the licensing/registration of "Pharmacist," then you're required to do so. If you don't want to, you don't apply for the title, and do something else with your career that you don't find objectionable; that's all.

And Plan B is not an abortion pill as I understand it... But in any event... Can they point to the religion they claim to practice which bans this particular prophylactic but not say, condoms or other prophylactics?