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

[Immanuel]

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.

/sarcasm on

Wait a minute, can't they simply walk away from the business and go into a new line of work? Shouldn't they have known that eventually the laws would change and that they would have to assist in providing abortions someday in the future?

/sarcasm off
Immie

 

[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.

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.

Are you a mental retard?

That's the same thing you imbecile.

 

[Syphon]

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

discrediting a source is not necessarily a bad thing. bad sources provide bad information. the better question to ask is that if the source is proven valid in the first place, would you accept another's opinion or rather just disagree with it because you refuse to have an open mind and possibly educate yourself?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Really? When were you going to tell me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

People keep forgetting that.

 

[Texanmike]

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

discrediting a source is not necessarily a bad thing. bad sources provide bad information. the better question to ask is that if the source is proven valid in the first place, would you accept another's opinion or rather just disagree with it because you refuse to have an open mind and possibly educate yourself?

I'm fine with discrediting sources. That should be done pretty liberally but when I quote books written by the ratifiers or the authors of the Constitution, or the notes at the ratification debates... I am told (by windbag) that I can't possibly know what they were saying but that somehow, without looking at the original source some SCJ 200+ years later is a better source for what the Constitution means.

I'm making the same argument you are in essence.

Mike

 

[Cuyo]

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.

/sarcasm on

Wait a minute, can't they simply walk away from the business and go into a new line of work? Shouldn't they have known that eventually the laws would change and that they would have to assist in providing abortions someday in the future?

/sarcasm off
Immie

Again, it's not an abortion pill. It is a prophylactic, same as regular BC but higher doses. It will not terminate an existing pregnancy. The only chemical abortion I'm aware of is Methotrexate which is a controlled substance, administered in a hospital.

Other than that, same line but without /sarcasm. You don't want to do the job, do something else you don't find objectionable.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Are you a mental retard?

That's the same thing you imbecile.

QW was a lot closer than you NYC. How about this? If I was a cabbie and a fellow cabbie was Muslim and didn't want fares that had alcohol, I would talk to him. I'd say, hey, if I'm behind you and this happens hail me up and I'll take your fare and you take the next one. If he's really devout, I don't mind helping out a believer. My beliifs are different, but getting along can't hurt.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Nobody is forcing them to be in business in that particular industry. This is exactly the kind of reasoning you would use, for example, toward gay marriage. You'd say that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and that nobody is forcing them to do otherwise. If it was about employers providing coverage for birth control in health insurance plans, you'd say that nobody is forcing the employees to stay at their job. If we were talking about wages being too low, you'd say that nobody is forcing employees to stay in their job as opposed to finding someone else who will pay them more. In any other subject, you'd adopt exactly the same rationale that you are rejecting here.

The simple fact of the matter is that the government has a legitimate place to regulate things, like employment law, and pharmaceutical distribution. These are not religious activities. Therefore, objections to, nor exceptions from, such laws based on the implications of a person's religion are not with standing of any kind. And no concern to the religious affiliation of people who might be involved in these activities should be tolerated, lest we start claiming all kinds of absurdities, like that there is a constitutional right to violate the speed limit because God told me so.

 

[Syphon]

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.

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

 

[saveliberty]

Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

Why would a pharmacist ever think they would be asked to kill someone as a part of their job in an industry that pledges no harm?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 is the opposite of what I said because that is what the government said, and my position is diametrically opposed to theirs.

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.....

How is that not what I said you said? People don't have a right to religious freedom unless you think it involves their religion.

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.

Bingo. They argued that a teacher in a school is, by definition, not a minister. Therefore, the ministerial exception, which did not actually exist before this case, did not apply to her if it actually existed. They were arguing two theories at once, something lawyers, who do not have one track minds, are actually trained to do.

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.

The government argued that teachers are not ministers because their activities are not inherently religious. The court disagreed, which proves you are wrong.

By the way, the case we are actually discussing in this thread where the court ruled that states don't have a right to force people to violate their religion actually disproves your assertion that the state can force pharmacists to ignore their religion just because they invented licensing requirements for pharmacists in order to protect pharmacists from competition.

 

[Syphon]

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

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

Why would a pharmacist ever think they would be asked to kill someone as a part of their job in an industry that pledges no harm?

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

 

[Uncensored2008]

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

Do you think a sporting goods store should have the right to not stock or sell firearms?

 

[Immanuel]

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

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

Why would a pharmacist ever think they would be asked to kill someone as a part of their job in an industry that pledges no harm?

This law is recent and affects many pharmacists who have made the profession their life's work. Fifty years from now, when we have a whole new generation of pharmacists entering the field maybe they should not be afforded the excuse that they never expected to have to participate in the taking of a life.

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Are you a mental retard?

That's the same thing you imbecile.

QW was a lot closer than you NYC. How about this? If I was a cabbie and a fellow cabbie was Muslim and didn't want fares that had alcohol, I would talk to him. I'd say, hey, if I'm behind you and this happens hail me up and I'll take your fare and you take the next one. If he's really devout, I don't mind helping out a believer. My beliifs are different, but getting along can't hurt.

Now you have the controversy at the Los Angeles airport instead. The issue was not only alcohol but five times a day prayers. The muslims would roll out their prayer rugs in traffic because they had no place to pray so the airport gave them a designated area. We had muslims who were permitted to refuse fares with alcohol and dogs and permitted to leave the transport area to pray.

This meant necessarily that non-muslims were making far more money than muslims. The non muslims were accused of fare piracy. The settlement offer was for passengers with alcohol and dogs be prohibited from taking cabs at all and be confined to busses, shuttles and private transportation and for all cab transport to be shut down during prayer times.

I have no idea how this was resolved or if it was. The next round of complaints was whether muslim cabbies should be required to take female passengers dressed immodestly and wearing makeup, as well as passengers who didn't have alcohol on them, but had been drinking.

 

[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.

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

you are forgetting something. Unless the right to travel freely is protected by something other than the state you cede your right not to travel to people who are born to parents in that state are not being given the free choice not to cede their sovereignty. Therefore, either people do not have the right to cede their sovereignty as a group because their is no way to do it without impacting others rights, you haven't actually thought this through completely, or you don't really believe in individual rights.

The reason the federal government exists is to protect against large groups from taking away the rights of individuals even if it is done by mutual consent, until you understand that you don't actually understand the federal system. Which, again, makes my point, the federal courts were doing their job.

 

[Syphon]

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

Do you think a sporting goods store should have the right to not stock or sell firearms?

if a sporting goods store decides that they want to sell that product, if they have the right license, then they are free to do so.

answer my previous question though. if asking a pharmacist to dispense Plan B is aking to murder, how is selling a gun that is used to kill someone any different?

 

[Immanuel]

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

Why would a pharmacist ever think they would be asked to kill someone as a part of their job in an industry that pledges no harm?

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

A person who has a problem with the fact a gun he/she sold to someone else might end up killing someone later, would never become a firearms dealer. It isn't like guns killing people is anything new.

Pharmacists are not being asked to kill someone. They are being forced to assist in the killing of someone. And, this is new to the profession.

Immie