Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
I'm not forgetting that. And yes, you need the federal government for certain things. Interestingly enough, the AoC included a right to travel. I have said (not here because it has never come up) that there should be an amendment that includes the right to travel written for quite some time.
You do not understand federalism as defined by the authors/ratifiers of the Constitution. Even the federalists (who were, in reality, nationalists) did not agree with your sentiments. If you want to understand it then you must read what they wrote. Every time I mention what they wrote you scoff and declare that I can't possibly know what they meant. You do that without reading what they wrote which is funny.
Again, you are free to hold your own opinion but you do so wilfully ignoring what the original authors wrote. That is your perrogative but do not tell me that I don't get it when you insist on NOT reading what is available to you.
The first line in my signature applies here.
Mike
I am not the one who is scoffing at your attempts to expound on what the founders wanted. I generally just ignore that because it is pretty much irrelevant. We now have the 14th Amendment which was clearly meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It doesn't even matter if that is right or wrong, it simply is. None of that means I haven't read the Federalists papers, it just means that you are ignoring the fact that the Constitution is substantially different from what they wanted.
In other words, the states no longer have the ability to broadly experiment and test social theories. We are stuck with a system that has an federal government that interferes with some of the things states should be able to do, and that did not occur because the courts have spent 235 years expanding their power. The courts actively resisted being forced to incorporate federal rights against states, they even ruled the first civil rights bill unconstitutional in the hope that moderates in southern states would work to preserve and expand civil rights for blacks.
It took a century after that before federal courts finally accepted that states were not following the advise of the court and start to intervene, finally allowing Congress to enact laws that addressed the fact that states were denying rights to people.
As I've said numerous times. The federalist papers are just the beginning.
The Constitution, and the amendments, were contracts that were signed. The meaning of a contract doesn't change and it is my goal to restore the validity of the contracts.
And again. You are wrong about the 14th amendment. It was not meant to incorporate the BoR on the states, it was meant to prevent the states from treating people differently within the states. It was not to confer new rights but to ensure the rights that already existed were preserved for everyone.
Mike
Everything.
What is specifically wrong with the analogy?
They were all pathetic from start to finish. None of them even mentioned the state compelling people to do anything.
What state law requires the hippocratic oath as a condition of receiving a degree?
(or as part of an appropriate medical license?)
>>>>
As far as I know, all of them because they require people who take licensing tests meet the requirements of the AMA, which includes the oath.
1. Doctor's are not required to belong to the AMA to receive a medical license from a state.
2. The AMA does not require the Hippocratic Oath.
3. Individuals can voluntarily take any oath they wish, but it does not impact their ability to receive a license.
"The AMA does not have formal policy related to the Oath. Some of the tenets of the Oath represent long-standing ethical traditions that the AMA supports, while others are somewhat outdated. A May 2000 article from AMNews discusses the modern meaning of the Hippocratic Oath.
The AMA used to reprint a translation of the Oath in our Code of Medical Ethics. We still have information on the history and relation of the Oath to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics included in the preface to the Code.
Physicians may take other oaths when they begin or when they graduate from medical school. In addition, they may pledge to uphold professional standards and codes of ethics when they become members of professional associations, such as the AMA or their specialty or state medical society. For instance, every physician who is a member of the AMA must uphold the AMAs Principles of Medical Ethics.
Because most oaths and codes are administered by voluntary associations and not by regulatory agencies (such as the state agencies that issue licenses to practice medicine), the most serious disciplinary action these voluntary associations typically can take is to expel the member physician from the association.
However, regulatory agencies that oversee physicians take allegations of unethical or unprofessional conduct very seriously, and such actions may warrant more serious disciplinary action against a physicians license to practice. For further information on how to contact these agencies, please see the information above on how to file a complaint."
Frequently Asked Questions in Ethics
>>>>
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.
That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.
Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.
Rights are always limited.
What is specifically wrong with the analogy?
They were all pathetic from start to finish. None of them even mentioned the state compelling people to do anything.
If the state compels a pharmacy to employ pharmacists who'll only do part of their job, what's that?
You are wrong about the 14th amendment. It was not meant to incorporate the BoR on the states, it was meant to prevent the states from treating people differently within the states.
I guess as far as I know was completely off base then, wasn't it?
What is specifically wrong with the analogy?
They were all pathetic from start to finish. None of them even mentioned the state compelling people to do anything.
If the state compels a pharmacy to employ pharmacists who'll only do part of their job, what's that?
I guess as far as I know was completely off base then, wasn't it?
:Shrug:
It came up in another thread on another board a long time ago and I happened to check on it and it stuck in my head.
>>>>
That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.
Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.
Rights are always limited.
I guess as far as I know was completely off base then, wasn't it?
:Shrug:
It came up in another thread on another board a long time ago and I happened to check on it and it stuck in my head.
>>>>
I don't mind learning new facts. I always thought the oath was a requirement, it might help in the future to know it isn't.
I'm requiring my doctor to recite it before any major medical attention.
I'm requiring my doctor to recite it before any major medical attention.
What good is that if he/she doesn't take it to heart?
Hell, people swear to tell the truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth on a bible and they still commit perjury. You can ask me to recite the oath too, but if I don't believe in what it says, what have you accomplished?
Immie
I'm requiring my doctor to recite it before any major medical attention.
What good is that if he/she doesn't take it to heart?
Hell, people swear to tell the truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth on a bible and they still commit perjury. You can ask me to recite the oath too, but if I don't believe in what it says, what have you accomplished?
Immie
Basis for a good lawsuit.
you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.
Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.
Rights are always limited.
One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.
you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.
Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.
Rights are always limited.
One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.
wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what? your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking. why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before? why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs? what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything? since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void. they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life. the religious right always gets this wrong. this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school. well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.
Wow, did you get that backwards. The only way that would work is if the pharmacists don't have any rights themselves. Are they slaves?
