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

[Cecilie1200]

Guns of course have oyher uses then killing people. A better question would be would a gunsmith have the right to not sell hollowpoint bullets just because he chooses to be a gunsmith?

Every single business on the planet makes choices about what goods and services they will and won't provide, based on a variety of factors. Why is this such a new and shocking concept to liberals?

To be honest, I don't think it's a liberal /conservative thing. I think it's a selfish person thing. And yes some conservatives can be selfish as well as not all liberals are selfish.

It's like I said, if I want a particular product that a store doesn't carry I go to another store. It's that simple. I don't stand there and stamp my feet that I have a RIGHT to buy whatever product I want wherever I want, nor do I sue.

Honestly, this case should not have survived a summary judgement. A judge should have said "are you crazy?" to the plaintiff then fined them for wasting everyone's time.

When I was kid me and my siblings fought a LOT. At first we ran to mom and dad when we thought one of us wronged the other, but then as we grew older we began to realize that running to mom and dad every time we didn't get our own way sometimes had far reaching consequences that weren't necessarily what we wanted, so we began to work things out amongst ourselves more often. Like the adults we were growing into.

Unfortunately many people aren't growing up, they are just getting older.

I think such extreme self-centeredness IS a very liberal mindset, which has, unfortunately, infected large segments of our society, and you are quite correct, by no means just the liberal people.

 

[Syphon]

If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.

Umm, that would be discrimination based on current law. Now I agree with you that a person should be able to discriminate in their own business dealings , under current law we can not.

How come so many on this board are incapable of comparing apples to apples?

what if he called it his religious belief? would that be acceptable then?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.

No, it's not wrong. These people need to have their eyes examined. The fact that Plan B does not commit murder is an objective empirical fact. No amount of invoking God's name will change that. There is nothing that requires the government, much less makes it a good idea for government, to tolerate excuses of religious belief to defy plain and simple facts. Any pharmacist who doesn't understand how Plan B works is incompetent to do their job, period. The emperor is just naked.

And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.

There is a legitimate government interest to establish employment law, and to regulate the industry of pharmacists. Requiring pharmacists to dispense medication without regard to claims of personal religious belief is a legitimate for the government to require. What would be unreasonable would be for the government to grant exceptions to general law that deals with non religious behavior, based on any old claim of religious belief. Such a position would make every person a law unto himself.

You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.

In other words, you're not interested in considering the consequences of your position, or whether your position actually makes any sense in the grand scheme of things. You want your argument to be adopted, without consideration for whether your method of argumentation is logically valid.

 

[Immanuel]

Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.

No, it's not wrong. These people need to have their eyes examined. The fact that Plan B does not commit murder is an objective empirical fact. No amount of invoking God's name will change that. There is nothing that requires the government, much less makes it a good idea for government, to tolerate excuses of religious belief to defy plain and simple facts. Any pharmacist who doesn't understand how Plan B works is incompetent to do their job, period. The emperor is just naked.

And as you say, you can believe what you want. That doesn't make your insistance of limiting personal liberties ethical, reasonable or moral.

There is a legitimate government interest to establish employment law, and to regulate the industry of pharmacists. Requiring pharmacists to dispense medication without regard to claims of personal religious belief is a legitimate for the government to require. What would be unreasonable would be for the government to grant exceptions to general law that deals with non religious behavior, based on any old claim of religious belief. Such a position would make every person a law unto himself.

You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.

In other words, you're not interested in considering the consequences of your position, or whether your position actually makes any sense in the grand scheme of things. You want your argument to be adopted, without consideration for whether your method of argumentation is logically valid.

No, your hypothetical doesn't fit and we're not playing your games.

Also, I didn't ask you or anyone else to adopt my argument. I stated my opinion. I don't expect anything I say to change anything at all especially not the power grabbing paws of the sob's in the State of Washington that care jack shit about personal liberties.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

if these pharmacists are against the distribution of plan B, are they also against the distribution of the pill or the distribution of condoms as well?

 

[Immanuel]

if these pharmacists are against the distribution of plan B, are they also against the distribution of the pill or the distribution of condoms as well?

Most likely, and I fear that the left wing answer to that is to once again deny rights to individuals that the left wing does not agree with.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.

Umm, that would be discrimination based on current law. Now I agree with you that a person should be able to discriminate in their own business dealings , under current law we can not.

How come so many on this board are incapable of comparing apples to apples?

what if he called it his religious belief? would that be acceptable then?

Look, it's became abundantly clear to me that you are mentally slow so I will try once more to explain this to you, but this is it.

A fire department is a public service, a pharmacy is a private concern. The rules are different.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Bullshit if that is not what is happening now. The state of Washington is insisting that pharmacists who believe that using Plan B is murder commit murder in their eyes. That is flat out wrong.

No, it's not wrong. These people need to have their eyes examined. The fact that Plan B does not commit murder is an objective empirical fact. No amount of invoking God's name will change that. There is nothing that requires the government, much less makes it a good idea for government, to tolerate excuses of religious belief to defy plain and simple facts. Any pharmacist who doesn't understand how Plan B works is incompetent to do their job, period. The emperor is just naked.



There is a legitimate government interest to establish employment law, and to regulate the industry of pharmacists. Requiring pharmacists to dispense medication without regard to claims of personal religious belief is a legitimate for the government to require. What would be unreasonable would be for the government to grant exceptions to general law that deals with non religious behavior, based on any old claim of religious belief. Such a position would make every person a law unto himself.

You can play games with your hypotheticals that do not apply by yourself. I'm sorry, but I am not interested in that game at this time.

In other words, you're not interested in considering the consequences of your position, or whether your position actually makes any sense in the grand scheme of things. You want your argument to be adopted, without consideration for whether your method of argumentation is logically valid.

No, your hypothetical doesn't fit and we're not playing your games.

Also, I didn't ask you or anyone else to adopt my argument. I stated my opinion. I don't expect anything I say to change anything at all especially not the power grabbing paws of the sob's in the State of Washington that care jack shit about personal liberties.

Immie

That guy is a retard, why bother with him? He can't even figure out that the issue of why they choose to not sell something isn't of concern here. It's all about how can the government mandate that anyone MUST serve someone at their own private business?

Does it not compute with them that if this becomes the law that it is a VERY small step to the government dictating that if someone shows up at your house hungry you MUST feed them?

 

[Syphon]

Umm, that would be discrimination based on current law. Now I agree with you that a person should be able to discriminate in their own business dealings , under current law we can not.

How come so many on this board are incapable of comparing apples to apples?

what if he called it his religious belief? would that be acceptable then?

Look, it's became abundantly clear to me that you are mentally slow so I will try once more to explain this to you, but this is it.

A fire department is a public service, a pharmacy is a private concern. The rules are different.

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

Most firemen aren't crazy about running into burning buildings. In fact, fire departments prefer firemen who have a healthy respect/fear of fire to those who want to run into them. As for a policeman that won't fire a gun at someone, cops in the UK don't even carry guns. Personally, I prefer LEOs who won't shoot people to those who think they have a right to shoot people, but I always have been weird.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In other words, you're just talking, without any purpose or relevance to the point you're actually trying to make. Gotcha.

Editing quotes to make it look like a poster is saying things other than what he did is against the rules.



How does that prove you wrong? Is teaching children reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic a strictly religious activity?

STOP LYING, YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT!!!!! I SAID THAT THE COURTS HAVE LONG MAINTAINED THAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS NOT ABSOLUTE, AND THAT IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO BEHAVIOR THAT IS NOT INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS. YOUR OWN EXAMPLE IS STILL COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THAT, AS WELL AS A PLETHORA OF ADDITIONAL CASE LAW. IF YOU CAN'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTLY TO READ A DAMN DOCUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT IT SAYS, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

You have not provided a single example of a case that said anything even remotely close to what you claim the courts have ruled, despite my repeated challenges to do so. You then take a case where a court ruled that teachers are ministers despite the fact that most of what they do has nothing to do with religion.

For the record, the court did rule that choosing ministers is a religious activity. That is actually a side issue, and one which the government never disputed. They argued that, unless a ministers was actually doing ministry work all the time they were not ministers for the purpose of the ministerial exception. The court disagreed.

You can throw fits all day long, the facts won't change.

Well, I can't imagine why "full-time" should matter to anyone. Many small churches can't afford to pay their minister enough for him to make it his full-time job, so in order to meet his calling to pastor that flock, he has to get an outside job. Doesn't make him any less a minister.

The EEOC went even further than full time. They essentially argued that even full time ministers who spent any time at all doing things that were not directly related to their ministry aren't ministers. That would mean that a full time pastor wouldn't be able to do anything that is not directly related to his ministry, like, for example, sweeping the sanctuary or paying the bills, and still be considered a minister.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what if he called it his religious belief? would that be acceptable then?

Look, it's became abundantly clear to me that you are mentally slow so I will try once more to explain this to you, but this is it.

A fire department is a public service, a pharmacy is a private concern. The rules are different.

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

what if he called it his religious belief? would that be acceptable then?

Look, it's became abundantly clear to me that you are mentally slow so I will try once more to explain this to you, but this is it.

A fire department is a public service, a pharmacy is a private concern. The rules are different.

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

You don't have a clue do you?

No you can't discriminate based on color because that is a legally protected group. Even though I think that law is unconstitutional, it IS the law.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Look, it's became abundantly clear to me that you are mentally slow so I will try once more to explain this to you, but this is it.

A fire department is a public service, a pharmacy is a private concern. The rules are different.

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

Of course he can't. That's all he's been doing all thread, making shit up.

 

[Syphon]

Look, it's became abundantly clear to me that you are mentally slow so I will try once more to explain this to you, but this is it.

A fire department is a public service, a pharmacy is a private concern. The rules are different.

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

your analogy is terrible. since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

 

[sealybobo]

Pharmacists can't refuse to provide what is legal by law because of their religious beliefs just like Mohammad Ali coudn't refuse to fight in Viet Nam because of his.

Law trumps religion when they are in conflict. Mormon's can't marry more than one wife for example.

Soon gays will be able to marry because law trumps religion.

 

[Syphon]

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

Of course he can't. That's all he's been doing all thread, making shit up.

what am i making up? im using your same exact argument of religious freedom as a form of legal discrimination.

you are in affect saying that one can refuse to provide goods and services based on my religious beliefs. even if those beliefs target only one specific group of people.

pull your head out.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

your analogy is terrible. since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

You're missing the fucking point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

Of course he can't. That's all he's been doing all thread, making shit up.

what am i making up? im using your same exact argument of religious freedom as a form of legal discrimination.

you are in affect saying that one can refuse to provide goods and services based on my religious beliefs. even if those beliefs target only one specific group of people.

pull your head out.

I've made it clear that I don't think this is about religion, and it DEFINITELY not about discrimination.

 

[Syphon]

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

your analogy is terrible. since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

You're missing the fucking point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

your argument is all over the place. first you say that this is all about religious freedom and that she has a right to discriminate based upon that.

now your changing your whole argument to that government can not force a business to sell a certain product.
which in some ways i agree with... but that is a separate argument.

so which argument are you making?