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

[Texanmike]

Wow,

I am gone for a weekend and this thread is still going? Somebody was talking about Bingham and the 14th amendment with me and I saw their post but then the weekend happened. Not really going back to look it up but I just wanted to point out that the point while Bingham did say that (and a lot of other contradictory things) the same people who passed the amendment and ratified it voted on several amendments afterwards that were designed to apply the BoR to the states. If the people who ratified the 14th intended it to incorporate the BoR then why were those same people writing and trying to ratify that very same thing?

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The pharmacy times (Pharmacy Times - Practical Information for Today's Pharmacist) has a bit of a different intrepetation than you have:

Very little is being "forced" outside of the long-accpeted "usual and customary" mandates that are understood to go beyond the costs applications they once had.

Are you incredibly stupid, or do you just act like you are.

Read the fucking decision, the defendants clearly proved that the rule was not evenly enforced, and that some pharmacies are actually allowed to not carry Plan B. For some reason that is unavailable on the official record anywhere the only pharmacy in the entire state that was required to actually carry Plan B. Even pharmacies at Catholic hospitals were never actually required to have Plan B on hand.

Perhaps you should re-read my post...I'm agreeing with you. Very little is being forced on the pharmacist in this case.

Mountains from molehills.

Glad that we're presenting Plan B as an option to any female readers out there though. Not all women are aware that you can get it without a prescription so the discussion is healthy. It also reveals the right's insanity which is not that hard to do but is always fun to expose.

Again, read the fracking decision. A lot was being forced on them.

 

[Ravi]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

We already know you want to impose your views on other people, thanks for admitting it.

On the contrary, I do not wish others to impose their views on me or anyone else. It really isn't much different than refusing to fill a prescription for a sexually transmitted disease because the pharmacist thought it is God's will that the little slut dies of VD.

 

[Mr.Nick]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

We already know you want to impose your views on other people, thanks for admitting it.

On the contrary, I do not wish others to impose their views on me or anyone else. It really isn't much different than refusing to fill a prescription for a sexually transmitted disease because the pharmacist thought it is God's will that the little slut dies of VD.

It doesn't matter...

Let the store owner deal with it...

Individuals have the right to refuse to sell a product. If the owner of the store disagrees with that individuals right then that owner can fire the employee.

At the same time the owner could back the said employee.

We have a First Amendment for a reason..

 

[Texanmike]

I still don't understand why there isn't more outrage in this thread directed at the people of Washington. Why don't they demand the law be changed? Why are y'all not upset that people are ok with this level of government interference?

Oh yeah, because this isn't about individual rights for most people, this is about a social issue.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

I still don't understand why there isn't more outrage in this thread directed at the people of Washington. Why don't they demand the law be changed? Why are y'all not upset that people are ok with this level of government interference?

Oh yeah, because this isn't about individual rights for most people, this is about a social issue.

Mike

What do you mean? That is exactly what we are upset about. That and the fact that the law actually does interfere with people's rights.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

I still don't understand why there isn't more outrage in this thread directed at the people of Washington. Why don't they demand the law be changed? Why are y'all not upset that people are ok with this level of government interference?

Oh yeah, because this isn't about individual rights for most people, this is about a social issue.

Mike

What do you mean? That is exactly what we are upset about. That and the fact that the law actually does interfere with people's rights.

Immie

But the discussion has centered around the fact that it is an individual's right. Not around the fact that the people of Wa are sheep willing to be led. The people in that state are laying down and even encouraging laws like this.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

I still don't understand why there isn't more outrage in this thread directed at the people of Washington. Why don't they demand the law be changed? Why are y'all not upset that people are ok with this level of government interference?

Oh yeah, because this isn't about individual rights for most people, this is about a social issue.

Mike

What do you mean? That is exactly what we are upset about. That and the fact that the law actually does interfere with people's rights.

Immie

But the discussion has centered around the fact that it is an individual's right. Not around the fact that the people of Wa are sheep willing to be led. The people in that state are laying down and even encouraging laws like this.

Mike

I disagree with you in regards to what the discussion has centered on. Although, in this discussion, I will say that I have tended to drift into the idea that it is not only the citizens of the great state of Washington who have laid down, but rather all of us have given in.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

We already know you want to impose your views on other people, thanks for admitting it.

On the contrary, I do not wish others to impose their views on me or anyone else. It really isn't much different than refusing to fill a prescription for a sexually transmitted disease because the pharmacist thought it is God's will that the little slut dies of VD.

why do you INSIST on trying to pretend that the REASON for refusing to sell a product matters at all?

If it's MY STORE, and MY INVENTORY, and I'm paying the bills. Then why on God's green Earth do YOU get to decide who I do what business with?

 

[Syphon]

What do you mean? That is exactly what we are upset about. That and the fact that the law actually does interfere with people's rights.

Immie

But the discussion has centered around the fact that it is an individual's right. Not around the fact that the people of Wa are sheep willing to be led. The people in that state are laying down and even encouraging laws like this.

Mike

I disagree with you in regards to what the discussion has centered on. Although, in this discussion, I will say that I have tended to drift into the idea that it is not only the citizens of the great state of Washington who have laid down, but rather all of us have given in.

Immie

There are actually 2 arguments here.

1) The Freedom of Choice vs. the Freedom of Religion

I think that this one will hinge on which side of the following argument is won.
Whos rights are more critical in the eyes of the law? The right and freedom of choice by the customer, or the right to refuse serve based on a religious belief.

2) Does the state have a right to mandate that a regulated business can be forced to carry a product.
(the side argument to this would be, can the state do this if it is in the interest of the public good, i.e. mandating vaccinations and such)

 

[Syphon]

We already know you want to impose your views on other people, thanks for admitting it.

On the contrary, I do not wish others to impose their views on me or anyone else. It really isn't much different than refusing to fill a prescription for a sexually transmitted disease because the pharmacist thought it is God's will that the little slut dies of VD.

why do you INSIST on trying to pretend that the REASON for refusing to sell a product matters at all?

If it's MY STORE, and MY INVENTORY, and I'm paying the bills. Then why on God's green Earth do YOU get to decide who I do what business with?

you can not refuse service to someone based on a discriminatory practice. i.e. refusing to sell a product to black man, but be willing to sell it to white man.

if you do not carry a product, then there is no discussion.

 

[Immanuel]

But the discussion has centered around the fact that it is an individual's right. Not around the fact that the people of Wa are sheep willing to be led. The people in that state are laying down and even encouraging laws like this.

Mike

I disagree with you in regards to what the discussion has centered on. Although, in this discussion, I will say that I have tended to drift into the idea that it is not only the citizens of the great state of Washington who have laid down, but rather all of us have given in.

Immie

There are actually 2 arguments here.

1) The Freedom of Choice vs. the Freedom of Religion

I think that this one will hinge on which side of the following argument is won.
Whos rights are more critical in the eyes of the law? The right and freedom of choice by the customer, or the right to refuse serve based on a religious belief.

2) Does the state have a right to mandate that a regulated business can be forced to carry a product.
(the side argument to this would be, can the state do this if it is in the interest of the public good, i.e. mandating vaccinations and such)

I shudder to realize that the liberals in the state and in the country have all the power and neither the freedom of choice (the choice not to participate in something that one believes is completely immoral) or the freedom of religion have a prayer in hell of winning this case.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I disagree with you in regards to what the discussion has centered on. Although, in this discussion, I will say that I have tended to drift into the idea that it is not only the citizens of the great state of Washington who have laid down, but rather all of us have given in.

Immie

There are actually 2 arguments here.

1) The Freedom of Choice vs. the Freedom of Religion

I think that this one will hinge on which side of the following argument is won.
Whos rights are more critical in the eyes of the law? The right and freedom of choice by the customer, or the right to refuse serve based on a religious belief.

2) Does the state have a right to mandate that a regulated business can be forced to carry a product.
(the side argument to this would be, can the state do this if it is in the interest of the public good, i.e. mandating vaccinations and such)

I shudder to realize that the liberals in the state and in the country have all the power and neither the freedom of choice (the choice not to participate in something that one believes is completely immoral) or the freedom of religion have a prayer in hell of winning this case.

Immie

That moron is a lost cause. He doesn't even care about being honest.

Whos rights are more critical in the eyes of the law? The right and freedom of choice by the customer, or the right to refuse serve based on a religious belief.


I haven't figured out , yet, if he's too dishonest to admit or too stupid to realize that freedom of choice for the consumer means they have the freedom to take their ass somewhere else if the pharmacy they are in doesn't sell the product they want.

This has NOTHING to do with religion, but hey it is another opportunity to bash on some Christians.

 

[WorldWatcher]

On the contrary, I do not wish others to impose their views on me or anyone else. It really isn't much different than refusing to fill a prescription for a sexually transmitted disease because the pharmacist thought it is God's will that the little slut dies of VD.

why do you INSIST on trying to pretend that the REASON for refusing to sell a product matters at all?

If it's MY STORE, and MY INVENTORY, and I'm paying the bills. Then why on God's green Earth do YOU get to decide who I do what business with?

you can not refuse service to someone based on a discriminatory practice. i.e. refusing to sell a product to black man, but be willing to sell it to white man.

if you do not carry a product, then there is no discussion.

And the lawsuit cited in the OP was about pharmacies being required to carry a product.


>>>>

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

why do you INSIST on trying to pretend that the REASON for refusing to sell a product matters at all?

If it's MY STORE, and MY INVENTORY, and I'm paying the bills. Then why on God's green Earth do YOU get to decide who I do what business with?

you can not refuse service to someone based on a discriminatory practice. i.e. refusing to sell a product to black man, but be willing to sell it to white man.

if you do not carry a product, then there is no discussion.

And the lawsuit cited in the OP was about pharmacies being required to carry a product.


>>>>

Again, Syphon is a dishonest idiot. This isn't about discrimination either. If a pharmacy were selling Plan B to some people but not others, and IF those people were a protected class, THEN it would be discrimination, but flat declaring you won't sell something at all is NOT discrimination. No different than the judge down in Texas who isn't performing ANY marriages. That's not discrimination.

 

[Syphon]

you can not refuse service to someone based on a discriminatory practice. i.e. refusing to sell a product to black man, but be willing to sell it to white man.

if you do not carry a product, then there is no discussion.

And the lawsuit cited in the OP was about pharmacies being required to carry a product.


>>>>

Again, Syphon is a dishonest idiot. This isn't about discrimination either. If a pharmacy were selling Plan B to some people but not others, and IF those people were a protected class, THEN it would be discrimination, but flat declaring you won't sell something at all is NOT discrimination. No different than the judge down in Texas who isn't performing ANY marriages. That's not discrimination.

how is it not about discrimination? if the state has already mandated that you must carry the product, and you refuse to sell it based upon a person belief that is a form of discrimination. the same way refusing to service blacks in cafes and resturants during the civil rights movement was discrimination, whether you want to admit it or not. your just too far on the religious right to have a legal argument about it.

if youre more upset about the state mandating that a pharmacy be required to sell a certain product, then that is a separate argument.

the judge in texas is not by law required to perform marriages. maybe you should do some research on that topic first.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

And the lawsuit cited in the OP was about pharmacies being required to carry a product.


>>>>

Again, Syphon is a dishonest idiot. This isn't about discrimination either. If a pharmacy were selling Plan B to some people but not others, and IF those people were a protected class, THEN it would be discrimination, but flat declaring you won't sell something at all is NOT discrimination. No different than the judge down in Texas who isn't performing ANY marriages. That's not discrimination.

how is it not about discrimination? if the state has already mandated that you must carry the product, and you refuse to sell it based upon a person belief that is a form of discrimination. the same way refusing tell service blacks during the civil rights movement was discrimination. whether you want to admit it or not. your just too far on the religious right to have a legal argument about it.

if youre more upset about the state mandating that a pharmacy be required to sell a certain product, then that is a separate argument.

the judge in texas is not by law required to perform marriages. maybe you should do some research on that topic first.

what are you talking about it's a separate argument? This is my last interaction with you if you can't start having an honest , grown up discussion.

We are talking about does the government at ANY level have the power to FORCE a business to sell a product. And once again, try to be a grown up and understand that we are not talking about one specific product, nor are we talking about religeon. We are talking about the basic question of does a business have the right to decide on their own which products they will sell, and which they won't?

All the other related question such as employees who won't distribute products the business carries or whatever are questions brought up by posters not the lawsuit in question and are ancillary to this discussion and thus not as relevant.

Or are you really so child like that you don't understand that if the government can force a pharmacy to carry Plan B, they can also force a Pharmacy to carry Tylenol, and they can also force a tire store to carry Goodyear tires?

See that's what adults do, they look at a case and they judge if there are far reaching repercussions that they might now want if they go for the short term gain now.

Same argument as to why I don't want the government defining marriage when it comes to gays. I don't approve of gay marriage, but I certainly don't want the government in 10 years deciding to define MY marriage either.

It's called critical thinking. You should try it.

 

[saveliberty]

how is it not about discrimination? if the state has already mandated that you must carry the product, and you refuse to sell it based upon a person belief that is a form of discrimination. the same way refusing to service blacks in cafes and resturants during the civil rights movement was discrimination, whether you want to admit it or not. your just too far on the religious right to have a legal argument about it.

if youre more upset about the state mandating that a pharmacy be required to sell a certain product, then that is a separate argument.

the judge in texas is not by law required to perform marriages. maybe you should do some research on that topic first.

Maybe because discrimination charge were never filed idiot. If you're not capable of learning from information provided to you multiple times, you should just sit back and observe. Point one to ponder, there are exceptions to being required to dispense.

 

[Montrovant]

And the lawsuit cited in the OP was about pharmacies being required to carry a product.


>>>>

Again, Syphon is a dishonest idiot. This isn't about discrimination either. If a pharmacy were selling Plan B to some people but not others, and IF those people were a protected class, THEN it would be discrimination, but flat declaring you won't sell something at all is NOT discrimination. No different than the judge down in Texas who isn't performing ANY marriages. That's not discrimination.

how is it not about discrimination? if the state has already mandated that you must carry the product, and you refuse to sell it based upon a person belief that is a form of discrimination. the same way refusing to service blacks in cafes and resturants during the civil rights movement was discrimination, whether you want to admit it or not. your just too far on the religious right to have a legal argument about it.

if youre more upset about the state mandating that a pharmacy be required to sell a certain product, then that is a separate argument.

the judge in texas is not by law required to perform marriages. maybe you should do some research on that topic first.

Where is the discrimination? If a pharmacist refuses to sell to ANYONE, who is being discriminated against?

It may be illegal to refuse sell it but that doesn't make it discriminatory. Unless someone is treating certain types of people differently from others, there is no discrimination. Accept that, because that's what the word means.

 

[Syphon]

Again, Syphon is a dishonest idiot. This isn't about discrimination either. If a pharmacy were selling Plan B to some people but not others, and IF those people were a protected class, THEN it would be discrimination, but flat declaring you won't sell something at all is NOT discrimination. No different than the judge down in Texas who isn't performing ANY marriages. That's not discrimination.

how is it not about discrimination? if the state has already mandated that you must carry the product, and you refuse to sell it based upon a person belief that is a form of discrimination. the same way refusing tell service blacks during the civil rights movement was discrimination. whether you want to admit it or not. your just too far on the religious right to have a legal argument about it.

if youre more upset about the state mandating that a pharmacy be required to sell a certain product, then that is a separate argument.

the judge in texas is not by law required to perform marriages. maybe you should do some research on that topic first.

what are you talking about it's a separate argument? This is my last interaction with you if you can't start having an honest , grown up discussion.

We are talking about does the government at ANY level have the power to FORCE a business to sell a product. And once again, try to be a grown up and understand that we are not talking about one specific product, nor are we talking about religeon. We are talking about the basic question of does a business have the right to decide on their own which products they will sell, and which they won't?

All the other related question such as employees who won't distribute products the business carries or whatever are questions brought up by posters not the lawsuit in question and are ancillary to this discussion and thus not as relevant.

Or are you really so child like that you don't understand that if the government can force a pharmacy to carry Plan B, they can also force a Pharmacy to carry Tylenol, and they can also force a tire store to carry Goodyear tires?

See that's what adults do, they look at a case and they judge if there are far reaching repercussions that they might now want if they go for the short term gain now.

Same argument as to why I don't want the government defining marriage when it comes to gays. I don't approve of gay marriage, but I certainly don't want the government in 10 years deciding to define MY marriage either.

It's called critical thinking. You should try it.

its 2 arguments!!! idiot.

you are only looking at one of them. i already stated that the first argument is about the state being able to mandate that a business carry a certain product. READ THE POSTS!

The 2nd argument has to do with the actual act of denying service based upon a religious belief. in this case the 2 arguments are interconnected. but you need to be able to look at them as separate issues.

its called reading comprehension, and apparently you dont have any.


LOOK AND READ SLOOOOWWWWLLLLY:

There are actually 2 arguments here. (see 2 arguments.....1 and 2)

1) The Freedom of Choice vs. the Freedom of Religion

I think that this one will hinge on which side of the following argument is won.
Whos rights are more critical in the eyes of the law? The right and freedom of choice by the customer, or the right to refuse serve based on a religious belief.

2) Does the state have a right to mandate that a regulated business can be forced to carry a product.
(the side argument to this would be, can the state do this if it is in the interest of the public good, i.e. mandating vaccinations and such)