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

[Syphon]

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.

you still have address both arguments from a legal stand point. try opening your mind a bit.

 

[Syphon]

Once again, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton has ruled in favor of pharmacists who say the policy violates their First Amendment rights. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned a similar decision he made in 2007 and sent the lawsuit back to him to apply a different legal standard.

Read more here: The good news: Plan B remains in effect across the state | Editorials - The News Tribune

This had gone from the district judge to the 9th circuit court of appeals one. and the appeals court overturned the district courts ruling. the district court judge reversed the ruling again, and it is headed back to appeals.

here is the 2009 ruling from the appeals court:

JURIST - Paper Chase: Ninth Circuit upholds Washington state rule requiring dispensing of Plan B contraceptive

"Because the rules are neutral and generally applicable, the district court should have subjected the rules to the rational basis standard of review. The district court instead introduced a heightened scrutiny to a neutral law of general applicability, contrary to the rule of Smith and Lukumi. When a law is neutral and generally applicable, the rational basis test applies. ... Under rational basis review, the rules will be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. ... t appears that the new rules are rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizen-patients receive lawfully prescribed medications without delay."

Although the rules apply to all prescribed medications, the suit focused on the availability of Plan B [product backgrounder], a post-coital emergency contraceptive, which is supposed to be taken within 24 hours of sexual activity to be fully effective. Due to concerns over pharmacists' refusals to dispense prescribed medications and the importance of timely access, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy [official website] promulgated the rules in 2007.

 

[saveliberty]

Once again, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton has ruled in favor of pharmacists who say the policy violates their First Amendment rights. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned a similar decision he made in 2007 and sent the lawsuit back to him to apply a different legal standard.

Read more here: The good news: Plan B remains in effect across the state | Editorials - The News Tribune

This had gone from the district judge to the 9th circuit court of appeals one. and the appeals court overturned the district courts ruling. the district court judge reversed the ruling again, and it is headed back to appeals.

here is the 2009 ruling from the appeals court:

JURIST - Paper Chase: Ninth Circuit upholds Washington state rule requiring dispensing of Plan B contraceptive

"Because the rules are neutral and generally applicable, the district court should have subjected the rules to the rational basis standard of review. The district court instead introduced a heightened scrutiny to a neutral law of general applicability, contrary to the rule of Smith and Lukumi. When a law is neutral and generally applicable, the rational basis test applies. ... Under rational basis review, the rules will be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. ... t appears that the new rules are rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizen-patients receive lawfully prescribed medications without delay."

Although the rules apply to all prescribed medications, the suit focused on the availability of Plan B [product backgrounder], a post-coital emergency contraceptive, which is supposed to be taken within 24 hours of sexual activity to be fully effective. Due to concerns over pharmacists' refusals to dispense prescribed medications and the importance of timely access, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy [official website] promulgated the rules in 2007.

Nice job of editing this out idiot:

A pharmacist's personal objections to dispensing a particular drug may be "accommodated" in any way that the pharmacy decides is suitable, excluding referring the patient to another pharmacy.

I used your own source. Thanks.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Choice is a double edged sword that the liberals want to grind down to a rapier that only works for them.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

Once again, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton has ruled in favor of pharmacists who say the policy violates their First Amendment rights. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned a similar decision he made in 2007 and sent the lawsuit back to him to apply a different legal standard.

Read more here: The good news: Plan B remains in effect across the state | Editorials - The News Tribune

This had gone from the district judge to the 9th circuit court of appeals one. and the appeals court overturned the district courts ruling. the district court judge reversed the ruling again, and it is headed back to appeals.

here is the 2009 ruling from the appeals court:

JURIST - Paper Chase: Ninth Circuit upholds Washington state rule requiring dispensing of Plan B contraceptive

"Because the rules are neutral and generally applicable, the district court should have subjected the rules to the rational basis standard of review. The district court instead introduced a heightened scrutiny to a neutral law of general applicability, contrary to the rule of Smith and Lukumi. When a law is neutral and generally applicable, the rational basis test applies. ... Under rational basis review, the rules will be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. ... t appears that the new rules are rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizen-patients receive lawfully prescribed medications without delay."

Although the rules apply to all prescribed medications, the suit focused on the availability of Plan B [product backgrounder], a post-coital emergency contraceptive, which is supposed to be taken within 24 hours of sexual activity to be fully effective. Due to concerns over pharmacists' refusals to dispense prescribed medications and the importance of timely access, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy [official website] promulgated the rules in 2007.

Nice job of editing this out idiot:

A pharmacist's personal objections to dispensing a particular drug may be "accommodated" in any way that the pharmacy decides is suitable, excluding referring the patient to another pharmacy.

I used your own source. Thanks.

i didnt edit anything out on purpose. i could have put the whole article in there, but chose not to have a full page post.

and if you read the end of the sentence you posted:
excluding referring the patient to another pharmacy.
thus a pharmacist can choose to decline to provide service as along as another pharmacist is available to provide that service. thus you have to make accommodations, the business can not simply refuse service.

 

[Syphon]

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.

Choice is a double edged sword that the liberals want to grind down to a rapier that only works for them.

Immie

so why is the freedom of religion more important than the freedom to choose?

 

[candycorn]

Could the CEO of the regional electricity cooperative/generation plant decide she doesn't want to sell power to Mosques? Or Doctor's offices that perform abortions? Or places that sell guns if she is a pacifist?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Choice is a double edged sword that the liberals want to grind down to a rapier that only works for them.

Immie

so why is the freedom of religion more important than the freedom to choose?

Who said it is, but it seems that there is only one choice that is important to the left.

I will leave it to you to guess as to which choice that is.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

Choice is a double edged sword that the liberals want to grind down to a rapier that only works for them.

Immie

so why is the freedom of religion more important than the freedom to choose?

Who said it is, but it seems that there is only one choice that is important to the left.

I will leave it to you to guess as to which choice that is.

Immie

when you are forced to make a decision which one will you choose?, as the courts will be required to decide this

 

[Immanuel]

so why is the freedom of religion more important than the freedom to choose?

Who said it is, but it seems that there is only one choice that is important to the left.

I will leave it to you to guess as to which choice that is.

Immie

when you are forced to make a decision which one will you choose?, as the courts will be required to decide this

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

Who said it is, but it seems that there is only one choice that is important to the left.

I will leave it to you to guess as to which choice that is.

Immie

when you are forced to make a decision which one will you choose?, as the courts will be required to decide this

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

 

[Immanuel]

when you are forced to make a decision which one will you choose?, as the courts will be required to decide this

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

How did I avoid the question? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

My "choice" is not going to be to kill another human being.

Is that any less clear than, "It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life"?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

when you are forced to make a decision which one will you choose?, as the courts will be required to decide this

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

You can assume whatever the hell you want. That doesn't make you right.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

You can assume whatever the hell you want. That doesn't make you right.

Immie

so answer the questions. or just avoid it like you do everything else

 

[Immanuel]

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

You can assume whatever the hell you want. That doesn't make you right.

Immie

so answer the questions. or just avoid it like you do everything else

You are quickly turning into an ass.

I answered your question twice and again you don't like my answer so are you going to tell me what I think next?

Here were my answers:

when you are forced to make a decision which one will you choose?, as the courts will be required to decide this

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

How did I avoid the question? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

My "choice" is not going to be to kill another human being.

Is that any less clear than, "It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life"?

Immie

Now, please tell me what I think so that I can move on.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life.

Immie

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

How did I avoid the question? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

My "choice" is not going to be to kill another human being.

Is that any less clear than, "It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life"?

Immie

youre not answering the question i asked.

Which is more important: the freedom of religion or the freedom to choose?

 

[candycorn]

Seems to me that if you decide to become a minister or preacher, you'd better believe in a deity associated with your religion. If you're going to become a pharmacist, you'd better be prepared to dispense drugs that you may think are ineffective, disproportionate to the disease, etc...

Your "choice" in the matter was sacrificed when you decided to become licensed by the regulatory bodies. If you don't want to work with medicines that kill cells, you're in the wrong line of work.

 

[Immanuel]

thanks for avoiding the question.

so i assume your pushing for Personhood laws to be part of the constitution then?

How did I avoid the question? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

My "choice" is not going to be to kill another human being.

Is that any less clear than, "It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life"?

Immie

youre not answering the question i asked.

Which is more important: the freedom of religion or the freedom to choose?

That was not what you said in your post.

I think both of those freedoms are equally important. Unfortunately, it seems that the left only include one choice in the "freedom to choose" and that is not in my opinion a choice at all.

Let me ask you this. When you say the freedom of choice are you truly speaking of anything except the right to choose to kill a human fetus?

Are you really speaking about my right to choose whether or not I put cheese on my burger? Somehow, I doubt it.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

How did I avoid the question? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

My "choice" is not going to be to kill another human being.

Is that any less clear than, "It sure as heck is not going to be the decision to take a life"?

Immie

youre not answering the question i asked.

Which is more important: the freedom of religion or the freedom to choose?

That was not what you said in your post.

I think both of those freedoms are equally important. Unfortunately, it seems that the left only include one choice in the "freedom to choose" and that is not in my opinion a choice at all.

Let me ask you this. When you say the freedom of choice are you truly speaking of anything except the right to choose to kill a human fetus?

Are you really speaking about my right to choose whether or not I put cheese on my burger? Somehow, I doubt it.

Immie

that is exactly what i said earlier in my post. you just chose to ignore it and go off on a tangent.

if you are required to choose one of them, make your choice. freedom of religion or freedom to choose. stop avoiding the question.

the right to choose derives everything. the right to choose what i believe with prejudice, the right choose whom i marry, the right to choose where i live, the right to choose what job i have. the right to CHOOSE! the right to choose what i do with my body. whether thats get a tattoo or plastic surgery, or use birth control.

so again. answer the questions, what right is more important, the freedom of the right to choose or the freedom of religion.

stop apply everything i say to once single argument and start thinking on a larger scale. judges and justices can not apply a law to single case, they must apply it uniformly across all legal subjects and arguments.

if religion is that protected, you can discriminate based on a religious view. if religion is that protected, then sharia law is protected. if religion is that protected, human sacrifice would be protected. if religion is that protected, having multiple wifes would be protected.

START THINKING LARGER

 

[Immanuel]

youre not answering the question i asked.

Which is more important: the freedom of religion or the freedom to choose?

That was not what you said in your post.

I think both of those freedoms are equally important. Unfortunately, it seems that the left only include one choice in the "freedom to choose" and that is not in my opinion a choice at all.

Let me ask you this. When you say the freedom of choice are you truly speaking of anything except the right to choose to kill a human fetus?

Are you really speaking about my right to choose whether or not I put cheese on my burger? Somehow, I doubt it.

Immie

that is exactly what i said earlier in my post. you just chose to ignore it and go off on a tangent.

if you are required to choose one of them, make your choice. freedom of religion or freedom to choose. stop avoiding the question.

the right to choose derives everything. the right to choose what i believe with prejudice, the right choose whom i marry, the right to choose where i live, the right to choose what job i have. the right to CHOOSE! the right to choose what i do with my body. whether thats get a tattoo or plastic surgery, or use birth control.

so again. answer the questions, what right is more important, the freedom of the right to choose or the freedom of religion.

stop apply everything i say to once single argument and start thinking on a larger scale. judges and justices can not apply a law to single case, they must apply it uniformly across all legal subjects and arguments.

if religion is that protected, you can discriminate based on a religious view. if religion is that protected, then sharia law is protected. if religion is that protected, human sacrifice would be protected. if religion is that protected, having multiple wifes would be protected.

START THINKING LARGER

Maybe you should simply start thinking.

I answered your question. You can't understand the answer and I won't play your idiotic game of hypotheticals.

Get over yourself. Not only are you sounding like an ass, you are sounding like a child.

If you can't understand the very clear answer I gave you, it is not my fault:

I think both of those freedoms are equally important. Unfortunately, it seems that the left only include one choice in the "freedom to choose" and that is not in my opinion a choice at all.

Immie