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

[Immanuel]

Now, Syphon, please let me know when you want to get back to the discussion rather than playing your childish games.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

Now, Syphon, please let me know when you want to get back to the discussion rather than playing your childish games.

Immie

you still didnt answer the question, you side stepped it in saying they were both equally important.

pick 1

Freedom to Choose
Freedom of Religion

its that simple.

 

[Immanuel]

Now, Syphon, please let me know when you want to get back to the discussion rather than playing your childish games.

Immie

you still didnt answer the question, you side stepped it in saying they were both equally important.

pick 1

Freedom to Choose
Freedom of Religion

its that simple.

What part of not playing your silly little hypothetical games did you not understand?

I don't have to choose which one is more important especially when I do not believe that any right is necessarily more important than any others.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

Now, Syphon, please let me know when you want to get back to the discussion rather than playing your childish games.

Immie

you still didnt answer the question, you side stepped it in saying they were both equally important.

pick 1

Freedom to Choose
Freedom of Religion

its that simple.

What part of not playing your silly little hypothetical games did you not understand?

I don't have to choose which one is more important especially when I do not believe that any right is necessarily more important than any others.

Immie

its not a hypothetical, is the essence of the debate.

is the pharmacists right to refuse service based on a religious view, more important than a consumers right to freedom to choose what to do with her own body?

rights come into conflict all the time. the right to free speech is protected, but it has already been ruled by the courts to not be absolute. you can not yell fire in a crowded room and call it free speech. but you can be a bunch of idiots like the westboro baptist church and protest military funerals, and that is protected.

you have a real problems answering straight simple questions. so for the last time, pick one, because obviously your avoiding answering any on my direct questions for some stupid reason.

 

[Immanuel]

you still didnt answer the question, you side stepped it in saying they were both equally important.

pick 1

Freedom to Choose
Freedom of Religion

its that simple.

What part of not playing your silly little hypothetical games did you not understand?

I don't have to choose which one is more important especially when I do not believe that any right is necessarily more important than any others.

Immie

its not a hypothetical, is the essence of the debate.

is the pharmacists right to refuse service based on a religious view, more important than a consumers right to freedom to choose what to do with her own body?

rights come into conflict all the time. the right to free speech is protected, but it has already been ruled by the courts to not be absolute. you can not yell fire in a crowded room and call it free speech. but you can be a bunch of idiots like the westboro baptist church and protest military funerals, and that is protected.

you have a real problems answering straight simple questions. so for the last time, pick one, because obviously your avoiding answering any on my direct questions for some stupid reason.

It is a hypothetical you idiot.

You question was "if you have to choose between the two... which would you choose?"

Do you understand that "IF" makes it a hypothetical?

What kind of a moron are you?

I've answered eveyone of your questions including the hypothetical and you have the balls to say that to me. Get your head out of your ass.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Here moron, let me help you:

Hypothetic \Hy`po*thet"ic\, Hypothetical \Hy`po*thet"ic*al\, a. [L. hypotheticus, Gr. ?: cf. F. hypoth['e]tique.]

Characterized by, or of the nature of, an hypothesis; conditional; assumed without proof, for the purpose of reasoning and deducing proof, or of accounting for some fact or phenomenon. [1913 Webster]

Please note the words conditional and assumed without proof.

Definition of Hypothetical from dictionary.net

Immie

 

[Syphon]

What part of not playing your silly little hypothetical games did you not understand?

I don't have to choose which one is more important especially when I do not believe that any right is necessarily more important than any others.

Immie

its not a hypothetical, is the essence of the debate.

is the pharmacists right to refuse service based on a religious view, more important than a consumers right to freedom to choose what to do with her own body?

rights come into conflict all the time. the right to free speech is protected, but it has already been ruled by the courts to not be absolute. you can not yell fire in a crowded room and call it free speech. but you can be a bunch of idiots like the westboro baptist church and protest military funerals, and that is protected.

you have a real problems answering straight simple questions. so for the last time, pick one, because obviously your avoiding answering any on my direct questions for some stupid reason.

It is a hypothetical you idiot.

You question was "if you have to choose between the two... which would you choose?"

Do you understand that "IF" makes it a hypothetical?

What kind of a moron are you?

I've answered eveyone of your questions including the hypothetical and you have the balls to say that to me. Get your head out of your ass.

Immie

this would assume you were the one making the decision, not the judges involved in this case your retard.

the questions to you may seem hypothetical, but the its the reality of the case to the judges.

 

[Texanmike]

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)

One of the sad states of things in this country is that freedom is now defined by categories of protected freedoms rather than the category of restricted freedoms. I'm going to step outside of the facts (that Wa has the authority to make this law) and say what I think a person should or should not be able to do.

This has been made into an argument of wether a person's right to choose outweighs a person's 'religious freedom'. I don't understand how you have complicated this issue that far. At issue here is not 'religious freedom', at issue here is wether a right on the part of person A can compel person B to act.

If you are arguing that plan B is a right then we should not only declare that a pharmacy must carry it but also that vending machines, gas stations and banks should have it availble too. Nobody has a right to access plan B. That is perposterous. The particular liberty at stake in a case like this is about what demands your rights can place on me.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

its not a hypothetical, is the essence of the debate.

is the pharmacists right to refuse service based on a religious view, more important than a consumers right to freedom to choose what to do with her own body?

rights come into conflict all the time. the right to free speech is protected, but it has already been ruled by the courts to not be absolute. you can not yell fire in a crowded room and call it free speech. but you can be a bunch of idiots like the westboro baptist church and protest military funerals, and that is protected.

you have a real problems answering straight simple questions. so for the last time, pick one, because obviously your avoiding answering any on my direct questions for some stupid reason.

It is a hypothetical you idiot.

You question was "if you have to choose between the two... which would you choose?"

Do you understand that "IF" makes it a hypothetical?

What kind of a moron are you?

I've answered eveyone of your questions including the hypothetical and you have the balls to say that to me. Get your head out of your ass.

Immie

this would assume you were the one making the decision, not the judges involved in this case your retard.

the questions to you may seem hypothetical, but the its the reality of the case to the judges.

Had to break my "no neg" rule for this prick that thinks he has the right to determine what everyone else thinks and for everyone one of the misrepresentations and lies he made about me over the past two hours.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

Who gives a shit? I , and you, have the FREEDOM to choose a job which we hate, disagree with, and or don't want to do. Unless the government is our BOSS, then they can butt the fuck out. How hard is that for you simpletons to understand?

If I want to open a restaurant and then refuse to cook food when people come in hungry, tough shit, it's MY restaurant. YOU don't have the right to demand that I feed you.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

It is a hypothetical you idiot.

You question was "if you have to choose between the two... which would you choose?"

Do you understand that "IF" makes it a hypothetical?

What kind of a moron are you?

I've answered eveyone of your questions including the hypothetical and you have the balls to say that to me. Get your head out of your ass.

Immie

this would assume you were the one making the decision, not the judges involved in this case your retard.

the questions to you may seem hypothetical, but the its the reality of the case to the judges.

Had to break my "no neg" rule for this prick that thinks he has the right to determine what everyone else thinks and for everyone one of the misrepresentations and lies he made about me over the past two hours.

Immie

He's completely destroyed any integrity the debate in this thread may have had. I've ceased communicating with him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do we force people to learn how to give CPR?

We don't even force them to give it once they DO learn it, unless they're doctors, nurses, first responders, etc.

I think you guys missed the point.

Hey, we can force pharmacists to sell things that they believe takes human life, we ought to be able to force people like Jack Kevorkian (yes, I know he is dearly departed) or an abortionist to provide CPR.

Immie

Well, I think the point is that we CAN force people to do all kinds of things, but the question is SHOULD we force them to do things.

Too many liberals today seem to think that the fact that our government has the brute force capable of doing things automatically makes doing those things a good idea.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And what is "the right's insanity" in this? The idea that people have rights that you can't violate simply because 1) it's inconvenient for you to respect them, or 2) because you personally have decided it's dumb for them to want to exercise those rights? Is that what you consider "the right's insanity"?

Amazingly enough, twit, viewing the world differently from you and having different priorities from you isn't insane. However, in my opinion, considering other people insane simply for disagreeing with you IS insanity.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

And what is "the right's insanity" in this? The idea that people have rights that you can't violate simply because 1) it's inconvenient for you to respect them, or 2) because you personally have decided it's dumb for them to want to exercise those rights? Is that what you consider "the right's insanity"?

Amazingly enough, twit, viewing the world differently from you and having different priorities from you isn't insane. However, in my opinion, considering other people insane simply for disagreeing with you IS insanity.

Good point. OF COURSE the government can force us to comply with just about anything, the question is why would we let them? I don't see how it doesn't compute with these people that no one has a right to force someone else to sell something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

These people act as if they never heard of a telephone

ring , ring

"hello, do you dispense plan B?"

"no we do not, sorry"

"okay, I'll try somewhere else"

how hard is that, and why turn it into

" hey where's the plan B"

"sorry, we don't carry"

"what the fuck, I'm suing, I have a RIGHT to force you to carry what I want to buy dammit"

"what about my rights?"

"fuck you Christian zealot, separation of church and state baby"

your missing the point. so you call and the pharmacy say yes they sell it. but when you arrive at the pharmacy, the pharmacist refuses to actually sell it to you based on their religion. what do you do now?

Good point. Obviously thinking things through isn't the strong suit of the right wing. Hence the heavy use of animation. LOL.

Why they want a woman to have to go through with an unwanted pregnancy is really pretty sick.

WE are the ones who have trouble thinking things through? Hey, dimwit, WE aren't the ones who don't know what to do when we go to the store and aren't able to buy the item we wanted there. WE aren't the ones who think the only alternative is to throw up our hands and just be pregnant.

Exactly how much "thinking through" does it take to figure out "drive to another store", shitforbrains?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

For starters, because the first one appears in the Constitution, and the second appears only in liberal fever dreams. Second, because freedom of religion only substantially affects the person exercising it. It in no way dictates the way anyone else lives his life. Your vaunted "freedom to choose" - like all "rights" made up by liberals - requires forcing other people to change their lives and behaviors to accommodate them.

I realize, though, how difficult it is for you to understand the concept of caring about other people besides yourself, so I don't expect this to actually make any sense to you at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Did I miss the point where pharmacies became public utilities rather than private businesses? No? Did I miss the point where the pharmacy is refusing to sell to only certain people and not others? No?

Then if neither of these situations applies - and they are the only things that could make your asinine post even VAGUELY relevant or meaningful - may I ask what possessed you to waste time and space posting this pointless piece of shit? If you were trying to prove to us that you're the poster girl for repealing women's suffrage on the grounds that they really ARE too softheaded to be allowed to vote, you accomplished that long ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It seems to me that you've erroneously decided that other people's jobs have something to do with what "seems to you". Perhaps you could send me a press clipping from when you were appointed Grand High Arbiter of Other People's Job Descriptions and Requirements. I'm obviously just missing all SORTS of breaking news these days.

Here's a thought, sweetie, and stop me if I'm talking too fast for you to comprehend: how about you MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS and let the people who actually write the paychecks decide what their employees' jobs are and aren't? From what I can see, you don't have the wattage to find the ON button on your vacuum cleaner, let alone start issuing decisions about serious matters like business.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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?

For starters, because the first one appears in the Constitution, and the second appears only in liberal fever dreams. Second, because freedom of religion only substantially affects the person exercising it. It in no way dictates the way anyone else lives his life. Your vaunted "freedom to choose" - like all "rights" made up by liberals - requires forcing other people to change their lives and behaviors to accommodate them.

I realize, though, how difficult it is for you to understand the concept of caring about other people besides yourself, so I don't expect this to actually make any sense to you at all.

Here's how unbelievably selfish Syphon is. S/he believes that his/her "right" to choose to buy a product wherever s/he pleases trumps my actual right not to be forced to sell something I don't want to sell.

What part of choose to do business elsewhere does the idiot not get?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Hey Libbies I gotta deal for you.

I'll support forcing every pharmacy to sell Plan B if you support FORCING every bookstore to carry the Bible.