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

[Unknown_Soldier]

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)

There is only 1 argument here.

1. The freedom of choice is the freedom of religion. The customer is free to go to another store if he doesn't like the religion in one of them. If we were to follow your logic a customer would be able to walk into a store that is displaying a menorah and demand it be taken down.
2. Can the state demand that a store carry all types of alcohol if the store owner gets a liquor license? Again, if we follow your logic, customers could insist that grocery stores get rid of all other products in order to stock all sorts of obscure wines that no one buys.

Your grasp of law is so flawed it is not even worth actually addressing until you graduate from kindergarten.

Dude has NO interest in actually having a discussion. All he wants to scream is " i have a right"

He won't even answer a simple question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Seems to me that you are imposing your beliefs on other people.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Under this ruling any pharmacist can refuse to sell anything because they are "religiously" against it.

Got AIDS? God's will.
Cancer? God's will.
etc

so what?

If I own a business and I just want to sit there all day every day and not sell anything to anyone, it's MY business.

Jesus why are you people so stupid?

So you actually believe that a profession that is licensed by the state can refuse to sell commonly used drugs because of a moral issue they had before accepting the state license?

I can't really see that as feasible.

If you want them to operate as unlicensed then I CAN see it. Maybe that's the solution. Allow quacks to operate without a license as long as they advertise that they are unlicensed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What it is is a false dichotomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Under this ruling any pharmacist can refuse to sell anything because they are "religiously" against it.

Got AIDS? God's will.
Cancer? God's will.
etc

so what?

If I own a business and I just want to sit there all day every day and not sell anything to anyone, it's MY business.

Jesus why are you people so stupid?

So you actually believe that a profession that is licensed by the state can refuse to sell commonly used drugs because of a moral issue they had before accepting the state license?

I can't really see that as feasible.

If you want them to operate as unlicensed then I CAN see it. Maybe that's the solution. Allow quacks to operate without a license as long as they advertise that they are unlicensed.

ALL businesses are licensed by the state. It's called a business license.

And you're not paying attention. Stop making this about religion. I have no idea why some that agree with me (Quantam!!) keep going there , it's a red herring designed to appeal to those who hate religeon.

It's about LIBERTY. If I own a store it's my RIGHT to sell what I want , when I want, where I want (provided I'm selling legal items of course) and I don't have to justify my reason to you at all.

This is a concept that a 7th grader should understand.

 

[Political Junky]

If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

What it is is a false dichotomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Stop enabling the fucking moron by letting him turn this into a religious discussion.

 

[Syphon]

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)

There is only 1 argument here.

1. The freedom of choice is the freedom of religion. The customer is free to go to another store if he doesn't like the religion in one of them. If we were to follow your logic a customer would be able to walk into a store that is displaying a menorah and demand it be taken down.
2. Can the state demand that a store carry all types of alcohol if the store owner gets a liquor license? Again, if we follow your logic, customers could insist that grocery stores get rid of all other products in order to stock all sorts of obscure wines that no one buys.

Your grasp of law is so flawed it is not even worth actually addressing until you graduate from kindergarten.

ill put it to you another way that has nothing to do with pharmacy's.

if catholics do not believe in birth control as it is a form of abortion and abortion is an abomination. that is their right to choose to live that way. and their belief is protected by the constitution.

if a muslim believes in sharia law and you do not, do you get to put laws in place that prohibit his religious belief simply because you do not agree with them? so in essence you are taking away his right to choose?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?

I suppose that's true, and if you don't like the Bible sitting on his counter YOU could go do business elsewhere. Capice?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There you go again, imposing your views on others.

how is that imposing her view on others? she is choosing not to judge as opposed to actually judging

Saying that not selling Plan B is the same as letting someone die of VD is choosing not to judge?

How fracking stupid are you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Under this ruling any pharmacist can refuse to sell anything because they are "religiously" against it.

Got AIDS? God's will.
Cancer? God's will.
etc

so what?

If I own a business and I just want to sit there all day every day and not sell anything to anyone, it's MY business.

Jesus why are you people so stupid?

So you actually believe that a profession that is licensed by the state can refuse to sell commonly used drugs because of a moral issue they had before accepting the state license?

I can't really see that as feasible.

If you want them to operate as unlicensed then I CAN see it. Maybe that's the solution. Allow quacks to operate without a license as long as they advertise that they are unlicensed.

He never said it was feasible. In fact, he said he would go out of business if he did it. That does not change the fact that it is still his choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What it is is a false dichotomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Stop enabling the fucking moron by letting him turn this into a religious discussion.

I am not letting him do anything, there are all sorts of choices people can make, among them religion. He is trying to argue that there are only two possible choices, and that they are in conflict.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

so what?

If I own a business and I just want to sit there all day every day and not sell anything to anyone, it's MY business.

Jesus why are you people so stupid?

So you actually believe that a profession that is licensed by the state can refuse to sell commonly used drugs because of a moral issue they had before accepting the state license?

I can't really see that as feasible.

If you want them to operate as unlicensed then I CAN see it. Maybe that's the solution. Allow quacks to operate without a license as long as they advertise that they are unlicensed.

He never said it was feasible. In fact, he said he would go out of business if he did it. That does not change the fact that it is still his choice.

I don't see why they don't get it? I have a right to open a business and go broke if I want. It would be terrible business and so no one would do it, but that is of course an extreme and there is middle ground where most actually live.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

What it is is a false dichotomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Stop enabling the fucking moron by letting him turn this into a religious discussion.

I am not letting him do anything, there are all sorts of choices people can make, among them religion. He is trying to argue that there are only two possible choices, and that they are in conflict.

you are enabling, just ignore his stupid inane religious remarks.

We both know that there are no doubt atheist pharmacists who don't want to sell certain products, and that is THEIR right as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you actually believe that a profession that is licensed by the state can refuse to sell commonly used drugs because of a moral issue they had before accepting the state license?

I can't really see that as feasible.

If you want them to operate as unlicensed then I CAN see it. Maybe that's the solution. Allow quacks to operate without a license as long as they advertise that they are unlicensed.

He never said it was feasible. In fact, he said he would go out of business if he did it. That does not change the fact that it is still his choice.

I don't see why they don't get it? I have a right to open a business and go broke if I want. It would be terrible business and so no one would do it, but that is of course an extreme and there is middle ground where most actually live.

They think the government is supposed to protect them from being stupid.

 

[Syphon]

What it is is a false dichotomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Stop enabling the fucking moron by letting him turn this into a religious discussion.

I am not letting him do anything, there are all sorts of choices people can make, among them religion. He is trying to argue that there are only two possible choices, and that they are in conflict.

how is this not a religious discussion? the pharmacist in question refused to provide services based on a religious belief

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Stop enabling the fucking moron by letting him turn this into a religious discussion.

I am not letting him do anything, there are all sorts of choices people can make, among them religion. He is trying to argue that there are only two possible choices, and that they are in conflict.

how is this not a religious discussion? the pharmacist in question refused to provide services based on a religious belief

so are you saying that if he hadn't mentioned religion you would have been okay with him not selling Plan B?

 

[Ravi]

so what?

If I own a business and I just want to sit there all day every day and not sell anything to anyone, it's MY business.

Jesus why are you people so stupid?

So you actually believe that a profession that is licensed by the state can refuse to sell commonly used drugs because of a moral issue they had before accepting the state license?

I can't really see that as feasible.

If you want them to operate as unlicensed then I CAN see it. Maybe that's the solution. Allow quacks to operate without a license as long as they advertise that they are unlicensed.

ALL businesses are licensed by the state. It's called a business license.

And you're not paying attention. Stop making this about religion. I have no idea why some that agree with me (Quantam!!) keep going there , it's a red herring designed to appeal to those who hate religeon.

It's about LIBERTY. If I own a store it's my RIGHT to sell what I want , when I want, where I want (provided I'm selling legal items of course) and I don't have to justify my reason to you at all.

This is a concept that a 7th grader should understand.

And yet I couldn't get a license to operate a hotel and refuse to accommodate white people.

 

[Ravi]

If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?

Under this ruling, yes.

 

[Syphon]

I am not letting him do anything, there are all sorts of choices people can make, among them religion. He is trying to argue that there are only two possible choices, and that they are in conflict.

how is this not a religious discussion? the pharmacist in question refused to provide services based on a religious belief

so are you saying that if he hadn't mentioned religion you would have been okay with him not selling Plan B?

YES! if it is not a based on religious belief and simply a denial to provide service then there is no religious basis for an argument. refusal to provide service is the right of any business owner. (and many post signs notifying the public of this)

you can make up a wide variety of reasons to refuse service, you may get in trouble legally with some, but not all.