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

[Syphon]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

 

[Synthaholic]

People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.

Yea, (Insert Optional Deity here) forbid that we accept the views of others and value them as much as our own, huh?

Moron.

Doesn't mean we have to support them with our business, O Risky One.

 

[Montrovant]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

And this has to do with the current topic how?

Once again, the point (as I understand it) is not that a pharmacist refused to provide a drug based on anything about the customer, they simply refused to provide that drug, period. No matter who asked for it they would refuse. That does not equal discrimination. If there is evidence this is about a pharmacist refusing to distribute based on the customer's gender, or orientation, or whatever, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, this harping on about discrimination is pointless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

How wonderful that you brought up California and discrimination, it gives me the perfect opportunity to show you how absurd anti-discrimination laws actually are.

There is a German restaurant called the Alpine Village Inn, in Torrance California. A group of four neo-Nazis went there to eat, each wearing a lapel pin with a swastika on it. The management asked them to take off the lapel pins. They refused. The management asked them to leave. They refused. The management called the police, who arrested them.
Then, remarkably, the Southern California ACLU gets involved, and sues the restaurant for calling the police on the Nazis! This much I’ve confirmed from media accounts. According to the commenter who first alerted me to this story, “the defendants’ insurer eventually settled following unsuccessful pretrial challenges to the complaint, believing they could not prevail under California law!”I’m informed that the restaurant actually lost at trial, and the insurer refused to foot the bill for an appeal.
The lawsuit was brought under California’s Unruh Act, which provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The California courts have held that the protected classes delineated by the Act are not exclusive; the Act also protects arbitrary discrimination by a business establishment based on similar characteristics to the above. Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views” was sufficiently similar to “religion” that the courts would likely rule against the insured. (This was, after all, the Rose Bird Court, which issued a series of absurdly broad and illogical rulings under the Unruh Act; in one of those opinions (Isbister) Bird personally gratuitously insulted a little old lady who donated money to a Boys’ Club as one of the “select few” who wish to be “insulated from the 20th century” because the Boys’ Club didn’t admit girls.)

The Volokh Conspiracy » Some Strange Consequences of Public Accommodations Laws

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.

Yea, (Insert Optional Deity here) forbid that we accept the views of others and value them as much as our own, huh?

Moron.

Doesn't mean we have to support them with our business, O Risky One.

Bravo, somebody that actually gets it.

 

[Syphon]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

How wonderful that you brought up California and discrimination, it gives me the perfect opportunity to show you how absurd anti-discrimination laws actually are.

There is a German restaurant called the Alpine Village Inn, in Torrance California. A group of four neo-Nazis went there to eat, each wearing a lapel pin with a swastika on it. The management asked them to take off the lapel pins. They refused. The management asked them to leave. They refused. The management called the police, who arrested them.
Then, remarkably, the Southern California ACLU gets involved, and sues the restaurant for calling the police on the Nazis! This much I’ve confirmed from media accounts. According to the commenter who first alerted me to this story, “the defendants’ insurer eventually settled following unsuccessful pretrial challenges to the complaint, believing they could not prevail under California law!”I’m informed that the restaurant actually lost at trial, and the insurer refused to foot the bill for an appeal.
The lawsuit was brought under California’s Unruh Act, which provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The California courts have held that the protected classes delineated by the Act are not exclusive; the Act also protects arbitrary discrimination by a business establishment based on similar characteristics to the above. Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views” was sufficiently similar to “religion” that the courts would likely rule against the insured. (This was, after all, the Rose Bird Court, which issued a series of absurdly broad and illogical rulings under the Unruh Act; in one of those opinions (Isbister) Bird personally gratuitously insulted a little old lady who donated money to a Boys’ Club as one of the “select few” who wish to be “insulated from the 20th century” because the Boys’ Club didn’t admit girls.)

The Volokh Conspiracy » Some Strange Consequences of Public Accommodations Laws

this is interesting because the case i posted talked about the bar being able to refuse service to the bikers based upon their attire as it may lead to violence. i would think the lawyer (had that case been resolved by that time) would have used that as precedent.

overall this is still an interesting argument to have, can a business owner choose not to provide service based on religious views.

i did a little more research and did not know this until now, but the Civil Rights act of 1964 has this section

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having aprostedic leg.

heres another interesting article as well:
You have probably seen the signs: “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service.” Common sense would dictate that a business does not have to serve an unruly customer, or allow its employees to be abused or threatened by a patron. Likewise, many business owners have moral or religious reasons for refusing service and have increasingly exercised the right to their convictions. But does that mean by simply posting a sign that businesses have the right to discriminate against customers for any reason it sees fit? In a word, sometimes. Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public. They actively invite and seek the patronage of the public and therefore are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that protect workers seeking employment or promotion. Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination and guarantees all persons the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.”

"For example, a restaurant in California was held in violation of the Unruh Act because it refused to seat a gay couple in a booth normally reserved for intimate, opposite-sex patrons. A drug store could not refuse service to a homosexual male who wishes to purchase condoms." At the time of the Unruh Act in the 1960s, California was considered progressive, even for its era. Businesses would regularly refuse service to hippies, police officers, African-Americans, Republicans and other groups of people, simply because the business owner disliked the associated group the individual belonged to.

The Moral and Religious Debate
Despite the anti-discrimination protections in place across the country, some patrons of specific businesses are finding themselves being refused service due to the moral or religious convictions of the business owner or employee. For example, some pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control pills to unmarried women or emergency contraception (the morning after pill) to rape victims because of their religious teachings. These pharmacists are protected under refusal clauses that allow a person’s conscience, moral conflict or moral values to dictate their business practices.

Currently this refusal clause affects the medical field, such as doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics and pharmacists, and with good reason. Imagine a physician with an opposition to abortion being ordered to perform one because the customer demands it. On the other hand, the slippery slope of American legal interpretation is just one court decision away from allowing clerks in bookstores to refuse service to customers buying material they find objectionable. Likewise, if moral convictions are an acceptable reason for refusing service, what is to stop a business owner from refusing service to alcoholics, or women, or any other group of people not specified in either federal or state legislation?

The Right To Refuse Service Or Discrimination? | Lifescript.com

so i guess if the state of washington had a refusal clause, they that pharmacist could object to selling the contraception. if the state did not, then there would be no legal standing. although it does not state that the pharmacy would still have to sell the customer, the pharmacist could simply refuse their personal service and refer them to another pharmacist within the store.

 

[Syphon]

here is what i found on refusal clauses:

Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Laws and Information

Updated February 2011

Health provider “refusal clauses” (also known as "conscience clauses") were first enacted in response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in the Roe v. Wade case, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Roe v. Wade was the landmark decision establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional righy to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. Some states have subsequently proposed legislation and passed laws designed to allow doctors and other direct providers of health care to refuse to perform or assist in an abortion, and hospitals to refuse to allow abortion on their premises. Now, the issue is expanding as pharmacists are refusing to fill emergency contraception and contraception prescriptions. This movement resulted in the term “conscience clause," which gives pharmacists the right to refuse to perform certain services based on a violation of personal beliefs or values. Most of the debate revolves around a pharmacist dispensing emergency contraception. Emergency contraception is used to prevent a pregnancy, not terminate a pregnancy, and is a general term used to describe several different types of birth control pills that are used in increased doses within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. Emergency contraception is not the same thing as Mifeprex, which is the brand name of mifepristone in the United States and is sometimes referred to as non-surgical abortion, medical abortion, or RU-486. Pharmacists do not play a role in administering these medications.
In some states, legislators are introducing bills that would explicitly grant pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense drugs related to contraception on moral grounds. Other state legislators are introducing legislation that would require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription for birth control, much like Governor Blagojevich's emergency rule in Illinois, which requires pharmacies to provide the morning after pill. Four States (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota) have passed laws allowing a pharmacist to refuse to dispense emergency contraception drugs. Illinois passed an emergency rule that requires a pharmacist to dispense FDA approved contraception. Colorado, Florida, Maine and Tennesee have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically mention pharmacists.
California pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and can only refuse to dispense a prescription, including contraceptives, when their employer approves the refusal and the woman can still access her prescription in a timely manner.
New Jersey's law (effective November 2007), prohibits pharmacists for refusing to fill prescriptions solely on moral, religious or ethical grounds.

Pharmacist Conscience Clauses Laws and Information

here is the state of washington's law:

Washington RCW 48.43.065 allows for no individual health care provider, religiously sponsored carrier, or health care facility be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the provision of or payment for a specific service if they object to so doing for reason of conscience or religion.
Also: On June 1, 2006 the Washington Board of Pharmacy approved proposed rule language regarding a pharmacist’s responsibilities in dispensing a lawful prescription. This language would amend Washington Admin. Code 246-863-095 to prohibit a pharmacist from delegating the decision not to dispense prescriptions for any reason.

so it actually varies state by state, so i assume that one day this will probably appear before the supreme court.

take it for what it is.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You don't get it. The pharmacist does not have to do that NOW. I see that you completely ignored my previous post on this matter so here it is again. Evade and doge it, you still look like an ass:

I will bring up a point that I brought up earlier and did not receive ONE SINGLE ANSWER TO earlier. The fact is that carrying this particular drug is a wedge issue and being used as a political football. It has nothing to do with woman's rights or with the drugs need. No one, anywhere, ever NEEDS this particular drug. It is a convenience. I have specific drug needs. My son was diagnosed with leukemia. HE needs specific drugs on a verry strict schedule. Should we fail to give him the drugs he needs AT THE TIME HE NEEDS THEM he will die. PERIOD. There is no if's and's or but's about it. Dead. Somehow, pharmacies are not required to carry those drugs or dispense them. As a matter of fact, no one except specific hospitals (and not all hospitals but just the one with cancer centers in them) carry those drugs. The fact is it is not profitable to carry them. However, you assclowns actually believe that YOU should be afforded the right to FORCE people to sell you a drug for you own fucking convenience because you want to fuck but I do not have that right when the life of a five year old child hangs in the balance. You are all idiots if the highest order. I do not want pharmacies to carry the drugs I need because they are forced to. It would be wrong and I am responsible for the care and availability of the drugs I need to have. I expect that same level of responsibility from all those women and men that are having sex out there and if not, screw them. It is not right for them to force what they want on others for their own convenience.


No one has addressed this argument because they can't, PERIOD. There is not one single reason why a pharmacist must carry plan B other than radical left wing ideology somehow needs to FORCE this bullshit down our throats. We are not going to take it.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Complete fail here. Nowhere is the right of the person to do with their body affected whatsoever. Nowhere did the pharmacist deny anyone the right to do anything with their body. This is where your analogy falls flat on its face. You persist in the insistence that her right to choose was impacted by the refusal of sale when that is flat out false. What did happen, the pharmacist refused to be a participant in that choice. The woman can still go to another pharmacy and obtain the sought after drug. What you want to do is take the right of choice away from the pharmacist in order to allow someone else a more convenient time of making their choice. Sorry, you do not get to trample on my rights just so life can be more convenient for you. It is interesting that you keep framing this argument in a pharmacist right vs. her rights when her rights never even get involved. It is a matter of forcing a business to dispense one product or another.

tell me how the hardware store down the block is regulated? tell me how the cake shop on the corner is regulated? tell me how the restaurant across town is regulated?

LOL oh so easy

OSHA

Health Department

Labor Department


need I go on dummy?

agreed. this was meant to be an easy answer. so on to my next question.... if the government can regulate and does regulate every business, why is regulating the pharmacy's any different?

if OSHA can mandate that certain safety equipment and procedures be used, and the health department can mandate the certain products and procedures be put in place, and the same with labor. they why is a pharmacy any different?

There is no difference. Pharmacies are regulated for safe work environments and labor practices. Notice that, as we are arguing with pharmacies, none of those regulators or regulations require any of those businesses to sell anything whatsoever. They do not require anything to be sold, any particular product to be offered or that they even service one single customer.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You don't get it. The pharmacist does not have to do that NOW. I see that you completely ignored my previous post on this matter so here it is again. Evade and doge it, you still look like an ass:

I will bring up a point that I brought up earlier and did not receive ONE SINGLE ANSWER TO earlier. The fact is that carrying this particular drug is a wedge issue and being used as a political football. It has nothing to do with woman's rights or with the drugs need. No one, anywhere, ever NEEDS this particular drug. It is a convenience. I have specific drug needs. My son was diagnosed with leukemia. HE needs specific drugs on a verry strict schedule. Should we fail to give him the drugs he needs AT THE TIME HE NEEDS THEM he will die. PERIOD. There is no if's and's or but's about it. Dead. Somehow, pharmacies are not required to carry those drugs or dispense them. As a matter of fact, no one except specific hospitals (and not all hospitals but just the one with cancer centers in them) carry those drugs. The fact is it is not profitable to carry them. However, you assclowns actually believe that YOU should be afforded the right to FORCE people to sell you a drug for you own fucking convenience because you want to fuck but I do not have that right when the life of a five year old child hangs in the balance. You are all idiots if the highest order. I do not want pharmacies to carry the drugs I need because they are forced to. It would be wrong and I am responsible for the care and availability of the drugs I need to have. I expect that same level of responsibility from all those women and men that are having sex out there and if not, screw them. It is not right for them to force what they want on others for their own convenience.


No one has addressed this argument because they can't, PERIOD. There is not one single reason why a pharmacist must carry plan B other than radical left wing ideology somehow needs to FORCE this bullshit down our throats. We are not going to take it.

I tend to ignore hyperbole.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You don't get it. The pharmacist does not have to do that NOW. I see that you completely ignored my previous post on this matter so here it is again. Evade and doge it, you still look like an ass:

I will bring up a point that I brought up earlier and did not receive ONE SINGLE ANSWER TO earlier. The fact is that carrying this particular drug is a wedge issue and being used as a political football. It has nothing to do with woman's rights or with the drugs need. No one, anywhere, ever NEEDS this particular drug. It is a convenience. I have specific drug needs. My son was diagnosed with leukemia. HE needs specific drugs on a verry strict schedule. Should we fail to give him the drugs he needs AT THE TIME HE NEEDS THEM he will die. PERIOD. There is no if's and's or but's about it. Dead. Somehow, pharmacies are not required to carry those drugs or dispense them. As a matter of fact, no one except specific hospitals (and not all hospitals but just the one with cancer centers in them) carry those drugs. The fact is it is not profitable to carry them. However, you assclowns actually believe that YOU should be afforded the right to FORCE people to sell you a drug for you own fucking convenience because you want to fuck but I do not have that right when the life of a five year old child hangs in the balance. You are all idiots if the highest order. I do not want pharmacies to carry the drugs I need because they are forced to. It would be wrong and I am responsible for the care and availability of the drugs I need to have. I expect that same level of responsibility from all those women and men that are having sex out there and if not, screw them. It is not right for them to force what they want on others for their own convenience.


No one has addressed this argument because they can't, PERIOD. There is not one single reason why a pharmacist must carry plan B other than radical left wing ideology somehow needs to FORCE this bullshit down our throats. We are not going to take it.

I tend to ignore hyperbole.

It is a real world situation with real world effects. The point was truth and yet here you are, avoiding it as usual because it does not fit into the partisan crap that is being shoveled on this thread. Again - answer the challenges put forth.

 

[Ravi]

You don't get it. The pharmacist does not have to do that NOW. I see that you completely ignored my previous post on this matter so here it is again. Evade and doge it, you still look like an ass:

I tend to ignore hyperbole.

It is a real world situation with real world effects. The point was truth and yet here you are, avoiding it as usual because it does not fit into the partisan crap that is being shoveled on this thread. Again - answer the challenges put forth.

Maybe, just maybe, you'd get a response if you weren't just throwing partisan bombs.

 

[FA_Q2]

I tend to ignore hyperbole.

It is a real world situation with real world effects. The point was truth and yet here you are, avoiding it as usual because it does not fit into the partisan crap that is being shoveled on this thread. Again - answer the challenges put forth.

Maybe, just maybe, you'd get a response if you weren't just throwing partisan bombs.

No, I would not. You would give the same side stepping bullshit. You won't address the point because you can't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Well, that isn't the point. It's not really that he/she/it might be HORRIBLY inconvenienced by the need to drive a few more blocks to get what he/she/it wants. It's about making everyone else in the world knuckle under to his/her/its viewpoint and beliefs, so that he/she/it can feel validated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Of course, I don't think I've ever seen a bookstore that doesn't already carry it. Even the virulently feminazi bookstore in my town has it, on the theory of "know your enemy".

 

[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.

point to where i supported the idea of forcing all businesses to carry a product as mandated by the government?

i pointed out that as the law was written, that the pharmacy was already mandated to carry the product. but the pharmacist simply refused to sell based on a religious preference. so ill ask you the same question that immie wouldnt answer.

which freedom comes first. the freedom of choice, or the freedom of religion?

candycorn asked this question:

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?

opinion?

Point to where I was talking to YOU, dumbass. S'matter, too hard for you to read the names at the top of the quotes?

 

[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.

not all utilities are public companies, there are many private energy / utility producers across the states.

Regulation - Public Vs. Private Power | Blackout | FRONTLINE | PBS

Who said anything about "public company"? I said "public utility". This might work better if you a) read the words that people are actually saying, rather than what you want to see, or b) learned to read.

The legal definition of a "public utility" is a business that provides the public with necessities like water, gas, electricity, and telephone. They can be either publicly OR privately owned, but they are heavily regulated by the government in exchange for (usually) having a monopoly on that service in the area. Their prices and service are closely monitored, and they are not allowed to deny service to anyone in the area, so long as that person pays his bills.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

not all utilities are public companies, there are many private energy / utility producers across the states.

Regulation - Public Vs. Private Power | Blackout | FRONTLINE | PBS

The good thing about having cecil on ignore is missing his "wisdom". Actually, since there is no wisdom there, I haven't missed it at all.

Yeah, dumbshit, I can tell how I'm totally out of sight, out of mind with you.

By the way, how brilliant do you look when you can't read a simple name OR get the person's sex right BECAUSE you can't read a simple name?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your childlike mind is really quite endearing. Feel free to go outside and get some sunlight.

When you enter into a regulated profession, you assume certain responsibilities. If you don't like what comes with that regulation, you should not get into the profession. I guess if you're a racist air traffic controller and you have a black pilot trying to land a plane, you'd be fine with steering him into a mountain. Nobody tells the air traffic controller what to do in your warped little world, do they? he he he

Hey dummy ALL industries are regulated, EVERY one of them.

tell me how the hardware store down the block is regulated? tell me how the cake shop on the corner is regulated? tell me how the restaurant across town is regulated?

Seriously? You SERIOUSLY need this question answered? Omigod.

Just as an example, just TRY going down to your local Home Depot and buying a huge amount of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the kind that can be used in dirty bombs. Or certain other combos of products which, when combined, can produce weapons. While you're there, look around you at all the potentially dangerous products they sell. You think they don't have to jump through government hoops about all that stuff?

Bakeries and other food service businesses? You really have no idea how heavily regulated and monitored THEY are for food safety and public health? You clearly never worked in a law-abiding restaurant as a kid. Regulations from the federal government on down about food additives, prep standards, advertising and labeling requirements, building regulations specific to the food service industry, permits and licenses . . .

And how about the restaurant that serves alcohol? Regulations for who you can buy from, how you can advertise it, who you can sell to, when you can sell it, how responsible you are for their behavior, permits you have to buy and shitloads of criteria you have to meet to get them, fees you have to pay . . .

And this is aside from the reams of government regulations that just automatically apply to ALL businesses, like minimum wage laws, the Americans With Disabilities Act, immigration laws, tax laws (both their own AND their employees'), etc.

Go visit SBA.gov just to get a TASTE of the regulations inherent in any industry you'd care to name. You're living in a fucking fantasy land if you think ANY business in America isn't plagued by the governments - federal, state, and local - looking over its shoulder every single day they're in business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The good thing about having cecil on ignore is missing his "wisdom". Actually, since there is no wisdom there, I haven't missed it at all.

hey dipshit, utilities - even private ones, have been given limited monopolies in their areas, no competition, in return they must serve EVERYONE.

Post all examples of pharmacies who have been given monopolies.

While you're at it, post examples of ANYONE who has simple not had access to Plan B because of some pharmacy who didn't want to sell it.

it depends on if the industry has been deregulated or not. but this has in fact happened

Deregulation Information

and you really need to go back to the beginning of the thread and read about the woman who tried to buy plan b but the pharmacist refused. that is the point of this entire thread.

No, Punkin, deregulation does NOT mean "operating free of all government interference and control". You are beyond any level of naive that should exist in an adult human being.