Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?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?
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?
If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?
If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?
the same way the health department has say, you must use this specific product for this type of situation. such as cleaning or cooking or whatever (or get an approved equal).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?LOL oh so easy
OSHA
Health Department
Labor Department
need I go on dummy?
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?
Why is it that leftists always default to "the government CAN regulate it, therefore it SHOULD regulate everything about it"? What is the damage in the leftist psyche that makes them say, "Government involvement = Yay!"?
Could you please tell us what the relation is between OSHA saying, "Your employees must wear hard hats in this area" and ANY government saying, "Your company must sell XYZ product or service"? How is this analogy even vaguely correct?
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.
Your grasp of law is so flawed it is not even worth actually addressing until you graduate from kindergarten.
- 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.
- 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.
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?
so what does an individual who has chosen to live in a small town do? what if the next nearest pharmacy is 10 miles away, and they refuse as well, and the next pharmacy is 10 more miles away and so on and so on. what about areas of the south where religion is extremely devout, do you think you could find areas where no pharmacy would then be willing to sell birth control based on a religious idea? lets take MS for example, which tried to pass the personhood law. its perfectly possible.If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?
Assuming your asinine, "but in FantasyLand . . ." analogy were to ever actually exist in the REAL world, yes, a pharmacist has every right to carry and sell no meds at all. And you have every right to drive past his empty pharmacy - for the week or so that it's in business - and go to another pharmacy.
Why do you need a right to make him operate his business sensibly if he doesn't want to? What's it to you? What is your great and tearing need to make people live their lives according to what YOU think is best?
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.
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?
no, but you COULD open a hotel and then refuse to rent out rooms to ANYONE
Try harder.
And I'd lose my license.
you REALLY think that?
I mean REALLY?
you REALLY think that?
I mean REALLY?
No, I don't think it. I know it.
You would most certainly be sued.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people 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 ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
see my previous answer to this, as it was meant to be an easy question to answer. so if you are ok with the health department regulation restaurants for health and safety, why not pharmacy's? they provide drugs that promote health as well...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?
Are you on drugs?
I mean, right at this moment?
{In the United States, a license from the local health department is generally required to operate a food establishment. To reduce the risk of food-borne illness, local food codes contain certain standard requirements. These requirements will be checked by a sanitarian or health inspector during an inspection of a food establishment.
Source/Labeling. All food must be properly labeled, wholesome, safe for human consumption, and from an approved source.
Temperature. The danger zone for potentially hazardous foods is between 41°F and 140°F. Potentially hazardous foods (those capable of supporting the growth of disease-causing microorganisms) should be held at an internal temperature of 41°F or below during cold holding and 140°F or above during hot holding.
Cooking. Poultry, exotic meats, stuffed fish, and meat must be cooked to an internal temperature of 165°F or above. Pork, ground fish and meats, injected meats, and unpasteurized eggs must be cooked to an internal temperature of 155°F or above. All other potentially hazardous food (except beef roasts, for which temperature and cooking time depend on weight) are to be cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F or above.
Cooling. Potentially hazardous cooked foods should be cooled from 140°F to 41°F within four hours, using methods such as placing the food in shallow pans, ice baths, or blast chillers.
Thawing. Food should be thawed either in a refrigerated unit at 41°F or below, under cold running water, in a microwave for immediate cooking, or as part of the cooking process.
Employee Health. Food-service employees should be excluded from a food establishment if diagnosed with salmonellosis, shigellosis, E. coli infection, or hepatitis A. In addition, food-service employees should be restricted from working with exposed food; clean equipment, utensils, or linens; or unwrapped single-use items if the employee has symptoms associated with acute gastrointestinal illness, such as diarrhea, fever, vomiting, jaundice, or sore throat with a fever.
Handwashing/Gloves. Food-service employees must wash their hands and exposed portions of their arms with soap for at least twenty seconds, thoroughly rinse with clean water, and dry with a paper towel, sanitary towel, or a heated air handdrying device before starting work; after using the restroom; after touching their nose, mouth, or hair; after coughing or sneezing, after tobacco use, eating, or drinking; when switching between working with raw foods and working with ready-to-eat foods; after handling garbage, soiled tableware, or soiled kitchenware; after handling animals; and as often as necessary during work to keep them clean. They must avoid contact with exposed, ready-to-eat food with their bare hands, using only suitable utensils such as spatulas, tongs, or single-use gloves.}
Regulations Affecting Restaurants - eNotes.com
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people 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 ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
how correct that is and I think that is unconstitutional, but THAT is irrelvant to this thread.
If you own a business and you refuse to sell a particular product to ALL customers or even refuse to sell ANY products to all customers, that is equal treatment. DUH!
I answered Ravi's theoretical. So, duh backatchya.
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
Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.
Im pleased to report that a federal district court in Washington state today delivered an important victory for religious liberty. As I outlined in several posts some weeks ago, Washington state regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by compelling pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense the abortifacient drug Plan B, notwithstanding their religiously informed conscientious convictions not to participate in the destruction of the life of an unborn human being.
In its opinion today, the federal district court correctly ruled that the regulations do violate plaintiffs Free Exercise rights. Specifically, the court determined that the regulations are not neutral for purposes of deference under Employment Division v. Smith. Rather, theyare riddled with exemptions for secular conduct, but contain no such exemptions for identical religiously-motivated conduct and thus amount to an impermissible religious gerrymander. Likewise, the regulations are not generally applicable but rather have been selectively enforced, in two ways: First, the rule that pharmacies timely deliver all lawful medications has been enforced only against the plaintiff pharmacy and only for failure to deliver plan B. Second, the rules havent been enforced against the states numerous Catholic-affiliated pharmacies, which also refuse to stock or dispense Plan B.
For each of these reasons, the regulations are therefore subject to strict scrutiny, which they cant survive.
The court also found that the state regulations were aimed at Plan B and conscientious objectors from their inception. Indeed, the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse.
Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online
But expect this to be over turned.
Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.
/sarcasm off
Immie
I'd be willing to bet that if you fuckers had your way... you'd be killing 10X the babies that Planned Parenthood does in a single year. The only difference would be that YOU assholes would let them die a horrible death of starvation instead of the merciful death of a saline injection.
in other words... you'd wait for them to be born first. Yeah.... kind hearted CONservative Christians.
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
the same way the health department has say, you must use this specific product for this type of situation. such as cleaning or cooking or whatever (or get an approved equal).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?
Why is it that leftists always default to "the government CAN regulate it, therefore it SHOULD regulate everything about it"? What is the damage in the leftist psyche that makes them say, "Government involvement = Yay!"?
Could you please tell us what the relation is between OSHA saying, "Your employees must wear hard hats in this area" and ANY government saying, "Your company must sell XYZ product or service"? How is this analogy even vaguely correct?
the or approved equal is the part that you are missing. they can say you must wear hard hats, here is the one we have approved, so you must use or sell this one. unless you can show us a product of equal quality.
now if we apply this same regulation back to pharmacists, so she denies filling prescription A, what did she offer as the approved equal? nothing.
