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.
If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?
yes, because not having your coke on a daily basis could directly lead to your death. they are exactly the same!If your pharmacist thinks your heart could be healed by prayer, then he can refuse you heart medication, right?
I went to Taco Bell and ordered a Coke. They refused.
I want Obama to send troops to force them to sell me a Coke - how dare they refuse me what I want? They sell soft drinks, then they must sell any soft drink I want - they belong to me. Heil Barry!
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?
what is your solution for that situation?
if there is no approved equal, then they can in fact mandate that they sell or use that particular product.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).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.
No, dumb shit, saying, "You must buy this product for this particular situation" is NOT the same as saying, "You must SELL this particular product".
Now, if we apply this same regulation back to pharmacists, she might have to purchase medical-grade antibiotic soap to keep her hands clean, but she doesn't have to SELL jack shit.
How many times DID you get hit in the head, anyway?
My feeling is, if you're planning on fucking without protection that often, you might wanna move to a bigger city.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.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?
what is your solution for that situation?
The same as it is for any other person in that situation: drive to another fucking pharmacy. Oh, you chose to live in a small town? How is that anyone else's problem, that they're now forced to make your life choice more convenience for you?
What if the next pharmacy IS ten miles away? So fucking what? I'm still not hearing where this is anyone's problem but YOURS for deciding to live there. What if the next pharmacy DOES also refuse? Still not seeing where you're entitled to force other people to accommodate you.
My feeling is, if you're planning on fucking without protection that often, you might wanna move to a bigger city.
so now your taking away the delivery of a product in a timely manner, which is why the original law was put in affect. to prevent situations such as this.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.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?
what is your solution for that situation?
The same as it is for any other person in that situation: drive to another fucking pharmacy. Oh, you chose to live in a small town? How is that anyone else's problem, that they're now forced to make your life choice more convenience for you?
What if the next pharmacy IS ten miles away? So fucking what? I'm still not hearing where this is anyone's problem but YOURS for deciding to live there. What if the next pharmacy DOES also refuse? Still not seeing where you're entitled to force other people to accommodate you.
My feeling is, if you're planning on fucking without protection that often, you might wanna move to a bigger city.
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?
what is your solution for that situation?
And yet I couldn't get a license to operate a hotel and refuse to accommodate white people.
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
I tend to ignore hyperbole.
show me where i said "any regulation means all regulation"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...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
And they have many, many regulations about how to do so in a safe, healthy, legal manner . . . which has fuck-all to do with forcing the pharmacy to carry and sell certain items, the same as it did the LAST time you tried to tell us that "any government regulation means ALL government regulations are okay".
No amount of willful obtuseness is going to make you correct or less of an object of contempt, so you might as well drop it, already.
use your same argument when it comes to rape, incest or other similar situations where the woman may be too scared or embarrassed to go to a hospital or a doctor........ should she have to disclose that to her pharmacist in order to convince them to dispense it, or is that none of the pharmacists business?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.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?
what is your solution for that situation?
Solution? Use a different form of birth control, move, don't fuck, accept the possible consequences of fucking.....why must there be a solution that involves this particular product being available? Is there a right to have birth control in the US I am unaware of? Should we set up government pharmacies throughout every town in the country to assure people their access to Plan B doesn't involve any difficulty?
There is a difference between safety regulation and simply forcing companies to stock and sell a random product. If the government IS going to force a business to stock and sell a product, it should show a compelling interest in doing so. 'In order to keep women from having to use other forms of contraception, and to keep them from being inconvenienced and having to travel for this particular form of contraception, and so they don't end up having to have abortions' doesn't seem a compelling state interest, and I don't see what other reasons there are.
Look, I consider a pharmacist refusing to sell Plan B to be ridiculous. It seems like much ado about nothing. However, that doesn't mean any pharmacy should be forced to stock and sell it.
yes, because not having your coke on a daily basis could directly lead to your death.
they are exactly the same!
idiot
so now your taking away the delivery of a product in a timely manner, which is why the original law was put in affect. to prevent situations such as this.
and what if the woman was raped and was too scared to report it? what she was molested by a parent and was too scared to report it? what if it was incest and she was too scared to report it? who are you to judge someone elses choices.
use your same argument when it comes to rape, incest or other similar situations where the woman may be too scared or embarrassed to go to a hospital or a doctor........ should she have to disclose that to her pharmacist in order to convince them to dispense it, or is that none of the pharmacists business?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.
what is your solution for that situation?
Solution? Use a different form of birth control, move, don't fuck, accept the possible consequences of fucking.....why must there be a solution that involves this particular product being available? Is there a right to have birth control in the US I am unaware of? Should we set up government pharmacies throughout every town in the country to assure people their access to Plan B doesn't involve any difficulty?
There is a difference between safety regulation and simply forcing companies to stock and sell a random product. If the government IS going to force a business to stock and sell a product, it should show a compelling interest in doing so. 'In order to keep women from having to use other forms of contraception, and to keep them from being inconvenienced and having to travel for this particular form of contraception, and so they don't end up having to have abortions' doesn't seem a compelling state interest, and I don't see what other reasons there are.
Look, I consider a pharmacist refusing to sell Plan B to be ridiculous. It seems like much ado about nothing. However, that doesn't mean any pharmacy should be forced to stock and sell it.
). If there is no pharmacy in town, should some other business be forced to carry Plan B? After all, rape or incest might happen! That means everyone must have access to this particular pill in close range!
It's none of the pharmacist's business why you want or need any prescribed drug. That's between you and your doctor.
so now your taking away the delivery of a product in a timely manner, which is why the original law was put in affect. to prevent situations such as this.
Well goddamn Adolf, I guess if there is no pharmacy in town, the hardware store better fucking well carry plan B - or face the wrath of their overlords.
and what if the woman was raped and was too scared to report it? what she was molested by a parent and was too scared to report it? what if it was incest and she was too scared to report it? who are you to judge someone elses choices.
What if she was abducted by aliens and only a Coke would save her, yet Taco Bell only serves Pepsi.
You sure are smart Adolf - you've got all the reasons why liberty MUST be crushed,
again retard, you can apply your wing nut logic to any and every drug now. cancer drugs, heart medication, aids medication, pain medication. so lets just use your wing nut argument to say a pharmacist can refuse to fill a script for AIDS medication because the patient is gay and the pharmacist religion believes being gay is a sickness.It's none of the pharmacist's business why you want or need any prescribed drug. That's between you and your doctor.
Correct, and it is NOE of the government's business, nor anyone's really, whether a pharmacy owner wants to stock an item or make his employees distribute it .
IDIOTS.
this entire thread is about Plan B. maybe you should read it from the beginning.use your same argument when it comes to rape, incest or other similar situations where the woman may be too scared or embarrassed to go to a hospital or a doctor........ should she have to disclose that to her pharmacist in order to convince them to dispense it, or is that none of the pharmacists business?Solution? Use a different form of birth control, move, don't fuck, accept the possible consequences of fucking.....why must there be a solution that involves this particular product being available? Is there a right to have birth control in the US I am unaware of? Should we set up government pharmacies throughout every town in the country to assure people their access to Plan B doesn't involve any difficulty?
There is a difference between safety regulation and simply forcing companies to stock and sell a random product. If the government IS going to force a business to stock and sell a product, it should show a compelling interest in doing so. 'In order to keep women from having to use other forms of contraception, and to keep them from being inconvenienced and having to travel for this particular form of contraception, and so they don't end up having to have abortions' doesn't seem a compelling state interest, and I don't see what other reasons there are.
Look, I consider a pharmacist refusing to sell Plan B to be ridiculous. It seems like much ado about nothing. However, that doesn't mean any pharmacy should be forced to stock and sell it.
WTF are you talking about? Where was disclosure of reasons for taking Plan B brought into things?
Do you think pharmacies which don't stock Plan B should be charged criminally if a women wants to buy it and it is not available? What would the charge be, refusing to give me what I want?
Uncensored2008 brings up a good point (apparently it happens!
so you are for freedom of religion over freedom of choice? guess you made that clear with this post.so now your taking away the delivery of a product in a timely manner, which is why the original law was put in affect. to prevent situations such as this.
Well goddamn Adolf, I guess if there is no pharmacy in town, the hardware store better fucking well carry plan B - or face the wrath of their overlords.
and what if the woman was raped and was too scared to report it? what she was molested by a parent and was too scared to report it? what if it was incest and she was too scared to report it? who are you to judge someone elses choices.
What if she was abducted by aliens and only a Coke would save her, yet Taco Bell only serves Pepsi.
You sure are smart Adolf - you've got all the reasons why liberty MUST be crushed,
