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

[candycorn]

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?

The point he misunderstood was that if you're going to get into baking cakes to continue your example, you should expect to get your hands into the batter at some point; at some point, if you run a restaurant, you're going to have to get used to the heat in the kitchen. In most states, you have to pass a certification to own a restaurant so the public will know that you have some idea of pathogens, bacteria, etc and how to keep it out of the food prep areas, etc...

If you object to the killing of bacteria, you shouldn't become a restaurant manager. If you object to having to fill prescriptions, don't become a pharmacist. If you don't believe in God, don't try to become a minister.

 

[Syphon]

Once again, for the mentally challenged... the gay couple are members of a protected class and cannot be discriminated against.

From your own link.





Did you even read the article? If very clearly defeats your point the motorcycle club... no case, the punk rockers... Outta here... gay couple... protected class cannot be discriminated against.

It is pretty easy to see that you blew your own argument out of the water.

Immie

so by your argument women are not a protected class of citizen? so then, why do we need equal pay laws, and womens right laws?

if gay couples are indeed a protected class, why do we have laws stating that they can not get married? is that not a violation of their rights as well? are you not treating them differently if they not are not allowed the same rights and privileges as a straight couple

the motorcycle club was given an option, (if you fully read the article) and it was a safety issue. they were asked to remove their colors for fear of violence breaking out between rival clubs. since the club refused, the bar had a right to refuse services. they didnt simply refuse them service for being part of a club.

the punk rockers were not banned from the funeral home because they were punk rockers. this was a specific request of the patron (the mother) of that establishment and not the policy of the funeral home itself. had it been the policy of the funeral home, the outcome of the ruling would have been much different.

What part of not selling a product to ANYONE is over your head?

The courts ruled the motorcycle club had no case. Sorry, you blew your own case out of the water. Your best bet is to hang it up now.

Immie

and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns. not because they were a club.

how was the bar owner refusing to sell to everyone in this instance?

 

[Immanuel]

so by your argument women are not a protected class of citizen? so then, why do we need equal pay laws, and womens right laws?

if gay couples are indeed a protected class, why do we have laws stating that they can not get married? is that not a violation of their rights as well? are you not treating them differently if they not are not allowed the same rights and privileges as a straight couple

the motorcycle club was given an option, (if you fully read the article) and it was a safety issue. they were asked to remove their colors for fear of violence breaking out between rival clubs. since the club refused, the bar had a right to refuse services. they didnt simply refuse them service for being part of a club.

the punk rockers were not banned from the funeral home because they were punk rockers. this was a specific request of the patron (the mother) of that establishment and not the policy of the funeral home itself. had it been the policy of the funeral home, the outcome of the ruling would have been much different.

What part of not selling a product to ANYONE is over your head?

The courts ruled the motorcycle club had no case. Sorry, you blew your own case out of the water. Your best bet is to hang it up now.

Immie

and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns. not because they were a club.

how was the bar owner refusing to sell to everyone in this instance?

What part of the biker club had no case do you not understand?

You keep making the argument that the biker club won their case. Either you are flat out lying or you are stupid. Which is it?

Immie

 

[Syphon]

What part of not selling a product to ANYONE is over your head?

The courts ruled the motorcycle club had no case. Sorry, you blew your own case out of the water. Your best bet is to hang it up now.

Immie

and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns. not because they were a club.

how was the bar owner refusing to sell to everyone in this instance?

What part of the biker club had no case do you not understand?

You keep making the argument that the biker club won their case. Either you are flat out lying or you are stupid. Which is it?

Immie

im agreeing with you if you cant see that. how do you not see that? i said "and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns."

the bar owner won, showing the he could refuse service based on safety concerns, not based on a religious view. but he also gave the club a choice, he didnt simply refuse service because he didnt like them or believe in what they stood for.

what part of any of this is confusing for you?

 

[Immanuel]

and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns. not because they were a club.

how was the bar owner refusing to sell to everyone in this instance?

What part of the biker club had no case do you not understand?

You keep making the argument that the biker club won their case. Either you are flat out lying or you are stupid. Which is it?

Immie

im agreeing with you if you cant see that. how do you not see that? i said "and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns."

the bar owner won, showing the he could refuse service based on safety concerns, not based on a religious view. but he also gave the club a choice, he didnt simply refuse service because he didnt like them or believe in what they stood for.

what part of any of this is confusing for you?

I suppose the fact that you keep insisting that this case proves your point, which it doesn't.

Your original claim was that this case proved that business owners could not discriminate against people for any reason. It was then pointed out to you that the very case you were using, this one, to prove your point said exactly the opposite of what you were saying. Now you are saying that it only matters in regards to religion.

It is untrue that the courts ruled against the biker club "because" they refused to remove their "colors".

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.

The issue was safety not clothing.

Remember your claim was that no business could refuse service to anyone. I will point out the case in your own link regarding the punk rockers at the funeral.

You seem to want to have it both ways.

Yes, a bar can refuse to serve a biker gang for any reason it chooses except for under protected class status, maybe if they were gay bikers they might have been able to argue that they were members of a protected class and that was the reason they were denied service.

Yes, a cemetary can refuse to allow punk rockers into a funeral at the families request (or for any reason for that matter) and unless the punk rockers are of a protected group there is nothing they can do.

Yes, a pharmacy has the legal right not to sell a product to anyone.

No, the pharmacy does not have the right to sell the product to the daughter of the mayor who is white but refuse to sell the same product to the daughter of the chief of police because she is black.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

What part of the biker club had no case do you not understand?

You keep making the argument that the biker club won their case. Either you are flat out lying or you are stupid. Which is it?

Immie

im agreeing with you if you cant see that. how do you not see that? i said "and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns."

the bar owner won, showing the he could refuse service based on safety concerns, not based on a religious view. but he also gave the club a choice, he didnt simply refuse service because he didnt like them or believe in what they stood for.

what part of any of this is confusing for you?

I suppose the fact that you keep insisting that this case proves your point, which it doesn't.

Your original claim was that this case proved that business owners could not discriminate against people for any reason. It was then pointed out to you that the very case you were using, this one, to prove your point said exactly the opposite of what you were saying. Now you are saying that it only matters in regards to religion.

It is untrue that the courts ruled against the biker club "because" they refused to remove their "colors".

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.

The issue was safety not clothing.

Remember your claim was that no business could refuse service to anyone. I will point out the case in your own link regarding the punk rockers at the funeral.

You seem to want to have it both ways.

Yes, a bar can refuse to serve a biker gang for any reason it chooses except for under protected class status, maybe if they were gay bikers they might have been able to argue that they were members of a protected class and that was the reason they were denied service.

Yes, a cemetary can refuse to allow punk rockers into a funeral at the families request (or for any reason for that matter) and unless the punk rockers are of a protected group there is nothing they can do.

Yes, a pharmacy has the legal right not to sell a product to anyone.

No, the pharmacy does not have the right to sell the product to the daughter of the mayor who is white but refuse to sell the same product to the daughter of the chief of police because she is black.

Immie

this is obviously a case by case basis and you need to apply the law the exact same way in each case. in this case the business was not implementing their own policy or belief, they were (supposed to do so) at the request of the mother. now if the funeral home had punk rockers come in and simply refused to service them due to their appearance, then they punk rockers would have had a case against the funeral home. different situations.

but if a store is in business to sell drugs and fill prescriptions, you could make the argument that if they agreed to go into this business, they should have understood all the drugs they would be required to dispense. or they would need to post signs stating their exact policies. neither was done in this case. if you take out the word contraception and you apply the test back to say a pain med, heart med, cancer med, or aids med, does your test hold water. can a pharmacist then refuse to provide these medications to all customers on the same religious argument? a lawyer in a court room could then argue that the pharmacist could refuse to dispense all medications. which would then lead to the question as to why they would get involved in that business in the first place?

 

[Immanuel]

im agreeing with you if you cant see that. how do you not see that? i said "and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns."

the bar owner won, showing the he could refuse service based on safety concerns, not based on a religious view. but he also gave the club a choice, he didnt simply refuse service because he didnt like them or believe in what they stood for.

what part of any of this is confusing for you?

I suppose the fact that you keep insisting that this case proves your point, which it doesn't.

Your original claim was that this case proved that business owners could not discriminate against people for any reason. It was then pointed out to you that the very case you were using, this one, to prove your point said exactly the opposite of what you were saying. Now you are saying that it only matters in regards to religion.

It is untrue that the courts ruled against the biker club "because" they refused to remove their "colors".

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.

The issue was safety not clothing.

Remember your claim was that no business could refuse service to anyone. I will point out the case in your own link regarding the punk rockers at the funeral.

You seem to want to have it both ways.

Yes, a bar can refuse to serve a biker gang for any reason it chooses except for under protected class status, maybe if they were gay bikers they might have been able to argue that they were members of a protected class and that was the reason they were denied service.

Yes, a cemetary can refuse to allow punk rockers into a funeral at the families request (or for any reason for that matter) and unless the punk rockers are of a protected group there is nothing they can do.

Yes, a pharmacy has the legal right not to sell a product to anyone.

No, the pharmacy does not have the right to sell the product to the daughter of the mayor who is white but refuse to sell the same product to the daughter of the chief of police because she is black.

Immie

this is obviously a case by case basis and you need to apply the law the exact same way in each case. in this case the business was not implementing their own policy or belief, they were (supposed to do so) at the request of the mother. now if the funeral home had punk rockers come in and simply refused to service them due to their appearance, then they punk rockers would have had a case against the funeral home. different situations.

but if a store is in business to sell drugs and fill prescriptions, you could make the argument that if they agreed to go into this business, they should have understood all the drugs they would be required to dispense. or they would need to post signs stating their exact policies. neither was done in this case. if you take out the word contraception and you apply the test back to say a pain med, heart med, cancer med, or aids med, does your test hold water. can a pharmacist then refuse to provide these medications to all customers on the same religious argument? a lawyer in a court room could then argue that the pharmacist could refuse to dispense all medications. which would then lead to the question as to why they would get involved in that business in the first place?

Let me know if and when you find case law that says that a place of business must serve any person or group of persons who are not discriminated against because of a protected class. We can look at the case then.

You and I will never agree on the pharmacy case because we both have different views on rights. One of us feels that rights are sacred and can only be removed in extreme circumstances and the other feels that one person's rights trumps other person's right as long as that person agrees with the person who is trumping rights.

I'll let you figure out which one is which.

Hey, I kind of like putting things in that kind of a slant.

Immie

 

[Uncensored2008]

im agreeing with you if you cant see that. how do you not see that? i said "and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns."

the bar owner won, showing the he could refuse service based on safety concerns, not based on a religious view. but he also gave the club a choice, he didnt simply refuse service because he didnt like them or believe in what they stood for.

what part of any of this is confusing for you?

You still yapping, Adolf?

Learn to recognize when you've had the shit kicked out of you.

Seriously.

 

[Syphon]

I suppose the fact that you keep insisting that this case proves your point, which it doesn't.

Your original claim was that this case proved that business owners could not discriminate against people for any reason. It was then pointed out to you that the very case you were using, this one, to prove your point said exactly the opposite of what you were saying. Now you are saying that it only matters in regards to religion.

It is untrue that the courts ruled against the biker club "because" they refused to remove their "colors".



The issue was safety not clothing.

Remember your claim was that no business could refuse service to anyone. I will point out the case in your own link regarding the punk rockers at the funeral.

You seem to want to have it both ways.

Yes, a bar can refuse to serve a biker gang for any reason it chooses except for under protected class status, maybe if they were gay bikers they might have been able to argue that they were members of a protected class and that was the reason they were denied service.

Yes, a cemetary can refuse to allow punk rockers into a funeral at the families request (or for any reason for that matter) and unless the punk rockers are of a protected group there is nothing they can do.

Yes, a pharmacy has the legal right not to sell a product to anyone.

No, the pharmacy does not have the right to sell the product to the daughter of the mayor who is white but refuse to sell the same product to the daughter of the chief of police because she is black.

Immie

this is obviously a case by case basis and you need to apply the law the exact same way in each case. in this case the business was not implementing their own policy or belief, they were (supposed to do so) at the request of the mother. now if the funeral home had punk rockers come in and simply refused to service them due to their appearance, then they punk rockers would have had a case against the funeral home. different situations.

but if a store is in business to sell drugs and fill prescriptions, you could make the argument that if they agreed to go into this business, they should have understood all the drugs they would be required to dispense. or they would need to post signs stating their exact policies. neither was done in this case. if you take out the word contraception and you apply the test back to say a pain med, heart med, cancer med, or aids med, does your test hold water. can a pharmacist then refuse to provide these medications to all customers on the same religious argument? a lawyer in a court room could then argue that the pharmacist could refuse to dispense all medications. which would then lead to the question as to why they would get involved in that business in the first place?

Let me know if and when you find case law that says that a place of business must serve any person or group of persons who are not discriminated against because of a protected class. We can look at the case then.

You and I will never agree on the pharmacy case because we both have different views on rights. One of us feels that rights are sacred and can only be removed in extreme circumstances and the other feels that one person's rights trumps other person's right as long as that person agrees with the person who is trumping rights.

I'll let you figure out which one is which.

Hey, I kind of like putting things in that kind of a slant.

Immie

i guess im trying to understand which right supercedes which when rights come into the conflict.

i.e. in this case the freedom to choose vs. the freedom of religion.

there are many other examples im sure. freedom of speech v. freedom to assemble. etc etc

 

[Immanuel]

this is obviously a case by case basis and you need to apply the law the exact same way in each case. in this case the business was not implementing their own policy or belief, they were (supposed to do so) at the request of the mother. now if the funeral home had punk rockers come in and simply refused to service them due to their appearance, then they punk rockers would have had a case against the funeral home. different situations.

but if a store is in business to sell drugs and fill prescriptions, you could make the argument that if they agreed to go into this business, they should have understood all the drugs they would be required to dispense. or they would need to post signs stating their exact policies. neither was done in this case. if you take out the word contraception and you apply the test back to say a pain med, heart med, cancer med, or aids med, does your test hold water. can a pharmacist then refuse to provide these medications to all customers on the same religious argument? a lawyer in a court room could then argue that the pharmacist could refuse to dispense all medications. which would then lead to the question as to why they would get involved in that business in the first place?

Let me know if and when you find case law that says that a place of business must serve any person or group of persons who are not discriminated against because of a protected class. We can look at the case then.

You and I will never agree on the pharmacy case because we both have different views on rights. One of us feels that rights are sacred and can only be removed in extreme circumstances and the other feels that one person's rights trumps other person's right as long as that person agrees with the person who is trumping rights.

I'll let you figure out which one is which.

Hey, I kind of like putting things in that kind of a slant.

Immie

i guess im trying to understand which right supercedes which when rights come into the conflict.

i.e. in this case the freedom to choose vs. the freedom of religion.

there are many other examples im sure. freedom of speech v. freedom to assemble. etc etc

Well since no one has the right to force anyone to sell any product, I don't see where any rights are in conflict. I can't understand why that doesn't make perfect sense to any one who can read.

Immie

 

[BluesMistress]

When deciding to go into any medical profession there are classes that are required pre-requsites. One of those classes is Ethecis 101...It is that class where we as a Person pursueing a profession working with issues that involve our Ethics and Values are studied. It's at that time you stop and think what exactly are your values and what line are you Not willing to step over. And you come to terms with that.
A pharmacist is a Profession Not a Job. They have spent many years to become that person that has to make the decision for themselves what is right & what is wrong.
Always Do No Harm ~
The answer is simple...The tech would advise the patient that they needed to speak with a pharmacist and there was not one available..Come back for your pills later.. Or When the pharmacist is hired they say I'm not dispenseing this drug...Then that drug is not available at that store...They are not mandated to carry every known drug. A pharmacist is a Doctor with more years than a general physician. They make their own decisions Very doubtful that they worry about job security!!!

 

[Syphon]

im agreeing with you if you cant see that. how do you not see that? i said "and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns."

the bar owner won, showing the he could refuse service based on safety concerns, not based on a religious view. but he also gave the club a choice, he didnt simply refuse service because he didnt like them or believe in what they stood for.

what part of any of this is confusing for you?

You still yapping, Adolf?

Learn to recognize when you've had the shit kicked out of you.

Seriously.

thanks Kim Jong Il! learn when youve been pwned and shut the fuck up. no one want to hear anything come out of your cesspool anymore.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

im agreeing with you if you cant see that. how do you not see that? i said "and why did they rule that the club had no case? because the club refused to remove their colors, which the owner asked them to do for safety concerns."

the bar owner won, showing the he could refuse service based on safety concerns, not based on a religious view. but he also gave the club a choice, he didnt simply refuse service because he didnt like them or believe in what they stood for.

what part of any of this is confusing for you?

You still yapping, Adolf?

Learn to recognize when you've had the shit kicked out of you.

Seriously.

thanks Kim Jong Il! learn when youve been pwned and shut the fuck up. no one want to hear anything come out of your cesspool anymore.

you haven't pwned ANYONE in this thread you yippy little moron.

"it's discrimination not to sell a product to anyone"

 

[Syphon]

You still yapping, Adolf?

Learn to recognize when you've had the shit kicked out of you.

Seriously.

thanks Kim Jong Il! learn when youve been pwned and shut the fuck up. no one want to hear anything come out of your cesspool anymore.

you haven't pwned ANYONE in this thread you yippy little moron.

"it's discrimination not to sell a product to anyone"

guarantee you cant point to a post where i said that Kim Jong. im done with your ignorant uneducated worthless existance, youre not on ignore.

 

[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

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.

I don't think it is an interesting discussion because I already know the answer. It is like talking about the color of the sky, it is blue, You can talk about it all day long and it will still be blue. Business owners should have a right to refuse service to anyone, period. Nothing to discuss.

 

[Immanuel]

thanks Kim Jong Il! learn when youve been pwned and shut the fuck up. no one want to hear anything come out of your cesspool anymore.

you haven't pwned ANYONE in this thread you yippy little moron.

"it's discrimination not to sell a product to anyone"

guarantee you cant point to a post where i said that Kim Jong. im done with your ignorant uneducated worthless existance, youre not on ignore.

Not in this thread but on the same general subject you mistakenly, or maybe it was with deceitful intent, claimed to have "pwned" me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...akes-him-want-to-throw-up-39.html#post4891878

Did you not know that there is a search feature on this board? Pretty easy to find posts by a particular poster especially when they use psuedo-words like pwned and especially when they don't have all that many posts either.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 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).

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.

You are actually getting worse. OSHA mandates hard hats in certain areas, but they do not require anyone to sell them. You can walk into a store and buy hard hats made out of paper, if they happen to carry them, and there is nothing OSHA can do about it. They might say something if you wear it to a construction site, but they can't say anything about a store actually selling them.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

you haven't pwned ANYONE in this thread you yippy little moron.

"it's discrimination not to sell a product to anyone"

guarantee you cant point to a post where i said that Kim Jong. im done with your ignorant uneducated worthless existance, youre not on ignore.

Not in this thread but on the same general subject you mistakenly, or maybe it was with deceitful intent, claimed to have "pwned" me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...akes-him-want-to-throw-up-39.html#post4891878

Did you not know that there is a search feature on this board? Pretty easy to find posts by a particular poster especially when they use psuedo-words like pwned and especially when they don't have all that many posts either.

Immie

and especially when they have outed themselves as dummies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 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?

I do not fracking care.

That said, one of the things about the case that you never read is the fact that the state never proved that anyone ever ended up not being able to access Plan B as a result of the fact that a single pharmacist in the state objected to dispensing it. The smallest town I have ever been in had two pharmacies within 2 miles of where I was. If you expand the radius to 30 miles there was a small city and a major city, depending on which direction you went. You have to prove their is an actual problem before I start worrying about increasingly ridiculous what ifs.

 

[Syphon]

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 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).

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.

You are actually getting worse. OSHA mandates hard hats in certain areas, but they do not require anyone to sell them. You can walk into a store and buy hard hats made out of paper, if they happen to carry them, and there is nothing OSHA can do about it. They might say something if you wear it to a construction site, but they can't say anything about a store actually selling them.

you can not sell OSHA approved hard hats made out of paper. try getting OSHA to approve them. idiot.