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

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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...

Because the regulations governing cleanliness in restaurants do not require vegetarian restaurants to carry steaks.

 

[Syphon]

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

still dont see where i said those words. i never said is discrimination to sell to no one, because in fact you arent doing business if you arent not selling any products. but since the pharmacy sells other drugs, they are in fact doing business and deciding who they will and will not do business with. try again

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.

I’m 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, they“are 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 haven’t been enforced against the state’s 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 can’t 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

Question, Quantum....

The cashiers in this article:
"MINNEAPOLIS, Minn.—Beryl Dsouza was late and in no mood for delays when she stopped at a Target store after work two weeks ago for milk, bread and bacon.

So Dsouza was taken aback when the cashier—who had on the traditional headscarf worn by many Muslim women—refused to swipe the bacon through the checkout scanner.

In the latest example of religious beliefs creating tension in the workplace, some Muslims in the Twin Cities are adhering to a strict interpretation of the Koran that prohibits the handling of pork products.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must accommodate a person's religious practice if it doesn't impose a hardship. [Hey, it's no hardship, we can adjust!]

A customer's personal preference is usually not a factor in deciding whether a practice is protected, noted Khadija Athma of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington."
The enemy is here and is letting us know it

Or these drivers...

"... there’s an ongoing dispute involving cab drivers who serve Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport—many of whom are Muslim—who refuse to take passengers who are carrying alcohol."
Target shifts Muslims who won


Religious exception to doing their jobs?

If you ask me, a cashier that does not sell pork is a hardship to the business, the business should be able to fire them. If, on the other hand, the business has no problem with the religious person not swiping the pork, the customer can go somewhere else. My guess is that Target, being a national chain, would prefer not to hire Muslims who refuse to sell pork, but are afraid to deal with the backlash from refusing to hire them.

As for how I would react, I would expect the store to have two cashiers manning any register that had a Muslim that refused to sell pork or alcohol. If they didn't, I would raise a huge stink, demand to see the store manager, demand an apology, and insist on getting the bacon for free. But I happen to be an gorram jerk, most people would simply wilt.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

still dont see where i said those words. i never said is discrimination to sell to no one, because in fact you arent doing business if you arent not selling any products. but since the pharmacy sells other drugs, they are in fact doing business and deciding who they will and will not do business with. try again

YOU claimed that it was discrimination not to sell Plan B. If you're really so dishonest you won't admit it I will hunt through the thread and find it and expose you. I'd rather you just honestly admitted it.

You're stupid. There really is no other explanation for your behavior.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

yes, because not having your coke on a daily basis could directly lead to your death. they are exactly the same!

idiot

Not getting Plan B is not going to kill you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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.

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.

The regulation was written because Washington is a bastion of liberal idiots that want to control people's lives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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! ). 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!

this entire thread is about Plan B. maybe you should read it from the beginning.

this argument is not about the pharmacy owner, since the owner already stocked Plan B, it is about the employee refusing to provide service based on a religious view. go back and read about disclosure laws and the plan B mandate which i posted earlier.

you wing nuts are idiots.

There you go again.

The case was brought because it was impossible for the owner of the pharmacy to have two pharmacist on hand whenever the pharmacy was open. If you had actually read the link I provided, or the decision, you would know that, Instead, you went out, found an 0old decision, and based all your stupidity on what it said.

 

[Syphon]

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!

yes, because not having your coke on a daily basis could directly lead to your death. they are exactly the same!

idiot

Not getting Plan B is not going to kill you.

are you a woman who was raped or a victim of incest and were denied access to plan B? you might feel differently.

Grayson Continues to Misrepresent Dr. Paul of Life Issue : Kentucky Political Review

even a pro-life advocate Rand Paul agrees.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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,

so you are for freedom of religion over freedom of choice? guess you made that clear with this post.

so my religion says that i believe women to be inferior human beings. thus if a woman comes into my store, i have a religious protected right to refuse service now. thanks for clearing that up.

Why is this so complicated for you?

If you do not have freedom of religion you do not have freedom of choice.

 

[Syphon]

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! ). 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!

this entire thread is about Plan B. maybe you should read it from the beginning.

this argument is not about the pharmacy owner, since the owner already stocked Plan B, it is about the employee refusing to provide service based on a religious view. go back and read about disclosure laws and the plan B mandate which i posted earlier.

you wing nuts are idiots.

There you go again.

The case was brought because it was impossible for the owner of the pharmacy to have two pharmacist on hand whenever the pharmacy was open. If you had actually read the link I provided, or the decision, you would know that, Instead, you went out, found an 0old decision, and based all your stupidity on what it said.

the owner of the pharmacy should not have put that person in that situation then. if he knew that the pharmacist had an object to dispensing certain medications, then he should have had someone else work the shift.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

here it is again for you who cant read:

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service

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

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.

Once again, there is not discrimination if you refuse service to everyone. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Where is the evidence the pharmacist refused to sell Plan B to a particular customer because they were a woman, or gay, etc.?

read the OP link, the pharmacist refused to sell the product to a woman based on her religious views.

Wrong. The pharmacists refused to sell Plan B to anyone, male, female, or robot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again, there is not discrimination if you refuse service to everyone. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Where is the evidence the pharmacist refused to sell Plan B to a particular customer because they were a woman, or gay, etc.?

read the OP link, the pharmacist refused to sell the product to a woman based on her religious views.

Based on the pharmacist's religious views, not the customer's, correct? So the pharmacist wasn't discriminating against this particular woman, the pharmacist refused to sell the Plan B to anyone, yes?

He has a problem between discrimination based on religion and refusing to do something because of religion.

 

[Montrovant]

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

still dont see where i said those words. i never said is discrimination to sell to no one, because in fact you arent doing business if you arent not selling any products. but since the pharmacy sells other drugs, they are in fact doing business and deciding who they will and will not do business with. try again

And again you are wrong. Not selling a single product to people is not the same as not doing business with them. They are free to purchase any of the other products the pharmacy IS willing to sell.

Your problem seems to be that you consistently imagine all the burden to be on the customer and that the employee or business owner should HAVE to kowtow to their desires. I will ask again, if you have any evidence that the pharmacist or the business he worked at was willing to sell Plan B to some customers but not others, provide it. If, instead, the pharmacist/business simply refused to sell Plan B to anyone, there is no discrimination. None of your arguments and none of the cases you've linked to have truly disputed that simple notion.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

this entire thread is about Plan B. maybe you should read it from the beginning.

this argument is not about the pharmacy owner, since the owner already stocked Plan B, it is about the employee refusing to provide service based on a religious view. go back and read about disclosure laws and the plan B mandate which i posted earlier.

you wing nuts are idiots.

There you go again.

The case was brought because it was impossible for the owner of the pharmacy to have two pharmacist on hand whenever the pharmacy was open. If you had actually read the link I provided, or the decision, you would know that, Instead, you went out, found an 0old decision, and based all your stupidity on what it said.

the owner of the pharmacy should not have put that person in that situation then. if he knew that the pharmacist had an object to dispensing certain medications, then he should have had someone else work the shift.

Yawn, you're just clueless.

 

[Montrovant]

yes, because not having your coke on a daily basis could directly lead to your death. they are exactly the same!

idiot

Not getting Plan B is not going to kill you.

are you a woman who was raped or a victim of incest and were denied access to plan B? you might feel differently.

Grayson Continues to Misrepresent Dr. Paul of Life Issue : Kentucky Political Review

even a pro-life advocate Rand Paul agrees.

What in that article claims that failing to use Plan B will lead to death?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You can sell non OSHA approved hard hats made out of glass if you want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes, because not having your coke on a daily basis could directly lead to your death. they are exactly the same!

idiot

Not getting Plan B is not going to kill you.

are you a woman who was raped or a victim of incest and were denied access to plan B? you might feel differently.

Grayson Continues to Misrepresent Dr. Paul of Life Issue : Kentucky Political Review

even a pro-life advocate Rand Paul agrees.

I might, but it still would not kill me.

End of stupid argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

this entire thread is about Plan B. maybe you should read it from the beginning.

this argument is not about the pharmacy owner, since the owner already stocked Plan B, it is about the employee refusing to provide service based on a religious view. go back and read about disclosure laws and the plan B mandate which i posted earlier.

you wing nuts are idiots.

There you go again.

The case was brought because it was impossible for the owner of the pharmacy to have two pharmacist on hand whenever the pharmacy was open. If you had actually read the link I provided, or the decision, you would know that, Instead, you went out, found an 0old decision, and based all your stupidity on what it said.

the owner of the pharmacy should not have put that person in that situation then. if he knew that the pharmacist had an object to dispensing certain medications, then he should have had someone else work the shift.

The owner of the pharmacy did not put anyone in any position, the state did.

 

[nitroz]

Cool story, bro.

Now lets watch them exercise that right.
(it wont get far if they did)

 

[Immanuel]

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

still dont see where i said those words. i never said is discrimination to sell to no one, because in fact you arent doing business if you arent not selling any products. but since the pharmacy sells other drugs, they are in fact doing business and deciding who they will and will not do business with. try again

YOU claimed that it was discrimination not to sell Plan B. If you're really so dishonest you won't admit it I will hunt through the thread and find it and expose you. I'd rather you just honestly admitted it.

You're stupid. There really is no other explanation for your behavior.

Honesty does not appear to be a strong suit of his.

He's been given dozens of opportunities to simply be honest in multiple threads, but he doesn't seem to get the idea that it is much easier to be honest than it is to just keep compiling lie after lie after lie.

Go figure.

It is not a crime to admit that you made a mistake.

Immie