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

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

a common ailment on the net. How hard is it to say, you were right, I made a mistake.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's none of the pharmacist's business why you want or need any prescribed drug. That's between you and your doctor.

Hey, dumbass. They're trained pharmacists. It's not a big secret to them what the prescribed medication is used for.

And by the way, it IS their business, because it's part of their job to review your medications and make sure they're not going to interact with each other or with a health condition badly. They're the back-up to the doctor in case he doesn't catch it for some reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Is that our new standard? Because last time I checked, Plan B doesn't prevent death, either.

 

[Immanuel]

Question for Syphon:

Who's rights prevail in this scenario?

Does a dog owner's "right" to own a dog and not have crap in his own front or back yard trump my right to not have his dog crap in my yard or not to have to clean it up myself?

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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?

if there is no approved equal, then they can in fact mandate that they sell or use that particular product.

what if only 1 manufacturer makes said product. then by law you have to buy that product, until another company makes that product or an equal become available.

apparently you dont know how business works at all.

No, dumbass. You're STILL conflating one set of circumstances with another, entirely unrelated set of circumstances.

Stay with me here. It is none of the government's business what items a store decides to sell, or what the boss decides his employees' job descriptions entail. When the question is whether or not the government should have a law allowing it to interfere in people's lives, it is not helpful to say, "Well, the law says they can." That's reasoning so circular, it's not even reasoning any more. It's Syphon-think at that point.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

you two are cracking me up. Are you really not aware of Syphon's game?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

My feeling is, if you're planning on fucking without protection that often, you might wanna move to a bigger city.

brilliant line of the day.

I'm glad you can appreciate the brilliance of suggesting that people make better life choices for themselves, rather than expecting others to take up the slack for their bad planning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm not taking away jack. YOU are trying to GIVE people something they have no right to, and I'm simply pointing that out.

Try to stay with me, Short Bus: it doesn't matter what your excuse is. There is NOTHING that entitles you to invalidate other people's rights merely to accommodate you. I don't care how hard you try to hide behind women's skirts in order to attack Constitutional freedoms on behalf of providing yourself with a Nanny Government so that you can feel free to be as big a careless dumbshit as you wish. You are not going to come up with anything that is ever going to make me say, "Oh, okay, it's all right for you to force other people to participate in your decisions against their will." You might as well save the rest of your Parade of Victims right now, because the answer will be the same.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

I'm not taking away jack. YOU are trying to GIVE people something they have no right to, and I'm simply pointing that out.

Try to stay with me, Short Bus: it doesn't matter what your excuse is. There is NOTHING that entitles you to invalidate other people's rights merely to accommodate you. I don't care how hard you try to hide behind women's skirts in order to attack Constitutional freedoms on behalf of providing yourself with a Nanny Government so that you can feel free to be as big a careless dumbshit as you wish. You are not going to come up with anything that is ever going to make me say, "Oh, okay, it's all right for you to force other people to participate in your decisions against their will." You might as well save the rest of your Parade of Victims right now, because the answer will be the same.

He doesn't care if you ever agree with him, because he isn't here to discuss anything, he's only here to scream that conservatives are wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Yes they do..The question is, "will they"...Maybe a few. But the number will be insignificant.
Most folks feel the hair on their neck stand up when the First Amendment gets trampled by government.

 

[regent]

I'm thinking of creating some new religions. One religion will allow its adherents to work when motivated by a dream. Another religion will be one that excuses people from paying taxes. Though I think that one is taken. (wonder how they are doing?) Still another religion is one that excuses people from paying traffic tickets. Other religions will be created as the need and money arrives.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm thinking of creating some new religions. One religion will allow its adherents to work when motivated by a dream. Another religion will be one that excuses people from paying taxes. Though I think that one is taken. (wonder how they are doing?) Still another religion is one that excuses people from paying traffic tickets. Other religions will be created as the need and money arrives.

The person who I thought of when I read this post was Lyndon LaRouche. Now, I don't think he tried the religious point in regards to not paying taxes, but he did argue income taxes were unconstitutional and he was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LaRouche was a perennial presidential candidate from 1976 to 2004, running once for his own U.S. Labor Party and campaigning seven times for the Democratic Party nomination, though he failed to attract appreciable electoral support. He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. Ramsey Clark, his chief appellate attorney and a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that LaRouche was denied a fair trial but the Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the appeal.[2]

If you want some truly friendly advice think very carefully before you try that route and make sure that you have a good attorney.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...

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.

show me where i said "any regulation means all regulation"

i did not. but i punched enough holes in your argument to show why regulation is needed as well as how the government can mandate the use or sale of specific product. or did you miss the whole "or approved equal" conversation?

Oh, spare me the word parsing. Every fucking post you put up REEKS of "Government regulation = Yay!" so don't even go there. You can't even wrap both your brain cells around the concept that government involvement in something could ever be a bad idea, as evidenced by the fact that you have yet to actually address that point, aside from saying, "That should be the law because there's a law".

The only thing you've punched a hole in lately is your boyfriend's condom, so don't flatter yourself. I'm still waiting for you to make your first coherent post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

pharmacists arent forced to go into the drug business it is their choice. so why are they judging their customers based upon they drugs they take?

again, read the thread this has nothing to do with the pharmacy owner, it has to do with the pharmacist who refused to provide a product the pharmacy already carried.

you keep going around in circles.

Why do you seem to think it's some sort of crushing "Aha!" point to say "It applies to other drugs, too". You're right (for the first time ever); it does. So what? Just as there is no victim you can wave as a human shield to make it okay for the government to tell private businesses what to stock, so there is no special, all-important drug that makes it okay, either.

If the pharmacy doesn't have what you want, you go somewhere else. You do NOT call in Nanny Government to twist their arms into doing what you want them to.

Life sometimes sucks, Jack. I suggest you wear a helmet.

 

[saveliberty]

..and a jock.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Freedom of religion IS freedom of choice: REAL choice, not just "fucking without consequences" choice. It is the free choice of religious people not to participate in your behavior if they don't agree with it.

Why do liberals, the so-called champions of "choice", hate the idea of any free choice that doesn't involve killing babies or fucking like crazed weasels?

So your religion apparently says that you have to repeat the same fucking asinine unrelated argument three times per page, no matter how endlessly it has been explained to you that NO ONE IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE, YOU PISS-BRAINED HALFWIT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Here it is again for those of you who can't think: IRRELEVANT, PUKESTAIN!

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

i just am at a loss in this thread.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yes, flatliner, and was the pharmacist's - the FEMALE pharmacist's - religious view that women suck and shouldn't be allowed to shop there? Or was her religious view concerning the PRODUCT, rather than the customer?

See if you can actually answer that question, rather than treating us all to another unrelated moronic rant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If you don't own the business, don't try to define the jobs for them.