Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Im pleased to report that a federal district court in Washington state today delivered an important victory for religious liberty. As I outlined in several posts some weeks ago, Washington state regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by compelling pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense the abortifacient drug Plan B, notwithstanding their religiously informed conscientious convictions not to participate in the destruction of the life of an unborn human being.
In its opinion today, the federal district court correctly ruled that the regulations do violate plaintiffs Free Exercise rights. Specifically, the court determined that the regulations are not neutral for purposes of deference under Employment Division v. Smith. Rather, theyare riddled with exemptions for secular conduct, but contain no such exemptions for identical religiously-motivated conduct and thus amount to an impermissible religious gerrymander. Likewise, the regulations are not generally applicable but rather have been selectively enforced, in two ways: First, the rule that pharmacies timely deliver all lawful medications has been enforced only against the plaintiff pharmacy and only for failure to deliver plan B. Second, the rules havent been enforced against the states numerous Catholic-affiliated pharmacies, which also refuse to stock or dispense Plan B.
For each of these reasons, the regulations are therefore subject to strict scrutiny, which they cant survive.
The court also found that the state regulations were aimed at Plan B and conscientious objectors from their inception. Indeed, the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse.
Pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill what they want to refruse to fill. And their customers should have every right to take their business elsewhere. When did the consumer forget that he is king?
People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.
People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.
People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.
People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.
People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.
Why are atheist less tolerant of people of faith than people of faith are of atheist?
no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
Pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill what they want to refruse to fill. And their customers should have every right to take their business elsewhere. When did the consumer forget that he is king?
People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.
Why are atheist less tolerant of people of faith than people of faith are of atheist?
no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
Pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill what they want to refruse to fill. And their customers should have every right to take their business elsewhere. When did the consumer forget that he is king?
I agree. I should have the right to refuse to inspect whatever plane I want to refuse to inspect and I shouldn't have to tell anyone about it.
Hell, I should even sign off the inspection without doing the work, it's my right.
no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
The judge in this case thinks your argument is full of shit. I think he's right.
no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
If the owner of the pharmacy wants them to dispense Plan B and they refuse, then the owner has the right to not employ them if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately, it seems you would also remove that right from the owner of the pharmacy.
Didn't you make the claim earlier today that you were for personal liberties? You sure do a shitty job of defending personal liberties.
Immie
People also have a 1st amendment right to organize boycotts of pharmacies who prefer to sell Jesus instead of merchandise.
Why are atheist less tolerant of people of faith than people of faith are of atheist?
Why do theists hate women so much?
no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.
Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.
If the owner of the pharmacy wants them to dispense Plan B and they refuse, then the owner has the right to not employ them if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately, it seems you would also remove that right from the owner of the pharmacy.
Didn't you make the claim earlier today that you were for personal liberties? You sure do a shitty job of defending personal liberties.
Immie
It is typical lefty 'thought'... they defend only the personal liberties at they agree with. Their logic is somewhat lacking in critical thought.
