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

[Quantum Windbag]

i didnt claim the judge was anything. I said my opinion and thats it.

Your opinion is as crappy as your reading comprehension skills, I never said you made any claim about the judge, I just pointed out why you shouldn't make a claim that you are prone to make rather than think.

how about you don't point things out, because i don't give a shit about your points.

egotistical little shit.

Excuse me? I am arrogant, not egotistical, and am far from little as I weighed over 250 pounds last time a stepped on a scale.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Can you give any examples of these things that people of faith do to atheists? Preferrably something that is not done in response or retribution to acts done by atheists first.

The very fact you say "something that is not done in response or retribution to acts done by atheists first" indicates a certain bias, no?

When was the last time an athiest was elected president?

He's in office right now.

I have to say, the only issues I have ever had with atheists are on boards such as this one. Most atheists are pleasant human beings in real life who are good to be around as long as you don't get into discussion of faith, so I have not had any problems with atheists myself. But neither do I know of people of faith harming atheists either.

I hear as much vitriole directed towards athiests on these boards as I do vitriole directed towards religion.

I have no problem with either, as long as there is mutual respect for each other's positions.

So, now he's a Kenyan Muslim Atheist who was Radicalized by his Christian Minister.

Any more adjectives you guys want to add before the election?

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

The standard that has been used forever in this country is that you are free to act in any way you want, especially with regards to any religious beliefs you may have, so long as in doing so, it does not harm another person.

In short, this ruling will be overturned.

 

[del]

good luck proving that refusing to supply an abortion pill causes harm, and better luck forcing a private enterprise to stock it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

good luck proving that refusing to supply an abortion pill causes harm, and better luck forcing a private enterprise to stock it.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

 

[del]

good luck proving that refusing to supply an abortion pill causes harm, and better luck forcing a private enterprise to stock it.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

a christian scientist by definition wouldn't work at a pharmacy.

find a different way to fail

 

[DontBeStupid]

good luck proving that refusing to supply an abortion pill causes harm, and better luck forcing a private enterprise to stock it.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

a christian scientist by definition wouldn't work at a pharmacy.

find a different way to fail

Right, and by definition, a Catholic would never put himself in a position to dispense the morning after pill.

 

[del]

Your opinion is as crappy as your reading comprehension skills, I never said you made any claim about the judge, I just pointed out why you shouldn't make a claim that you are prone to make rather than think.

how about you don't point things out, because i don't give a shit about your points.

egotistical little shit.

Excuse me? I am arrogant, not egotistical, and am far from little as I weighed over 250 pounds last time a stepped on a scale.

you forgot the special forces part and the mansion, ferrari and model girlfriend.

 

[elvis]

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

a christian scientist by definition wouldn't work at a pharmacy.

find a different way to fail

Right, and by definition, a Catholic would never put himself in a position to dispense the morning after pill.

Looks like you did.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

good luck proving that refusing to supply an abortion pill causes harm, and better luck forcing a private enterprise to stock it.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

As far as I can tell, the issue here wasn't whether or not one has to dispense the morning-after-pill, but whether one has to stock it. Those are two separate issues.

 

[DontBeStupid]

good luck proving that refusing to supply an abortion pill causes harm, and better luck forcing a private enterprise to stock it.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

As far as I can tell, the issue here wasn't whether or not one has to dispense the morning-after-pill, but whether one has to stock it. Those are two separate issues.

Yes and no.

As I understand it, getting a license to operate your pharmacy business means you will abide by certain guidelines. One of which is access to legal medication. If you then decide you don't want to provide access to legal medication, then your license should be revoked. It's similar to getting a liquor license and then deciding you religiously object to women drinking and therefore stop serving women. You would lose your license in that case.

 

[del]

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

As far as I can tell, the issue here wasn't whether or not one has to dispense the morning-after-pill, but whether one has to stock it. Those are two separate issues.

Yes and no.

As I understand it, getting a license to operate your pharmacy business means you will abide by certain guidelines. One of which is access to legal medication. If you then decide you don't want to provide access to legal medication, then your license should be revoked. It's similar to getting a liquor license and then deciding you religiously object to women drinking and therefore stop serving women. You would lose your license in that case.

you should read the ruling before you make yourself appear more ignorant.

assuming that's possible

 

[DontBeStupid]

As far as I can tell, the issue here wasn't whether or not one has to dispense the morning-after-pill, but whether one has to stock it. Those are two separate issues.

Yes and no.

As I understand it, getting a license to operate your pharmacy business means you will abide by certain guidelines. One of which is access to legal medication. If you then decide you don't want to provide access to legal medication, then your license should be revoked. It's similar to getting a liquor license and then deciding you religiously object to women drinking and therefore stop serving women. You would lose your license in that case.

you should read the ruling before you make yourself appear more ignorant.

assuming that's possible

I did. What part do you think I got wrong?

 

[del]

Yes and no.

As I understand it, getting a license to operate your pharmacy business means you will abide by certain guidelines. One of which is access to legal medication. If you then decide you don't want to provide access to legal medication, then your license should be revoked. It's similar to getting a liquor license and then deciding you religiously object to women drinking and therefore stop serving women. You would lose your license in that case.

you should read the ruling before you make yourself appear more ignorant.

assuming that's possible

I did. What part do you think I got wrong?

the part where you completely ignore the court finding that the stocking law had been selectively enforced since the advent of plan b and where the court found that no pharmacy has a requirement to stock every legal drug.

 

[DontBeStupid]

you should read the ruling before you make yourself appear more ignorant.

assuming that's possible

I did. What part do you think I got wrong?

the part where you completely ignore the court finding that the stocking law had been selectively enforced since the advent of plan b and where the court found that no pharmacy has a requirement to stock every legal drug.

Yeah ...

perhaps you missed the part where I said this would be overturned. That kind of means I don't agree with the decision or the findings.

 

[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

The standard that has been used forever in this country is that you are free to act in any way you want, especially with regards to any religious beliefs you may have, so long as in doing so, it does not harm another person.

In short, this ruling will be overturned.

Can you tell me how not selling someone Plan B will cause harm? Will they die if they don't get it? If not, your point is not a point.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

From the website:
Plan B One-Step® Consumer: Where to get Plan B One-Step®

Head to Your Pharmacy
If you're 17 or older, Plan B One-Step® is available without a prescription. Just ask for Plan B One-Step® at the pharmacy counter. If you're under 17, you'll need a prescription.

If the young lady goes to a national chain, she can get Plan B without a prescription.
CVS/Walgreens/Rite Aid don't want the bad publicity this type of discrimination will bring.

Choosing not to sell a product is not disctimination. Choosing to only sell a product to certain people would be discrimination.

Damn our educational system has failed

 

[JustSomeGuy]

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

As far as I can tell, the issue here wasn't whether or not one has to dispense the morning-after-pill, but whether one has to stock it. Those are two separate issues.

Yes and no.

As I understand it, getting a license to operate your pharmacy business means you will abide by certain guidelines. One of which is access to legal medication. If you then decide you don't want to provide access to legal medication, then your license should be revoked. It's similar to getting a liquor license and then deciding you religiously object to women drinking and therefore stop serving women. You would lose your license in that case.

The comparison between running a liquor store and a pharmacy you use is not apt. The pharmacy in question is not refusing to serve women. That would be gender discrimination. Rather, they refuse to stock a certain product. Yes, that product is mostly requested by women, but that does not make it gender discrimination as you are insinuating. To use your liquor store example, a pharmacy refusing to stock Plan B would be equivalent to a liquor store refusing to stock, for example, Hennessy. Yes, a liquor store should sell Hennessy, but a requirement of being a liquor store is not to sell every available liquor. In the U.S., we afford businesses the right to stock and sell what they see fit in accordance to their own guiding principles.

The idea that a business has to offer you the exact products and/or services you want is preposterous. Should I be able to walk into a store run by a Muslim and demand he stock some pork ribs for me to purchase?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

good luck proving that refusing to supply an abortion pill causes harm, and better luck forcing a private enterprise to stock it.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, a Christian Scientist could be hired at a Pharmacy and could freely deny every person any and all medication, with zero repercussions.

This ruling will be overturned.

Christians Scientists do not work at pharmacies, idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

how about you don't point things out, because i don't give a shit about your points.

egotistical little shit.

Excuse me? I am arrogant, not egotistical, and am far from little as I weighed over 250 pounds last time a stepped on a scale.

you forgot the special forces part and the mansion, ferrari and model girlfriend.

I left those in my dreams.