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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

He/she/it really likes adding words you never said in order to argue something completely different.

 

[Cecilie1200]

..and a jock.

Honestly, I'd say he has as little to protect in one area as he does in the other.

 

[saveliberty]

Near as I can figure, we have proven ourselves to be strong advasaries of liberal talking points. So some organization sent in a group of imbeciles to try and confuse folks. Its quite a testament to our abilities.

 

[saveliberty]

..and a jock.

Honestly, I'd say he has as little to protect in one area as he does in the other.

I'd go for the jock. Chances are that is where he thinks more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He/she/it really likes adding words you never said in order to argue something completely different.

He thinks she is being clever.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Show me one single place where anyone is ever forced to sell a hard hat...

There is no such case because requirements to have a safety item NEVER entail the forced selling of that item. The way it works is that an agency sees a safety item and then mandates that businesses use such devices.
On another note, I would like you to point out where there are any items that are specified as I do not believe there is. There are guidelines about what qualifies as a safety item or item that you must carry but specific items ARE NEVER IDENTIFIED and never is a company forced to sell them.

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?

What is your solution when there is no pharmacy?

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.

Ah, and here we come again back to my point that kills your entire bullshit argument that you have continually ignored. So, let's try one more time in big letter and short statements:

MOST PHARMACIES DO NOT CARRY LIFE OR DEATH CANCER DRUGS THAT MY SON REQUIRES

How can you continue to push the idea that a pharmacy MUST dispense plan B but does not have to do so with cancer drugs?

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Another point I already brought down that you totally ignored where I mentioned that the rights were not in conflict since
REFUSING TO SELL PLAN B DOES NOT STOP HER OR INTERFERE WITH HER RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING MUCH LESS HER RIGHT OF CHOICE
Your asinine argument is essentially saying that I am infringing on your freedom of speech if I don't sell you a specific sign. It is asinine. Just because I don't sell you the tools to do what you want does not mean I am infringing on your rights.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Any pharmacist who dispenses ordinary birth control pills but not Plan B is simply an idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron. Ordinary birth control pills can also kill a recently fertilized embryo and its possible many thousands of these human beings are killed every year by regular birth control pills.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

Killing babies?

When you kill a recently implanted embryo - you're not just killing a baby. You're killing an adult. And an old person. And the thousands to millions of descendants that person would have had. In fact - I'd think a single Plan B dispensation is probably killing 1,000,000 or so people - its genocide plain and simple.

I really think its the pharamacist that gets to decide what drugs I should take, not my doctor. Doctors are stupid and can't be trusted.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Any pharmacist who dispenses ordinary birth control pills but not Plan B is simply an idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron. Ordinary birth control pills can also kill a recently fertilized embryo and its possible many thousands of these human beings are killed every year by regular birth control pills.

And, at least currently, the right to be an 'idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron' is fully protected. Go figure.

 

[Steelplate]

Near as I can figure, we have proven ourselves to be strong advasaries of liberal talking points. So some organization sent in a group of imbeciles to try and confuse folks. Its quite a testament to our abilities.

Personally, I think you give yourself too much credit. I guess it makes you feel better to think that the liberals on this board are "paid propagandists" or something. You think that it's IMPOSSIBLE for people to actually have a viewpoint other than yours on their own.

BTW.... I love the "liberal talking points" thing... that cracks me up and is straight out of Rush Slimebaugh's Conservatism 101 class. You know... the idea that anything a liberal says is a "talking point" and anything vomited by Conservatives is "the Gospel Truth".

The thing is... Rush and Beck and Hannity gave you the tools to be reasonable.... They call it CRITICAL THINKING. But what they won't tell you is that you are allowed to use those CRITICAL THINKING Skills on what they tell you too.

But you won't. You'll just go on... nodding, drooling and perhaps masturbating to their every word. The truth of the matter is that you wouldn't know a "talking point" if you tripped over one. Believe me, your side has them too. Kind of like.... "Pharmacists have a 1st amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B".

Do you REALLY think that Conservative Politicians give a flying fuck about this? Hell no... it's a Talking point to get idiots like you riled up so you vote for them. Once that happens, then they can continue on their path of pandering to the wealthy elite and shafting the everyman.....of course, they'll expect the everyman to bail them the fuck out the NEXT time they fuck up.

 

[Steelplate]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

Killing babies?

When you kill a recently implanted embryo - you're not just killing a baby. You're killing an adult. And an old person. And the thousands to millions of descendants that person would have had. In fact - I'd think a single Plan B dispensation is probably killing 1,000,000 or so people - its genocide plain and simple.

I really think its the pharamacist that gets to decide what drugs I should take, not my doctor. Doctors are stupid and can't be trusted.

Wow.... more brilliance from the right. Doctors can't be trusted? Let me guess... their all fucking Commies.

 

[Sarah G]

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

They can object of course but they do so at their peril. Businesses don't really care about your personal beliefs. Pharmacists are there to serve customers, grow the business, do their work.

If the objections begin to grate on people/customers, employers, partners, etc.. that pharmacist will find themselves out of a job.

 

[FA_Q2]

They can object of course but they do so at their peril. Businesses don't really care about your personal beliefs. Pharmacists are there to serve customers, grow the business, do their work.

If the objections begin to grate on people/customers, employers, partners, etc.. that pharmacist will find themselves out of a job.

Which is the point. They have the right to object as we have the right not to patronage the business. I do not see how this is so complicated.

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

Killing babies?

When you kill a recently implanted embryo - you're not just killing a baby. You're killing an adult. And an old person. And the thousands to millions of descendants that person would have had. In fact - I'd think a single Plan B dispensation is probably killing 1,000,000 or so people - its genocide plain and simple.

I really think its the pharamacist that gets to decide what drugs I should take, not my doctor. Doctors are stupid and can't be trusted.

Wow.... more brilliance from the right. Doctors can't be trusted? Let me guess... their all fucking Commies.

LOL, ook is hard left steel. He was being facetious.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Any business should have the right to sell or not sell any products it wishes.

If the employer of a pharmacists says he won't sell morning after pills then that's how it is but if a pharmacist refuses to sell the pills when his employer states that the policy is to sell them the pharmacist should be fired.

 

[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

They can object of course but they do so at their peril. Businesses don't really care about your personal beliefs. Pharmacists are there to serve customers, grow the business, do their work.

If the objections begin to grate on people/customers, employers, partners, etc.. that pharmacist will find themselves out of a job.

Exactly as it SHOULD be . Dollars should motivate a business to sell /not sell not the government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Show me one single place where anyone is ever forced to sell a hard hat...

There is no such case because requirements to have a safety item NEVER entail the forced selling of that item. The way it works is that an agency sees a safety item and then mandates that businesses use such devices.
On another note, I would like you to point out where there are any items that are specified as I do not believe there is. There are guidelines about what qualifies as a safety item or item that you must carry but specific items ARE NEVER IDENTIFIED and never is a company forced to sell them.

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?

What is your solution when there is no pharmacy?

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.

Ah, and here we come again back to my point that kills your entire bullshit argument that you have continually ignored. So, let's try one more time in big letter and short statements:

MOST PHARMACIES DO NOT CARRY LIFE OR DEATH CANCER DRUGS THAT MY SON REQUIRES

How can you continue to push the idea that a pharmacy MUST dispense plan B but does not have to do so with cancer drugs?

Their reply: "But ...But...But.....That's different".
You won't get a straight answer.

 

[Immanuel]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

Killing babies?

When you kill a recently implanted embryo - you're not just killing a baby. You're killing an adult. And an old person. And the thousands to millions of descendants that person would have had. In fact - I'd think a single Plan B dispensation is probably killing 1,000,000 or so people - its genocide plain and simple.

I really think its the pharamacist that gets to decide what drugs I should take, not my doctor. Doctors are stupid and can't be trusted.

Wow.... more brilliance from the right. Doctors can't be trusted? Let me guess... their all fucking Commies.

Note: Oohpoopahdoo is one of yours. He was trying to be sarcastic.

Have you really never read any of his posts? I admit, I rarely do but that is because he doesn't think before he posts and blames Republicans for everything from the Big Bang to life not having been found on Alpha Centauri.

Immie

Immie

 

[Syphon]

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.

Show me one single place where anyone is ever forced to sell a hard hat...

There is no such case because requirements to have a safety item NEVER entail the forced selling of that item. The way it works is that an agency sees a safety item and then mandates that businesses use such devices.
On another note, I would like you to point out where there are any items that are specified as I do not believe there is. There are guidelines about what qualifies as a safety item or item that you must carry but specific items ARE NEVER IDENTIFIED and never is a company forced to sell them.

What is your solution when there is no pharmacy?

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.

Ah, and here we come again back to my point that kills your entire bullshit argument that you have continually ignored. So, let's try one more time in big letter and short statements:

MOST PHARMACIES DO NOT CARRY LIFE OR DEATH CANCER DRUGS THAT MY SON REQUIRES

How can you continue to push the idea that a pharmacy MUST dispense plan B but does not have to do so with cancer drugs?

Their reply: "But ...But...But.....That's different".
You won't get a straight answer.

i never stated that pharmacys should only be required to dispense plan B and no other drugs. they should be required to carry it (the cancer drug), or an equal, if its a time sensitive drug, i dont have a problem with that mandate either. drugs that are not time sensitive, do not necessarily need to be covered under this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

i never stated that pharmacys should only be required to dispense plan B and no other drugs. they should be required to carry it (the cancer drug), or an equal, if its a time sensitive drug, i dont have a problem with that mandate either. drugs that are not time sensitive, do not necessarily need to be covered under this.

You don't have a problem with that, Adolf?

What price will you permit them to charge? Or will you mandate that pharmacies must give drugs away?

You decide, the peasants obey, right Adolf?