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

[Texanmike]

Holy ehit you are stupid. If that muslim is sellng wine to men yes he better sell to women to but if he just doesnt sell wine at all tough shit

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

I ignore the religeous aspect because its irrelevant. Even an atheist pharmacist has a right to decide which legal products he will sell and frankly shouldnt have to explain himself to anyone. Its HIS,or hers. Business

A state has the authority to set requirements like these. It is just like marriage licenses. If you want to apply for a marriage license, you must meet certain criteria. If you want to apply for a pharmaceutical license, you must meet certain criteria. You have an opportunity for redress, it is to vote; either with your ballot or your feet.

I'm quite frankly surprised that we haven't seen someone try to (I didn't fine tooth comb the thread) use the commerce clause but it wasn't supposed to apply here either. The reality is that (in accordance with the tenth amendment) this is the authority of the states. Washington should tell the federal courts to go get fucked.

Mike

 

[DontBeStupid]

The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Not sure if this is directed at me or in general, but I don't believe that.

Otherwise, excellent post.

 

[Texanmike]

This is stupid. The state is perfectly within its rights to require someone have access to plan B. This is not a federal issue at all. What is funny is sitting here watching you guys argue the opposite side of the issue when it comes to the Constitution.

The guys on the right who argue that marriage is a state issue have suddenly seen the "nationalist" light and think this is a violation of the first amendment. The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Let me go ahead and explain for all of you (who will probably dismiss me because I'm reading the Constitution and not case precedence). The first amendment does not apply to the states. It applies to congress. Congress shall create no law...

This is a perfect example of the federal courts overreaching an inserting political beliefs/philosophy in such a way that they will claim authority over this again at a later date. The 14th amendment (which is funny, i'm about to see a bunch of people tell me that the 14th amendment incorporates all of the bill of rights against the states- it does not) does not apply here. It says that the states must apply the laws within the states equally. The State has the authority to require this. If the pharmacist doesn't like it then they should either a. MOVE or b Campaign to have it changed[/b].

This isn't a first amendment issue, it isn't a 14th amendment issue, it isn't a federal government issue.

Oh, and for the record, I think they should be able to refuse to sell it. I don't live in Washington though and I'm quite sure that Washingtonians should be able to figure out how they want their pharmaceutical licenses to work.

Mike

I happen to agree with you, but in fact incorporation is the law of the land so ....

Incorporation is the overreach of the federal government, it is not the law of the land. It was never meant by the 14th amendment to incorporate the BoR. It is an agenda that usually serves one side of the isle but it is just a play on words and cases. Incorporation doctrine wasn't even MENTIONED until 30 years after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Not sure if this is directed at me or in general, but I don't believe that.

Otherwise, excellent post.

It is directed at people in general. You've done it before but it isn't specifically directed at you. People read what they want in the Constitution. People try to apply the Constitution to get an agenda passed instead of reading it for what it says and finding out what was meant when it was ratified. I've done it before (though I think I've sufficiently changed my ways since I started my research).

Gay marriage was the first thing that popped into my head because the left and right fall on exactly the opposite lines from this debate. People on the right are pulling out the 14th amendment and talking about how that incorporates the BoR to the states. Where is that argument when they are talking about marriage laws? It isn't there. By the same token people on the left have suddenly turned this into a "well it is a requirement to get a license, the state can do that" argument... but when I make that argument in the marriage debate (again, social issue, I have no dog in the fight) I get chastised and people tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about...

The bottom line is that people need to choose, do you want to be ruled by your federal government or governed by your state? If you make that determination based on issues rather than philosophy you will wind up with exactly what we have here.

Mike

P.S. It is never personal (well almost never)... Just remember next time I'm on the opposite side of the fence on a ruling... According to my individual beliefs, I want to scream "LET THEM REFUSE... IT IS THEIR BUSINESS"... but in reality they live in another state and they should govern themselves, I'll worry about governing myself... I don't ever read the Constitution with the intention to find a way to get a desirable outcome resolved, I just want to know what the rules of the system are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is stupid. The state is perfectly within its rights to require someone have access to plan B. This is not a federal issue at all. What is funny is sitting here watching you guys argue the opposite side of the issue when it comes to the Constitution.

Civil rights are a federal issue because those rights are protected by the constitution.

The guys on the right who argue that marriage is a state issue have suddenly seen the "nationalist" light and think this is a violation of the first amendment. The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Marriage is a religious/social issue, not a state, or federal one. Unfortunately, states decided they have the power to regulate marriage, and actually require people to pay a fee before they get married. That makes them wrong, in my opinion.

Let me go ahead and explain for all of you (who will probably dismiss me because I'm reading the Constitution and not case precedence). The first amendment does not apply to the states. It applies to congress. Congress shall create no law...

You shouldn't stop reading so soon.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That makes all of this federal, but I do appreciate your attempt to rewrite the constitution.

This is a perfect example of the federal courts overreaching an inserting political beliefs/philosophy in such a way that they will claim authority over this again at a later date. The 14th amendment (which is funny, i'm about to see a bunch of people tell me that the 14th amendment incorporates all of the bill of rights against the states- it does not) does not apply here. It says that the states must apply the laws within the states equally. The State has the authority to require this. If the pharmacist doesn't like it then they should either a. MOVE or b Campaign to have it changed[/b].

Actually, it just proves you don't understand the constitution or law.

This isn't a first amendment issue, it isn't a 14th amendment issue, it isn't a federal government issue.

Sure it is.

Oh, and for the record, I think they should be able to refuse to sell it. I don't live in Washington though and I'm quite sure that Washingtonians should be able to figure out how they want their pharmaceutical licenses to work.

Mike

Not if they decide to discriminate and infringe on people's rights while they are doing it.
Another idiot.

Marriage is a religious issue, not a state, or federal, one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

I ignore the religeous aspect because its irrelevant. Even an atheist pharmacist has a right to decide which legal products he will sell and frankly shouldnt have to explain himself to anyone. Its HIS,or hers. Business

A state has the authority to set requirements like these. It is just like marriage licenses. If you want to apply for a marriage license, you must meet certain criteria. If you want to apply for a pharmaceutical license, you must meet certain criteria. You have an opportunity for redress, it is to vote; either with your ballot or your feet.

I'm quite frankly surprised that we haven't seen someone try to (I didn't fine tooth comb the thread) use the commerce clause but it wasn't supposed to apply here either. The reality is that (in accordance with the tenth amendment) this is the authority of the states. Washington should tell the federal courts to go get fucked.

Mike

You are even dumber than Don't be Stupid, and his name is stupid.

 

[Texanmike]

This is stupid. The state is perfectly within its rights to require someone have access to plan B. This is not a federal issue at all. What is funny is sitting here watching you guys argue the opposite side of the issue when it comes to the Constitution.

Civil rights are a federal issue because those rights are protected by the constitution.

The guys on the right who argue that marriage is a state issue have suddenly seen the "nationalist" light and think this is a violation of the first amendment. The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Marriage is a religious/social issue, not a state, or federal one. Unfortunately, states decided they have the power to regulate marriage, and actually require people to pay a fee before they get married. That makes them wrong, in my opinion.



You shouldn't stop reading so soon.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That makes all of this federal, but I do appreciate your attempt to rewrite the constitution.



Actually, it just proves you don't understand the constitution or law.

This isn't a first amendment issue, it isn't a 14th amendment issue, it isn't a federal government issue.

Sure it is.

Oh, and for the record, I think they should be able to refuse to sell it. I don't live in Washington though and I'm quite sure that Washingtonians should be able to figure out how they want their pharmaceutical licenses to work.

Mike

Not if they decide to discriminate and infringe on people's rights while they are doing it.
Another idiot.

Marriage is a religious issue, not a state, or federal, one.

As is typical, you don't actually know anything. You FEEL things. Incorporation doctrine was not intended by the ratifiers of the document. It was written to ensure that states would not discriminate against former slaves. Go read your history, or go get minutes from the debates. It wasn't until 30 years later that some federal judge invented the incorporation doctrine to advance a social issue.

I never rewrote anything. That is courtesy of 200+ years of SCOTUS that rewrote the document.

Mike

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You don't define their job, and neither does the government. Their employer does. If their employer wants them to sell plan B and they refuse, he can fire them, or not hire them in the first place.

 

[editec]

Religious edicts do NOT supercede secular laws in a secular society.

I know a lot of us might want to turn the USA into CHRISTO-TALIBANIA, but most of us would prefer not to live in THE 13TH CENTURY.

And the most of us ALSO happen to be Christians.

 

[JoeB131]

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

I say we have a "Church Tax". A tax on chruches are religiously stupid people for all the expenses from unwanted children that their stupid beliefs create.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Sallow]

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?

That's ridiculous.

In any case..this is demonstrating why health needs to be moved into the public realm.

These sort of batshit crazy idiocy is why the private sector is ill suited to handle this important function in society.

 

[jillian]

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

if they have a moral objection to dispensing medication, they have freedom of religion to find another job.

same as if you're a muslim who can't handle pork products, you're free not to work in an italian deli.

 

[Sallow]

False? Please shoe me where the government is given the authority to tell anyone what products they must sell. Do you realize how small of a leap it is from there to the government setting prices?



The saddest part is you truly think youre smart

Not how it works.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, you need to show how they are prohibited from doing it.

Read the 14th Amendment sometime, you might learn something.

The 14th Amendment does not supercede the rest of the Constitution. And it's not the all encompassing powerful doctrine the right makes it out to be. It's more of a catch all. The Constitution provides some very broad powers to the Federal Government. And for a reason. It's so that the rights of citizens are uniform within the country.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Strawman.

 

[saveliberty]

Let me see, if it was a Muslim pharmacist, he/she would be allowed to pray at work. Following their religious beliefs all that. Yet a Christian can't exclude themselves from killing someone? Some pharmacies don't carry liquor or cigarettes as health issues. Do no harm.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Strawman.

No it's not.

That's a very real possibility. That's what the whole case is about.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

This is stupid. The state is perfectly within its rights to require someone have access to plan B. This is not a federal issue at all. What is funny is sitting here watching you guys argue the opposite side of the issue when it comes to the Constitution.

The guys on the right who argue that marriage is a state issue have suddenly seen the "nationalist" light and think this is a violation of the first amendment. The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Let me go ahead and explain for all of you (who will probably dismiss me because I'm reading the Constitution and not case precedence). The first amendment does not apply to the states. It applies to congress. Congress shall create no law...

This is a perfect example of the federal courts overreaching an inserting political beliefs/philosophy in such a way that they will claim authority over this again at a later date. The 14th amendment (which is funny, i'm about to see a bunch of people tell me that the 14th amendment incorporates all of the bill of rights against the states- it does not) does not apply here. It says that the states must apply the laws within the states equally. The State has the authority to require this. If the pharmacist doesn't like it then they should either a. MOVE or b Campaign to have it changed[/b].

This isn't a first amendment issue, it isn't a 14th amendment issue, it isn't a federal government issue.

Oh, and for the record, I think they should be able to refuse to sell it. I don't live in Washington though and I'm quite sure that Washingtonians should be able to figure out how they want their pharmaceutical licenses to work.

Mike

I happen to agree with you, but in fact incorporation is the law of the land so ....

Incorporation is the overreach of the federal government, it is not the law of the land. It was never meant by the 14th amendment to incorporate the BoR. It is an agenda that usually serves one side of the isle but it is just a play on words and cases. Incorporation doctrine wasn't even MENTIONED until 30 years after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Mike

Sorry friend but judicial precedent CAN set law. Incorporation is the de facto law in this country.

 

[Texanmike]

Marriage is a religious/social issue, not a state, or federal one. Unfortunately, states decided they have the power to regulate marriage, and actually require people to pay a fee before they get married. That makes them wrong, in my opinion.
...

Marriage is a religious issue, not a state, or federal, one.

I figured it was worth dealing with this part of your post seperately.

Marriage is a religious issue. You can go to your church and marry whomever the church will allow you to marry. It is not legally binding until you get it done through the state. Since you are asking the state to validate a contract there are certain requirements you must fulfill. THAT is what you go to the state for.

Stop trying to use the Constitution and start reading it.

Mike

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is a religious/social issue, not a state, or federal one. Unfortunately, states decided they have the power to regulate marriage, and actually require people to pay a fee before they get married. That makes them wrong, in my opinion.
...

Marriage is a religious issue, not a state, or federal, one.

I figured it was worth dealing with this part of your post seperately.

Marriage is a religious issue. You can go to your church and marry whomever the church will allow you to marry. It is not legally binding until you get it done through the state. Since you are asking the state to validate a contract there are certain requirements you must fulfill. THAT is what you go to the state for.

Stop trying to use the Constitution and start reading it.

Mike

The state's prior intrusion into religion does not validate further intrusion Mike.

 

[Texanmike]

I happen to agree with you, but in fact incorporation is the law of the land so ....

Incorporation is the overreach of the federal government, it is not the law of the land. It was never meant by the 14th amendment to incorporate the BoR. It is an agenda that usually serves one side of the isle but it is just a play on words and cases. Incorporation doctrine wasn't even MENTIONED until 30 years after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Mike

Sorry friend but judicial precedent CAN set law. Incorporation is the de facto law in this country.

That is the problem with the country. Show me where in the Constitution the federal courts are given the authority to set laws. They aren't. They have the authority because they say so.

Mike