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

[saveliberty]

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.

Strawman: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.

Straw man - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Immanuel]

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.

If that Christian Scientist were the owner of the pharmacy, he would have every right to do as you state. He'd go out of business but that is his perrogative. Why would you deny him this right?

If he were an employee, his boss would have every right to terminate him if the employer so desired. Again, why do you feel you have the right to make that decision for the employer?

Do you really believe you are better than these two individuals? Wait, you don't really need to answer that last question. I expect most of us know what your answer will be.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

absolutely, AND the state should butt out of marriage to.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

WRONG. The Constitution actually gives the federal government very limited and defined powers. Yes it is a catch all, it catches any rights not given the federal government and gives them either to the states or the people themselves.

 

[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

absolutely, AND the state should butt out of marriage to.

Well, I would prefer to live in a state that butted the hell out of marriage but like I've said before I'm a believer in the federal system of government. Let the residents of the state decide what level of authority they wish to cede to the states.

Mike

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

If that Christian Scientist were the owner of the pharmacy, he would have every right to do as you state. He'd go out of business but that is his perrogative. Why would you deny him this right?

If he were an employee, his boss would have every right to terminate him if the employer so desired. Again, why do you feel you have the right to make that decision for the employer?

Do you really believe you are better than these two individuals? Wait, you don't really need to answer that last question. I expect most of us know what your answer will be.

Immie

we have a liquor store in town who's owner refuses to stock Heineken. I think I'll sue him, I have a right to buy Heineken from him.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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

absolutely, AND the state should butt out of marriage to.

Well, I would prefer to live in a state that butted the hell out of marriage but like I've said before I'm a believer in the federal system of government. Let the residents of the state decide what level of authority they wish to cede to the states.

Mike

Well, the thing to remember is we are 300 million different people all wishing to live under various levels of authority. That is of course impossible and the founding fathers were smart enough to head that off at the pass by narrowly defining what government could and could not do. There is of course a procedure for changing that, but it is a daunting task to make that happen.

 

[saveliberty]

Thing is, you could go to pharmacy school, graduate get a job and be an excellent pharmacist. Then, long after all of this, the government comes along and tells you that your job has changed and you must kill children.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

No. It is so that the rights of the citizens are uniform within the state. It does not say that you must respect the laws of another state, only that you must uniformly apply the laws in your own state.

It also says that No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States. Look up abridge for me quickly. The amendment was not intended to create new freedoms, it was not intended to catch all.

People have become so accustomed to listening to the "legal elite" that they refuse to read the documents for themselves, instead finding their opinions merely repeat whatever they have been told.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

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.

If that Christian Scientist were the owner of the pharmacy, he would have every right to do as you state. He'd go out of business but that is his perrogative. Why would you deny him this right?

If he were an employee, his boss would have every right to terminate him if the employer so desired. Again, why do you feel you have the right to make that decision for the employer?

Do you really believe you are better than these two individuals? Wait, you don't really need to answer that last question. I expect most of us know what your answer will be.

Immie

we have a liquor store in town who's owner refuses to stock Heineken. I think I'll sue him, I have a right to buy Heineken from him.

I'd love to know why he refuses to stock Heineken.

You might actually consider that suit if you live in a liberal district. Hell, you never know you could be set for life. That mean old liquor store owner is depriving you of your needs and desires. Man, you may never have to work another day in your life!

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

absolutely, AND the state should butt out of marriage to.

Well, I would prefer to live in a state that butted the hell out of marriage but like I've said before I'm a believer in the federal system of government. Let the residents of the state decide what level of authority they wish to cede to the states.

Mike

Well, the thing to remember is we are 300 million different people all wishing to live under various levels of authority. That is of course impossible and the founding fathers were smart enough to head that off at the pass by narrowly defining what government could and could not do. There is of course a procedure for changing that, but it is a daunting task to make that happen.

They were also smart enough to realize that 13 (now 50) different ammounts of government authority were more likely to satisfy the people than one large one. We have spent 235+ years trying to prove otherwise and it is not working.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

Thing is, you could go to pharmacy school, graduate get a job and be an excellent pharmacist. Then, long after all of this, the government comes along and tells you that your job has changed and you must kill children.

Isn't that about what happened here?

How many pharmacists have been affected by this law? How many of those object to being accessories to the killing of human beings? How many of those have been pharmacists for years if not decades? More than a few, I am sure.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

No. It is so that the rights of the citizens are uniform within the state. It does not say that you must respect the laws of another state, only that you must uniformly apply the laws in your own state.

It also says that No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States. Look up abridge for me quickly. The amendment was not intended to create new freedoms, it was not intended to catch all.

People have become so accustomed to listening to the "legal elite" that they refuse to read the documents for themselves, instead finding their opinions merely repeat whatever they have been told.

Mike

You might want to read the Federalist Papers Mike. This amendment was to protect citizens and states from over reach by the federal government. Any other interpretation is false.

 

[Texanmike]

Thing is, you could go to pharmacy school, graduate get a job and be an excellent pharmacist. Then, long after all of this, the government comes along and tells you that your job has changed and you must kill children.

The job market changes. The subject is not about what you did to prepare for your job, it is about how you can serve the needs of your customer (or employer). Technology makes all kinds of "good" jobs obsolete daily. It creates new jobs too. What happens when computers replace most pharmacists? Do you outlaw the use of computers to protect the people who went to school to get a good job? Of course not.

Mike

 

[saveliberty]

Thing is, you could go to pharmacy school, graduate get a job and be an excellent pharmacist. Then, long after all of this, the government comes along and tells you that your job has changed and you must kill children.

The job market changes. The subject is not about what you did to prepare for your job, it is about how you can serve the needs of your customer (or employer). Technology makes all kinds of "good" jobs obsolete daily. It creates new jobs too. What happens when computers replace most pharmacists? Do you outlaw the use of computers to protect the people who went to school to get a good job? Of course not.

Mike

Nope, medical fields have ALWAYS been about do no harm. Your analogy is pointless in this discussion. Actually you're pointless.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

If that Christian Scientist were the owner of the pharmacy, he would have every right to do as you state. He'd go out of business but that is his perrogative. Why would you deny him this right?

If he were an employee, his boss would have every right to terminate him if the employer so desired. Again, why do you feel you have the right to make that decision for the employer?

Do you really believe you are better than these two individuals? Wait, you don't really need to answer that last question. I expect most of us know what your answer will be.

Immie

we have a liquor store in town who's owner refuses to stock Heineken. I think I'll sue him, I have a right to buy Heineken from him.

I'd love to know why he refuses to stock Heineken.

You might actually consider that suit if you live in a liberal district. Hell, you never know you could be set for life. That mean old liquor store owner is depriving you of your needs and desires. Man, you may never have to work another day in your life!

Immie

I actually went to high school with the guy, he doesn't stock Heineken b/c he got in an argument with the Heineken rep for this area. Said dealing with the asshole wasn't worth the few sales he lost. LOL

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.

Not a prob!!

Wait'll that pharmacist ends-up listed (online...as a business that "refuses") as a businessman to be BOYCOTTED!!

I'm sure a significant drop, in his income, will prompt him to reevaluate his "morals".

 

[saveliberty]

That pharmacist probably reflects the views of his/her community. It will probably increase business.

 

[Texanmike]

No. It is so that the rights of the citizens are uniform within the state. It does not say that you must respect the laws of another state, only that you must uniformly apply the laws in your own state.

It also says that No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States. Look up abridge for me quickly. The amendment was not intended to create new freedoms, it was not intended to catch all.

People have become so accustomed to listening to the "legal elite" that they refuse to read the documents for themselves, instead finding their opinions merely repeat whatever they have been told.

Mike

You might want to read the Federalist Papers Mike. This amendment was to protect citizens and states from over reach by the federal government. Any other interpretation is false.

The Federalist papers are just the beginning. They are one account from one side of the aisle. I've read them. And the Anti-federalist papers. And the notes of Madison, Mason, Jefferson, Taylor, Morris, Clinton, Yates... I can go on and on about it. What you should read is the notes from the ratification debates about the Constitution. In fact, The Federalist papers don't really touch on the BoRThe amendment was NOT put in to prevent the intervention into the states. I will say it again, three states had official state religions and they ratified the BoR. They also maintained their religions some as late as the mid 19th century. If the First Amendment was to apply to the state then how is it that the very first tenant (respecting the establishment of religion) was violated and not struck down immediately?

Mike

 

[saveliberty]

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

well thats not true because we have had quite a few cases where people refused to give out Birth control, or whatever because of their personal beliefs.

Point being they should be fired if this is the case. A private owner who chooses not to stock something is a different matter. If target doesnt stock a certain brand of body wash, i go find it someplace else.

Prevent pregnancy, kill a human. Too bad you can't distinguish.