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

[Inthemiddle]

No doubt if he were honest he would have wrote

"Christians should shut the **** up and keep their religion to themselves and have no rights"

We all know that is the common theme across message boards internet wide lately.

Some cowards just can't be honest enough to say that's how they feel.

Actually, if you would have been honest, you would have addressed what I actually said. I gave an argument that is repeatedly presented by right wing-nuts, which has just as much applicability here as it does anywhere else. I'd objected to the fact that percieved validity of argument forms around here constantly changes based on subject matter, and preserverence of ideology, which is completely illogical.

Now, if you want to know what I think about this claim of religious freedom, I reject it. I work in an industry that requires generally open availability. When I have my own religious holidays upon me, I don't always get to have the day off to observe them. That's just how my job works. Unless I can claim a first amendment right to have those days off for my religious views, then these Pharamcists have no first amendment right to refuse to do their job either, based on their religious views.

First amendment protections do not extend to activity that is not inherently religious by nature. We've discussed this at lenght in the topics about the Health Care law requiring churches to provide health insurance packages that would cover birth control. When a person is engaged in commercial business and work, they are engaged in activity that is not inherently religious, even if it is has implications regarding their particular beliefs. As such, there is no first amendment issue. Any claim of first amendment violations is further complicated by the fact that first amendment protections only apply to government interference. It does not apply to employment relationships between private parties.

 

[Immanuel]

Incorrect, if a customer brings in 10 prescriptions for 50 pills of Vicodin each. Guess what, the pharmacist isn't going to say "derr okay I can't interfere, it's just my job to fill the prescriptions" and in fact if he did fill the 10 prescriptions the DEA would hang him by his balls.

My Dad used to call the police on these types frequently. Oxycotin mostly.

what part of it is also their responsibility to make sure that they will not knowingly issue medications that could cause adverse side effects. doesnt make sense? in most cases it is 2 or more. although in your example it is the same drug but more than 1 prescription. not exactly a glaring oversight on my part.

What part of Plan B causes adverse side effects by taking a life do you not understand? That is the whole point here.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

This most certainly is NOT a state's issue. In fact it's NO government's business. Government at NO level has the right to tell me what products I may or may not sell.

THAT is the ruling I would hope to see if this got to the SCOTUS.\


PS I feel EXACTLY the same way about gay marriage. Government at NO level has the right to tell me who I may or may not marry (assuming it's consensual of course.)

Except that the government does have the right to tell what products you cannot sell. You cannot sell crack cocaine.

Unfortunately they seem to think they can also tell you what products you must sell. Personal liberty out the window.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

No, I am advocating against that.

im honestly confused. if youre advocating again one individual being the gate keeper for another individuals choice, then why were you saying the the pharmacist can deny prescriptions? they are not being forces to take the medication, only distribute it.

Okay let's try this

Let's say I'm selling cookies, and you want to buy one, but I for whatever reason don't want to sell you one. Now let's assume that Quantam is in charge of cookie control. Does he have the right to tell me I have to sell you a cookie?

Yes or no?

the owner of a company does have that right. if you refused to do what your boss directed you to do, it would be considered insubordinate and the owner of that business could fire you. the only time this does not hold water is if that person is under a contract and the contract specifically prohibits that. (i.e. a professional baseball players no trade clause). if the task that an employee was asked to do is within the normal scope of the job, and the owner would require any qualified person in that position to perform said task, then he could force that employee to do it, or he could simply terminate their employment.

 

[saveliberty]

So...if a bar patron wants another drink and is already drunk...

Really? We are deflecting with this many analogies?

 

[Mustang]

I remember the first time I ever read about a pharmacist refusing to honor a valid prescription from a doctor to his patient because of so-called conscience. It flabbergasted me that any pharmacist could try to interject him or herself into the doctor patient relationship.

The pharmacist is asked to prescribe the medication and isn't asked to take the medication. He isn't really involved in the doctor patient relationship in any relevant way.

The good analogy would be this: If a man came into a restaurant and ordered pork chops which were on the menu and a Jewish waiter refused to serve the meal due to religious objections.

Where does this silliness end? There's all manner of products and medicines that are sold in pharmacies that can be used and are used in ways that religious and nonreligious people might find objectionable. What business is it of theirs?

You better hope the pharmacist injects themselves in the doctor/patient relationship. Doctors frequently prescribe drugs which can kill when mixed with other medicines the patient is taking. It is part of their job to interject themselves and protect the patient. Your analogy is poor to say the least.

That's what they get paid to do. And, as professionals, I expect them to do their job. Otherwise, the position could be automated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

To the idiots like Mike. The federal government is not involved, the judicial branch is doing its job by preventing the state government from infringing on people's rights. This is not a states right issue, it is an issue of individual rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

where in the US tax code does it say you can get federal survivor benefits without a marriage certificate?
just ask a gay married couple how that is working out for them.

Hate to point out the obvious here, but federal law actually prohibits survivor benefits from going to a gay partner. Other than that, you can designate who gets your benefits.

Federal law does not prohibit survivor benefits from going to a gay partner, however some benefits are only available to a legal spouse of the opposite gender - while being denied to a legal spouse of the same gender.

It really depends on what you mean by "Survivor Benefits". If the term references an insurance policy or payout of any owed back-pay, then the individual can identify any individual they want and it need not be a spouse or relative. If I'm on active duty and killed in action and say payday was 14-days ago. Then my last paycheck can be designated to go to a beneficiary.

On the other hand if "Survivor Benefits" is used to describe such things as Social Security Benefits or Military Retire Survivor Benefits Plans, that is a different animal all together. For Social Security, a Civilly Married couple pays into SS. If one dies before the other, then at retirement age the surviving spouse can draw SS based on the other spouses income if the payment amount is greater then the amount they would have drawn on their own. For Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans, I pay a small premium and upon my death my spouse will be able to draw a percentage of my retirement for the rest of her life.

One type of survivor benefit can go to anyone, another type can only go to a legal spouse.



>>>>

DOMA actually does prohibit any federal benefits from going to a gay partner, which is why courts are ruling against it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When a Pharmacist Refuses To Fill a Prescription

yes you can.

Can I sue you because you are annoying?

Get in line.

In line for what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see how religious freedom applies at all. Nobody is forcing these people to be pharmacists. So they aren't having their freedom violated because they volunteered for the job. At least, that's what the right wing-nuts claim any other time.

I see how you think, people who are religious should not do certain jobs because they are wrong to want to help people.

Actually, my point is that normally, the conservative wing nuts would be making exactly that argument if we were talking about, for example, an employee complaining about their employer not providing birth control coverage as part of their health care coverage, or pretty much any other scenario. But now, when the argument goes against the ideology, people want to insist it's no longer valid. Either it's always valid, or never valid. Validity of an argument does not change based on subject matter.

No they wouldn't, but nice try.

 

[Syphon]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

To the idiots like Mike. The federal government is not involved, the judicial branch is doing its job by preventing the state government from infringing on people's rights. This is not a states right issue, it is an issue of individual rights.

the reason things are controlled at the federal level is so that there are uniformity and consistency across state lines. this is why we are called the United States. Lets use the example of Europe, which with the establishment of the EU made things uniform across country lines to promote trade. this was modeled after the US. as we move good and services across state line. the commerce clause allows for the fed to regulate those good and services. if we did not have uniformity with interstate products, the states would need to have individual agreements with other states, and thus would not have to honor certain states laws or regulations. what if say the DMV was returned to the state level. and california had one standard and nevada had another. to be even more specific, ca driving age was 18 and NV was 16. would california be forced to accept nevada law?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hate to point out the obvious here, but federal law actually prohibits survivor benefits from going to a gay partner. Other than that, you can designate who gets your benefits.

Federal law does not prohibit survivor benefits from going to a gay partner, however some benefits are only available to a legal spouse of the opposite gender - while being denied to a legal spouse of the same gender.

It really depends on what you mean by "Survivor Benefits". If the term references an insurance policy or payout of any owed back-pay, then the individual can identify any individual they want and it need not be a spouse or relative. If I'm on active duty and killed in action and say payday was 14-days ago. Then my last paycheck can be designated to go to a beneficiary.

On the other hand if "Survivor Benefits" is used to describe such things as Social Security Benefits or Military Retire Survivor Benefits Plans, that is a different animal all together. For Social Security, a Civilly Married couple pays into SS. If one dies before the other, then at retirement age the surviving spouse can draw SS based on the other spouses income if the payment amount is greater then the amount they would have drawn on their own. For Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans, I pay a small premium and upon my death my spouse will be able to draw a percentage of my retirement for the rest of her life.

One type of survivor benefit can go to anyone, another type can only go to a legal spouse.



>>>>

DOMA actually does prohibit any federal benefits from going to a gay partner, which is why courts are ruling against it.

You shifted the topic from "Survivor Benefits" to "federal benefits" the two are not necessarily the same. When you are talking about federal benefits, then you are correct. When talking about "Survivor Benefits" it may - or may not - apply depending on the specific benefit. As I said, I could have listed anyone I wanted on my SGLI (Serviceman's Group Life Insurance) and as a beneficiary for any unpaid compensation (wages, unpaid leave, remainder of bonuses, etc.) those are not determined by Civil Marriage (unless no other beneficiary is named and then it is awarded "By Law" - which means in accordance with a hierarchy established by your State of residence). Other "Survivor Benefits", such as Social Security annuity, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, etc. and other benefits contingent on marital status are impacted by DOMA.



>>>>

 

[Syphon]

Federal law does not prohibit survivor benefits from going to a gay partner, however some benefits are only available to a legal spouse of the opposite gender - while being denied to a legal spouse of the same gender.

It really depends on what you mean by "Survivor Benefits". If the term references an insurance policy or payout of any owed back-pay, then the individual can identify any individual they want and it need not be a spouse or relative. If I'm on active duty and killed in action and say payday was 14-days ago. Then my last paycheck can be designated to go to a beneficiary.

On the other hand if "Survivor Benefits" is used to describe such things as Social Security Benefits or Military Retire Survivor Benefits Plans, that is a different animal all together. For Social Security, a Civilly Married couple pays into SS. If one dies before the other, then at retirement age the surviving spouse can draw SS based on the other spouses income if the payment amount is greater then the amount they would have drawn on their own. For Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans, I pay a small premium and upon my death my spouse will be able to draw a percentage of my retirement for the rest of her life.

One type of survivor benefit can go to anyone, another type can only go to a legal spouse.



>>>>

DOMA actually does prohibit any federal benefits from going to a gay partner, which is why courts are ruling against it.

You shifted the topic from "Survivor Benefits" to "federal benefits" the two are not necessarily the same. When you are talking about federal benefits, then you are correct. When talking about "Survivor Benefits" it may - or may not - apply depending on the specific benefit. As I said, I could have listed anyone I wanted on my SGLI (Serviceman's Group Life Insurance) and as a beneficiary for any unpaid compensation (wages, unpaid leave, remainder of bonuses, etc.) those are not determined by Civil Marriage (unless no other beneficiary is named and then it is awarded "By Law" - which means in accordance with a hierarchy established by your State of residence). Other "Survivor Benefits", such as Social Security annuity, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, etc. and other benefits contingent on marital status are impacted by DOMA.



>>>>

survivor benefits typically refers to social security survivor benefits. not necessarily life insurance products, or products offered by unions and such. but you can not get government provided survivor benefits with producing a marriage certificate, which is regulated by the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No doubt if he were honest he would have wrote

"Christians should shut the **** up and keep their religion to themselves and have no rights"

We all know that is the common theme across message boards internet wide lately.

Some cowards just can't be honest enough to say that's how they feel.

Actually, if you would have been honest, you would have addressed what I actually said. I gave an argument that is repeatedly presented by right wing-nuts, which has just as much applicability here as it does anywhere else. I'd objected to the fact that percieved validity of argument forms around here constantly changes based on subject matter, and preserverence of ideology, which is completely illogical.

Now, if you want to know what I think about this claim of religious freedom, I reject it. I work in an industry that requires generally open availability. When I have my own religious holidays upon me, I don't always get to have the day off to observe them. That's just how my job works. Unless I can claim a first amendment right to have those days off for my religious views, then these Pharamcists have no first amendment right to refuse to do their job either, based on their religious views.

First amendment protections do not extend to activity that is not inherently religious by nature. We've discussed this at lenght in the topics about the Health Care law requiring churches to provide health insurance packages that would cover birth control. When a person is engaged in commercial business and work, they are engaged in activity that is not inherently religious, even if it is has implications regarding their particular beliefs. As such, there is no first amendment issue. Any claim of first amendment violations is further complicated by the fact that first amendment protections only apply to government interference. It does not apply to employment relationships between private parties.

The 1st Amendment doesn't extend to activities that are not inherently religious in nature? Since when? Do you have any idea how often states and cities have tried to restrict actions that are not inherently religious and were overruled by the courts because it violated the 1st Amendment? Are you aware that the DOJ routinely files suit against cities that try to restrict the land use of churches, even if they are building auditoriums and gymnasiums? That the DOJ has actually been more active about filing suits like under Obama than they were under Bush? That Obama supports the rights of religious groups who receive federal funds to discriminate in who they hire and serve, even to the point where he has defended them in court when gay right activists have brought suit against them, and that he uses the 1st Amendment to defend them?

I guess that means that I have to choose between you being wrong or this new policy just starting in the last 15 seconds. I vote for the first myself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

To the idiots like Mike. The federal government is not involved, the judicial branch is doing its job by preventing the state government from infringing on people's rights. This is not a states right issue, it is an issue of individual rights.

the reason things are controlled at the federal level is so that there are uniformity and consistency across state lines. this is why we are called the United States. Lets use the example of Europe, which with the establishment of the EU made things uniform across country lines to promote trade. this was modeled after the US. as we move good and services across state line. the commerce clause allows for the fed to regulate those good and services. if we did not have uniformity with interstate products, the states would need to have individual agreements with other states, and thus would not have to honor certain states laws or regulations. what if say the DMV was returned to the state level. and california had one standard and nevada had another. to be even more specific, ca driving age was 18 and NV was 16. would california be forced to accept nevada law?

Good, you gave me an excuse to address the idiots on the other side who get it wrong. There is no uniformity across state lines. The rules for insurance in California are different than they are in Texas because people have different needs in different areas. Even if we actually take the example of Europe the laws are different in Germany than they are in France, and they actually share a common border. France has a different health care system, different banks, and different criminal procedures. That makes you as wrong as Mike is, just in a different direction.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

im honestly confused. if youre advocating again one individual being the gate keeper for another individuals choice, then why were you saying the the pharmacist can deny prescriptions? they are not being forces to take the medication, only distribute it.

Okay let's try this

Let's say I'm selling cookies, and you want to buy one, but I for whatever reason don't want to sell you one. Now let's assume that Quantam is in charge of cookie control. Does he have the right to tell me I have to sell you a cookie?

Yes or no?

the owner of a company does have that right. if you refused to do what your boss directed you to do, it would be considered insubordinate and the owner of that business could fire you. the only time this does not hold water is if that person is under a contract and the contract specifically prohibits that. (i.e. a professional baseball players no trade clause). if the task that an employee was asked to do is within the normal scope of the job, and the owner would require any qualified person in that position to perform said task, then he could force that employee to do it, or he could simply terminate their employment.

You're right, but NONE of that has shit to do with the government. You agree that an employee could refuse to sell a particular item to a customer and that customer could complain to the owner and if the owner said "tough shit" that the customer's only recourse would be to take their business elsewhere, and maybe give the company a bad review online don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Federal law does not prohibit survivor benefits from going to a gay partner, however some benefits are only available to a legal spouse of the opposite gender - while being denied to a legal spouse of the same gender.

It really depends on what you mean by "Survivor Benefits". If the term references an insurance policy or payout of any owed back-pay, then the individual can identify any individual they want and it need not be a spouse or relative. If I'm on active duty and killed in action and say payday was 14-days ago. Then my last paycheck can be designated to go to a beneficiary.

On the other hand if "Survivor Benefits" is used to describe such things as Social Security Benefits or Military Retire Survivor Benefits Plans, that is a different animal all together. For Social Security, a Civilly Married couple pays into SS. If one dies before the other, then at retirement age the surviving spouse can draw SS based on the other spouses income if the payment amount is greater then the amount they would have drawn on their own. For Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans, I pay a small premium and upon my death my spouse will be able to draw a percentage of my retirement for the rest of her life.

One type of survivor benefit can go to anyone, another type can only go to a legal spouse.



>>>>

DOMA actually does prohibit any federal benefits from going to a gay partner, which is why courts are ruling against it.

You shifted the topic from "Survivor Benefits" to "federal benefits" the two are not necessarily the same. When you are talking about federal benefits, then you are correct. When talking about "Survivor Benefits" it may - or may not - apply depending on the specific benefit. As I said, I could have listed anyone I wanted on my SGLI (Serviceman's Group Life Insurance) and as a beneficiary for any unpaid compensation (wages, unpaid leave, remainder of bonuses, etc.) those are not determined by Civil Marriage (unless no other beneficiary is named and then it is awarded "By Law" - which means in accordance with a hierarchy established by your State of residence). Other "Survivor Benefits", such as Social Security annuity, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, etc. and other benefits contingent on marital status are impacted by DOMA.


t
>>>>

Federal law only includes federal benefits, and the first post on this subject blathered about federal tax code and something else, and you responded that federal law doesn't affect benefits. DOMA actually controls all federal benefits, even civil servant and veteran's benefits by prohibiting the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage. Benefits that are not part of the federal system are not affected by DOMA.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

No doubt if he were honest he would have wrote

"Christians should shut the **** up and keep their religion to themselves and have no rights"

We all know that is the common theme across message boards internet wide lately.

Some cowards just can't be honest enough to say that's how they feel.

Actually, if you would have been honest, you would have addressed what I actually said. I gave an argument that is repeatedly presented by right wing-nuts, which has just as much applicability here as it does anywhere else. I'd objected to the fact that percieved validity of argument forms around here constantly changes based on subject matter, and preserverence of ideology, which is completely illogical.

Now, if you want to know what I think about this claim of religious freedom, I reject it. I work in an industry that requires generally open availability. When I have my own religious holidays upon me, I don't always get to have the day off to observe them. That's just how my job works. Unless I can claim a first amendment right to have those days off for my religious views, then these Pharamcists have no first amendment right to refuse to do their job either, based on their religious views.

First amendment protections do not extend to activity that is not inherently religious by nature. We've discussed this at lenght in the topics about the Health Care law requiring churches to provide health insurance packages that would cover birth control. When a person is engaged in commercial business and work, they are engaged in activity that is not inherently religious, even if it is has implications regarding their particular beliefs. As such, there is no first amendment issue. Any claim of first amendment violations is further complicated by the fact that first amendment protections only apply to government interference. It does not apply to employment relationships between private parties.

I KNEW it, you're just stupid and don't understand that private companies don't have to respect your religious rights. That ONLY applies to the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

DOMA actually does prohibit any federal benefits from going to a gay partner, which is why courts are ruling against it.

You shifted the topic from "Survivor Benefits" to "federal benefits" the two are not necessarily the same. When you are talking about federal benefits, then you are correct. When talking about "Survivor Benefits" it may - or may not - apply depending on the specific benefit. As I said, I could have listed anyone I wanted on my SGLI (Serviceman's Group Life Insurance) and as a beneficiary for any unpaid compensation (wages, unpaid leave, remainder of bonuses, etc.) those are not determined by Civil Marriage (unless no other beneficiary is named and then it is awarded "By Law" - which means in accordance with a hierarchy established by your State of residence). Other "Survivor Benefits", such as Social Security annuity, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, etc. and other benefits contingent on marital status are impacted by DOMA.



>>>>

survivor benefits typically refers to social security survivor benefits. not necessarily life insurance products, or products offered by unions and such. but you can not get government provided survivor benefits with producing a marriage certificate, which is regulated by the government.

Sure you can, all it takes is that a government employee designate you as next of kin and heir. If that does not happen a marriage license will help you apply for them in the abscence of prior guidance from the person who died, but even with one it will not guarantee you get them if the written guidance in the files says something else.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But you are not the only person with rights in this equation. You have the right to have a legal prescription filled. The pharmacist in question has the right not to fill that prescription. You have the right to go elsewhere.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The wing nuts find this kind of argument perfectly valid, when applied in the direction of the outcome they desire. But they won't honor it when it is applied in the opposite direction. Check this out:

The Pharmacist is not the only one with rights in this equation. He has the right to his religious beliefs. You have the right to have a legal prescription filled. He has the right to go elsewhere and seek other employment if his job creates religious objections for him.

Why is THIS argument not valid, when it's THE EXACT SAME FORM!?!

Pharmacy work is not an inherently religious activity. Therefore, first amendment rights do not apply. If you are a pharmacist, you fill the damn prescriptions. Otherwise, get out of the way and give the job to someone else willing to do it. Go find another job. End of story.