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

[Inthemiddle]

Boils down to " MY rights can't be violated god dammit"

never caring about the rights of others.

How about this YOU have the right to do business with another pharmacy. Simple as that.

The Pharmacist has the right to go find other work that doesn't offend his/her religious sensitivities. Simple as that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The 1st Amendment doesn't extend to activities that are not inherently religious in nature?

No, it does not.

Since when?

Since always. Go read some case law. Go read Scalia's decision in Smith. There is more than a century of case law that clearly establishes this. As the Supreme Court has explained, first amendment rights are not absolute, the founding fathers never intended religious belief to be a carte blanche by which any and all behavior would be tolerated or protected, the first amendment only applies to behaviors are are of an explicitly religious nature such as going to church, participating in services, praying, believing a certain way, etc, first amendment rights do not protect all actions, particularly when those activities are not distinctly religious activities......and so much more. Go read some case law. Go. Because you clearly haven't a clue. We've been over this before, of course. You keep insisting on ignoring the overwhelming plethora of case law that stands behind me.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Boils down to " MY rights can't be violated god dammit"

never caring about the rights of others.

How about this YOU have the right to do business with another pharmacy. Simple as that.

The Pharmacist has the right to go find other work that doesn't offend his/her religious sensitivities. Simple as that.

the right? Yes. Must? No

Same as you have the right to go somewhere else to buy your pill. Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

See, once again you're worried about the rights that YOU care about, and **** everyone else.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

-_-

If you'd paid any attention, you'd see that I clearly said that. And yet, you're claiming that pharmacists have a first amendment protection to refuse doing their job, because of religious belief?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The 1st Amendment doesn't extend to activities that are not inherently religious in nature?

No, it does not.

Since when?

Since always. Go read some case law. Go read Scalia's decision in Smith. There is more than a century of case law that clearly establishes this. As the Supreme Court has explained, first amendment rights are not absolute, the founding fathers never intended religious belief to be a carte blanche by which any and all behavior would be tolerated or protected, the first amendment only applies to behaviors are are of an explicitly religious nature such as going to church, participating in services, praying, believing a certain way, etc, first amendment rights do not protect all actions, particularly when those activities are not distinctly religious activities......and so much more. Go read some case law. Go. Because you clearly haven't a clue. We've been over this before, of course. You keep insisting on ignoring the overwhelming plethora of case law that stands behind me.

Stop with your bullshit. This has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

If I own a business and I don't want to carry a product or sell a product, I don't have to have a reason. I can just say "nope, it's mine and I have the right to do what I please."

You have the right to do business elsewhere.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

-_-

If you'd paid any attention, you'd see that I clearly said that. And yet, you're claiming that pharmacists have a first amendment protection to refuse doing their job, because of religious belief?

Incorrect, I have steadfastly maintained that this has noting do with the first amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 1st Amendment doesn't extend to activities that are not inherently religious in nature?

No, it does not.

Since when?

Since always. Go read some case law. Go read Scalia's decision in Smith. There is more than a century of case law that clearly establishes this. As the Supreme Court has explained, first amendment rights are not absolute, the founding fathers never intended religious belief to be a carte blanche by which any and all behavior would be tolerated or protected, the first amendment only applies to behaviors are are of an explicitly religious nature such as going to church, participating in services, praying, believing a certain way, etc, first amendment rights do not protect all actions, particularly when those activities are not distinctly religious activities......and so much more. Go read some case law. Go. Because you clearly haven't a clue. We've been over this before, of course. You keep insisting on ignoring the overwhelming plethora of case law that stands behind me.

Go read some case law? Like what, for example?

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnett where the court ruled that anyone who objects to the pledge of allegiance for religious reasons can refuse to say it, or is the pledge inherently religious in some way?

How about Cantwell v Connecticut that found that governments could not restrict people from going door to door without a license.

Or, my personal favorite, Wooley v Maynard where the courts ruled that a person who had a religious objection to a state slogan on a license plate could tape it over.

Seriously, what case law are you talking about. Don't challenge me to read case law because I actually have, and I know what it says, go read it yourself, or find something that backs up your claim and prove me wrong.

I dare you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stop with your bullshit. This has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

If I own a business and I don't want to carry a product or sell a product, I don't have to have a reason. I can just say "nope, it's mine and I have the right to do what I please."

You have the right to do business elsewhere.

OnTheExtremeLeft is not a rational person.

Sorry, but thems just the facts.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Stop with your bullshit. This has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

If I own a business and I don't want to carry a product or sell a product, I don't have to have a reason. I can just say "nope, it's mine and I have the right to do what I please."

You have the right to do business elsewhere.

OnTheExtremeLeft is not a rational person.

Sorry, but thems just the facts.

I guess I'm a cruel person, because I enjoy slapping retards around.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Designating a person as next of kin and heir does not impact Social Security and Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans at all. A person cannot designate a next of kin or heir to receive spousal benefits, they are only available to a spouse. A spouse has the option of drawing social security at a deceased spouses rate, military SBP is an option to allow survivor benefits to a spouse. Neither are available to someone simply because they are "next of kin" or an "heir".



>>>>

 

[del]

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.

like yours

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

Designating a person as next of kin and heir does not impact Social Security and Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans at all. A person cannot designate a next of kin or heir to receive spousal benefits, they are only available to a spouse. A spouse has the option of drawing social security at a deceased spouses rate, military SBP is an option to allow survivor benefits to a spouse. Neither are available to someone simply because they are "next of kin" or an "heir".



>>>>

l

not entirely correct, minor children can receive said benefits.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I did not realize that the 1st amendment made it so I didn't have to do my job and still got paid. This is awesome

 

[del]

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?

yes, they would and have recognized a nevada driver's license as valid in CA

duh, the dmv is at the state level

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

When they started thinking they were dictators and the Mental Hygiene Police instead.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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?

yes, they would and have recognized a nevada driver's license as valid in CA

duh, the dmv is at the state level

What kind of dope doesn't understand the concept of reciprocity? Be like moving from Texas to New Hampshire and NH officials saying "oh too bad , we don't recognize your high school diploma as being valid" and poof you're a high school dropout LOL

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Designating a person as next of kin and heir does not impact Social Security and Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans at all. A person cannot designate a next of kin or heir to receive spousal benefits, they are only available to a spouse. A spouse has the option of drawing social security at a deceased spouses rate, military SBP is an option to allow survivor benefits to a spouse. Neither are available to someone simply because they are "next of kin" or an "heir".



>>>>

l

not entirely correct, minor children can receive said benefits.

Different benefits, as I mentioned, I'm talking about spousal benefits. Minor, related children cannot receive spousal benefits - they receive dependent benefits which is a different topic.

Now if a child is a spouse they would be eligible for spousal benefits, but not dependent offspring benefits. (Don't laugh, there are states where children well under 18 can get married with parenta and/or judicial consent.)


>>>>

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Designating a person as next of kin and heir does not impact Social Security and Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans at all. A person cannot designate a next of kin or heir to receive spousal benefits, they are only available to a spouse. A spouse has the option of drawing social security at a deceased spouses rate, military SBP is an option to allow survivor benefits to a spouse. Neither are available to someone simply because they are "next of kin" or an "heir".



>>>>

l

not entirely correct, minor children can receive said benefits.

Different benefits, as I mentioned, I'm talking about spousal benefits. Minor, related children cannot receive spousal benefits - they receive dependent benefits which is a different topic.

Now if a child is a spouse they would be eligible for spousal benefits, but not dependent offspring benefits. (Don't laugh, there are states where children well under 18 can get married with parenta and/or judicial consent.)


>>>>

I believe they are all actualy just labeled as survivor benefits and then who can qualify as a dependent is defined. I don't think there actually are any "spousal benefits"

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Really? Because that's exactly what has been said by some in the thread about the gay judge who refuses to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The right? Yes. Must? No

Same as you have the right to go somewhere else to buy your pill. Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

So, the person you like has a right but not a must. The person you don't like does have a must. Yes, that's very logical.

See, once again you're worried about the rights that YOU care about, and **** everyone else.

No, you're the one doing that. All I did was point out how your method of argument is doing that.