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

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again, what about Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC? Can you explain how, if religious liberty only applies directly to religion, a religious exemption to employment law exists for schools?

Anything?

Why do you keep referencing cases you obviously haven't read. That case deals with MINISTERS employed by the church. The church's selection of ministers, and serving as a minister, is an inherently religious activity, donchathink?

The court held that freedom of religion bars a minister from bringing suit against a former employer-church, on the basis of discrimination. This makes perfect sense, because the constitution prohibits the government from interfering with churches selection of their own ministers. Applying such relevant statutes to the church under the specific issue of the church selecting its ministers, as well as a court issuing an order to reinstate such a minister against the church's wishes, would constitute direct interference by the government in explicitly religious realms, regarding inherently religious activities. It is completely consistent with everything I have said. As the court said, "By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions."

Oh, nice try.

The case specifically deals with a teacher employed by a church run school school, and clearly rejected the governments position that only employees with exclusively religious functions were covered by the ministerial exception, which probably doesn't exist anyway.

Go read the decision before you try to tell me it only deals with ministers.

 

[candycorn]

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



Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online

From the website:
Plan B One-Step® Consumer: Where to get Plan B One-Step®

Head to Your Pharmacy
If you're 17 or older, Plan B One-Step® is available without a prescription. Just ask for Plan B One-Step® at the pharmacy counter. If you're under 17, you'll need a prescription.

If the young lady goes to a national chain, she can get Plan B without a prescription.
CVS/Walgreens/Rite Aid don't want the bad publicity this type of discrimination will bring.

Choosing not to sell a product is not disctimination. Choosing to only sell a product to certain people would be discrimination.

Damn our educational system has failed

The major pharmacy chains have decided to sell the product and it is available without prescription. A pharmacist need not be involved in the entire transaction except to hand the pill across the sales counter if it is kept behind the counter to start with--hence "Over The Counter".

Capitalist companies are funny that way, the market demand often dictates what they stock and sell. CVS, Walgreens, and even supermarkets have them in my area. Right wing lunatics are funny that way too; not knowing basic facts of the matter such as the drug is available without a prescription so you don't really need a pharmacist. From their website:

Go to the pharmacy counter and ask for Plan B One-Step®—accept no substitutes. It’s the only one-pill emergency contraception available over the counter, for consumers age 17 and older. You can get it at your pharmacy without a prescription, as long as you show a government-issued photo identification that proves you are 17 or older. Valid IDs include your driver's license, state identification card, or passport. If you feel uncomfortable asking for Plan B One-Step®, you can download and print a Plan B One-Step® Request Card to hand to your pharmacist.

If you’re under 17, you’ll need to see your healthcare professional or visit your clinic.

If some outlying small pharmacies have a problem selling the Plan B drug, a young lady should know that she could take 4 pills of Levora (levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol) now and 4 pills 12 hours from now and get the same effect. The Levora is a drug that is part of the GPO for most locations so that makes the drug even that more affordable.
The OP is really a moot point; you don't need a prescription and you get as much bang for the buck with a commonly available contraceptive pill.

It's the typical right wing foolishness..."if we don't sell this, the market will go away".

Damn our education system has failed.

 

[candycorn]

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

False.

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

It's "show" not "shoe". Your "youre" needs an " ' " in it. You should probably refrain from criticizing others intelligence.

And lay off the conspiracy nutjob pills you're taking.

Just sayin'.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

My position: Well it is clearly stated in this thread. It is a State issue. In the other thread? It is a county (maybe a state) issue. We don't really have enough information to make the call in the other thread.

Mike

My opinion is based on the information we have. I believe I have been consistent in both cases. If I am inconsistent, I welcome anyone to point out how so. But, I would prefer they do so in a civil tone. Civil discussions here are so much more enjoyable than the norm. Do you know what I mean? By the way, that is not a comment related to anything you have said here. I can't recall a time when you were not civil in your discussions.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

My position: Well it is clearly stated in this thread. It is a State issue. In the other thread? It is a county (maybe a state) issue. We don't really have enough information to make the call in the other thread.

Mike

Why do you believe that anything not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states?

This is NOT a state issue. The state of California can no more tell you what products you may sell than the the country of USA can.

Sure they can. The Tenth Amendment makes that clear. Even if you try to encompass the commerce clause, that says among the states. That wording was specifically chosen as a result of the Potomac river dispute.

Fireworks for example. Guns. Cars. There are probably thousands of items that states regulate that.

Mike

But the problem, this is addressed to both of you, is that this discussion is not about what a business owner can sell i.e. the government has the right to make marijuana illegal and forbid its sale anywhere in the country. I'm not saying I agree with that particular product being illegal just using it as an example. But rather this case is about the government telling a business owner what he will sell. You may think that is a minor distinction. I don't. I used this example earlier. Should the government be able to tell a Chinese Food Restuarant owner that he must also sell hot dogs because his customers deserve to eat hot dogs in his place of business?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

Yes, you've been consistent. But I think you missed my point. Not to mention the fact that I'm not throwing you into the wing-nut category. At least, not yet, so I hope you don't disappoint me. If you go find what Rabbi has been saying in that thread, perhaps you'll understand what I'm saying better.

For the record, I just checked (by clicking on the number of responses it tells you who has posted in the thread and how many posts) but I didn't see any posts by The Rabbi in this thread.

And yes, The Rabbi and I differ in our opinions on that thread.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Why do you believe that anything not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states?

This is NOT a state issue. The state of California can no more tell you what products you may sell than the the country of USA can.

Sure they can. The Tenth Amendment makes that clear. Even if you try to encompass the commerce clause, that says among the states. That wording was specifically chosen as a result of the Potomac river dispute.

Fireworks for example. Guns. Cars. There are probably thousands of items that states regulate that.

Mike

But the problem, this is addressed to both of you, is that this discussion is not about what a business owner can sell i.e. the government has the right to make marijuana illegal and forbid its sale anywhere in the country. I'm not saying I agree with that particular product being illegal just using it as an example. But rather this case is about the government telling a business owner what he will sell. You may think that is a minor distinction. I don't. I used this example earlier. Should the government be able to tell a Chinese Food Restuarant owner that he must also sell hot dogs because his customers deserve to eat hot dogs in his place of business?

Immie

Fully agree. I just thought everyone understood what we were talking about, obviously some do not and needed you to spell it out for them.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

False.

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

It's "show" not "shoe". Your "youre" needs an " ' " in it. You should probably refrain from criticizing others intelligence.

And lay off the conspiracy nutjob pills you're taking.

Just sayin'.

Typos on a smartphone hardly indicate a lack of intelligence. As for conspiracy nut job? I don't even know what you're saying. I'm fairly moderate and in noway buy into conspiracies.

 

[Texanmike]

Why do you believe that anything not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states?

This is NOT a state issue. The state of California can no more tell you what products you may sell than the the country of USA can.

Sure they can. The Tenth Amendment makes that clear. Even if you try to encompass the commerce clause, that says among the states. That wording was specifically chosen as a result of the Potomac river dispute.

Fireworks for example. Guns. Cars. There are probably thousands of items that states regulate that.

Mike

But the problem, this is addressed to both of you, is that this discussion is not about what a business owner can sell i.e. the government has the right to make marijuana illegal and forbid its sale anywhere in the country. I'm not saying I agree with that particular product being illegal just using it as an example. But rather this case is about the government telling a business owner what he will sell. You may think that is a minor distinction. I don't. I used this example earlier. Should the government be able to tell a Chinese Food Restuarant owner that he must also sell hot dogs because his customers deserve to eat hot dogs in his place of business?

Immie

First, I disagree with the drug laws in this country. I wouldn't live in a state that made illegal drugs legal but that is another law that has no Constitutional basis. The state should set that mandate.

There is a difference between a restaurant and a pharmacy but I would probably say yes. If the people in a state want hot dogs in their Chinese restaurant and they elect someone who writes that law, I don't have a problem with it but lets make it a little more similar. What if they make the Chinese restaurant sell lo mien? Is that acceptable? I don't see why it is not. In fact that is exactly why I want the state to have the authority if the people desire it.

To get back to the pharmacy example. Personally I would hate for the federal government to get involved. I like the fact that Washingtonians can do as they will and I can do as I will. There are things that my state does that I don't like but I don't want Washington to try to force their lifestyle on me and I don't want them involved in my state's politics.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

Sure they can. The Tenth Amendment makes that clear. Even if you try to encompass the commerce clause, that says among the states. That wording was specifically chosen as a result of the Potomac river dispute.

Fireworks for example. Guns. Cars. There are probably thousands of items that states regulate that.

Mike

But the problem, this is addressed to both of you, is that this discussion is not about what a business owner can sell i.e. the government has the right to make marijuana illegal and forbid its sale anywhere in the country. I'm not saying I agree with that particular product being illegal just using it as an example. But rather this case is about the government telling a business owner what he will sell. You may think that is a minor distinction. I don't. I used this example earlier. Should the government be able to tell a Chinese Food Restuarant owner that he must also sell hot dogs because his customers deserve to eat hot dogs in his place of business?

Immie

First, I disagree with the drug laws in this country. I wouldn't live in a state that made illegal drugs legal but that is another law that has no Constitutional basis. The state should set that mandate.

There is a difference between a restaurant and a pharmacy but I would probably say yes. If the people in a state want hot dogs in their Chinese restaurant and they elect someone who writes that law, I don't have a problem with it but lets make it a little more similar. What if they make the Chinese restaurant sell lo mien? Is that acceptable? I don't see why it is not. In fact that is exactly why I want the state to have the authority if the people desire it.

To get back to the pharmacy example. Personally I would hate for the federal government to get involved. I like the fact that Washingtonians can do as they will and I can do as I will. There are things that my state does that I don't like but I don't want Washington to try to force their lifestyle on me and I don't want them involved in my state's politics.

Mike

First, what chinese food restaurant doesn't sell Lo Mein?

Second, I would object to the government requiring the restaurant owner to sell Lo Mein or any other product.

Third, obviously, if you are a pharmacists, the state of Washington does not want you to be able to do as you will. If you have objections, for any reason whatsoever, against selling this product, they deem it their right to force you to sell it. Even if the issue is that the cost to you is $1000/hundred doses but regulations require you to sell it at half that price.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

The Biil of Rights was an attempt to clarify that MOST rights belong to citizens and not the state. It was not meant to be a complete list.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then related to this...

If a pharmacist thus has the religious right not to perform all of the duties of a pharmacist,

does that thus give the employer the right, during the hiring process, to determine this fact and, if he chooses,

then hire someone other than the religious person on the grounds that the other person would be better able to fulfill all of his duties??

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then related to this...

If a pharmacist thus has the religious right not to perform all of the duties of a pharmacist,

does that thus give the employer the right, during the hiring process, to determine this fact and, if he chooses,

then hire someone other than the religious person on the grounds that the other person would be better able to fulfill all of his duties??

An employer cannot inquire about a person religious views, if they do, they open themselves up to equal employment violations resulting in fines and punishments.

What an employer can do is provide a prospective employee with a copy of a job description listing the duties and responsibilities associated with the job. The employee then signs the document agreeing to a statement that they are willing to perform the duties as described as a condition of employment. The prospective employer is then confirming or rejecting their ability to do the required work with no inquiry as to religious beliefs.




>>>>

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Then related to this...

If a pharmacist thus has the religious right not to perform all of the duties of a pharmacist,

does that thus give the employer the right, during the hiring process, to determine this fact and, if he chooses,

then hire someone other than the religious person on the grounds that the other person would be better able to fulfill all of his duties??

Simple solution. SImply ask "If hired would you be able to sell ALL products without personal prejudice" don't even mention religion.

 

[Katzndogz]

Most people who find a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions that conflict with religious belief totally unacceptable and abhorrent understand that a muslim checkout clerk at the grocery has the right to refuse to check out the bacon and pork chops.

 

[Uncensored2008]

suing me

Is there a line forming to piss on you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most people who find a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions that conflict with religious belief totally unacceptable and abhorrent understand that a muslim checkout clerk at the grocery has the right to refuse to check out the bacon and pork chops.

Really? Name 10 people that you personally know who conform to that pair of beliefs.

 

[saveliberty]

Then related to this...

If a pharmacist thus has the religious right not to perform all of the duties of a pharmacist,

does that thus give the employer the right, during the hiring process, to determine this fact and, if he chooses,

then hire someone other than the religious person on the grounds that the other person would be better able to fulfill all of his duties??

No, the state has protected people's religious freedom from people like you. Imagine how much MORE the state should protect them from doing something against their faith.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most people who find a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions that conflict with religious belief totally unacceptable and abhorrent understand that a muslim checkout clerk at the grocery has the right to refuse to check out the bacon and pork chops.

Do you personally believe that a bar owner, for example, should be forced to employ a Muslim bartender whose religion won't allow him to serve alcohol?

 

[saveliberty]

Most people who find a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions that conflict with religious belief totally unacceptable and abhorrent understand that a muslim checkout clerk at the grocery has the right to refuse to check out the bacon and pork chops.

Do you personally believe that a bar owner, for example, should be forced to employ a Muslim bartender whose religion won't allow him to serve alcohol?

I think the fail started at Muslim bartender.