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

[Uncensored2008]

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

Are pharmacists duly elected "public servants" and sworn to uphold the law?

 

[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??

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.

So businesses do not have the right to hire the best qualified person for a job? That is what you believe, personally?

 

[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?

I think the fail started at Muslim bartender.

Is that a yes or a no?

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

 

[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

Are pharmacists duly elected "public servants" and sworn to uphold the law?

Does the fact that the judge is duly elected change your opinion on her right not to perform wedding ceremonies which according to the article in that thread is a right she has to perform but is not an obligation?

Immie

 

[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.

So businesses do not have the right to hire the best qualified person for a job? That is what you believe, personally?

I happen to think an ethical pharmacist IS the best qualified. My Dad was one for almost 50 years and would have had no problem refusing sevice for this posion.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

You know what? When the state gets involved in these type of situations it is WRONG. It is WRONG some of the time and it is WRONG all of the time. A person's religious convictions are protected under the first amendment and it is an attempt to circumvent those protections.

There is another thread where a gay judge won't perform straight marriages. The reasoning being that since he believes that the state is being inequal by not allowing gays to marry, then he will not perform any marraiges. Naturally, those of the left who abhor the idea of a 'religious' based objection to something think that this judge is just WONDERFUL. To them, his refusal to perform straight marriages is a courageous way to protest the 'inequality'. If the judge does not have to perform any marriages then he is within his rights not to perform them.

The hypocracy of the left just simply amazes me. A pharmacist who is a devout Catholic doesn't want to dispense the morning after pill because he believes it is immoral is within his rights. If you don't like it then you can vote with your feet and your purchases. Likewise, a doctor who will not perform abortions should not be required to regardless. But of course, if you are a member of the left, then if you refuse to violate your religious beliefs, why we'll have you jailed OR we'll force you out of business. When someone champions a cause of the left, then they are 'courageous.'

You absolutely KNOW that the Supreme Court is going to jump all over this... The left who absolutely LOVES activist judges is going to scream like a little girl when they get slapped...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does the fact that the judge is duly elected change your opinion on her right not to perform wedding ceremonies which according to the article in that thread is a right she has to perform but is not an obligation?

Immie

Yes; it changes it completely. A judge swears an oath to "Uphold the law." To refuse to perform legal marriages violates the oath of office.

Pharmacists take no such oath and are not elected to serve the public interests. The two situations are not similar.

Basically, the pharmacist has an obligation to do with their employer instructs, if they fail, then the employer will fire them. The judge has no employer and is subject to impeachment for violation of the oath of office or violations of statute therein.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Is that a yes or a no?

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

What if you change the question a million times?

Muslim bartender, that was a well thought out scenario.

Here's the thing, if anyone hires someone and that person preforms the job well, and then the job duties are changed to something that violates their religion, its the fault of the person or state that changed the rules or duties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So businesses do not have the right to hire the best qualified person for a job? That is what you believe, personally?

I happen to think an ethical pharmacist IS the best qualified. My Dad was one for almost 50 years and would have had no problem refusing sevice for this posion.

That wasn't the question. I'll repeat it:

So businesses do not have the right to hire the best qualified person for a job? That is what you believe, personally?

 

[Texanmike]

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

I used it because it isn't like they are being told that they must sell power saws. I don't know of a Chinese restaurant that sells hot dogs period. I understand your point I just disagree. I would not move to Washington, I would not open a pharmacy there, in fact I will not do business with a company as a result of Washington's policies. I agree that the state is wrong in this case but they are able to be within their authority and still be wrong. I will never go back to California unless ordered to either. I think the state is a black mark on the country. I don't like a lot of their laws. I don't want them to change their laws, I just don't want anything to do with them. I will also never step foot, unless ordered to do so, in a state that infringes on the right to bear arms in any way.

I'm also fine with the last portion about economics. If your state wants to loot, let them loot. They won't do it long. In fact giving a state the authority to do something like that will almost ensure it never happens at a federal level. Pharmacies will eventually leave. Have fun with that. That's the thing about a lot of these laws... they have consequences and ramifications that people don't realize. I remember several people who have relocated pharmacies out of Washington as a result of the law. Seems like they did the right thing. Why in the hell would you want to be surrounded by people who would elect someone that would write a law like this? It would be like me moving to California.

Mike

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the fail started at Muslim bartender.

Is that a yes or a no?

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

What if you change the question a million times?

Muslim bartender, that was a well thought out scenario.

Here's the thing, if anyone hires someone and that person preforms the job well, and then the job duties are changed to something that violates their religion, its the fault of the person or state that changed the rules or duties.

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pretty funny to see the scrambling and hummunnahummunnahummunna when Islam is brought into the equation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

The "Muslim" part is irrelevant. The question is does a convenience store owner have a right not to hire an applicant who indicates they won't sell beer which is part of the job duties of the clerk position.

The answer is "Yes". It's based on an unwillingness to perform the duties of the job and nothing to do with religion.



>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

Does the fact that the judge is duly elected change your opinion on her right not to perform wedding ceremonies which according to the article in that thread is a right she has to perform but is not an obligation?

Immie

Yes; it changes it completely. A judge swears an oath to "Uphold the law." To refuse to perform legal marriages violates the oath of office.

Pharmacists take no such oath and are not elected to serve the public interests. The two situations are not similar.

Basically, the pharmacist has an obligation to do with their employer instructs, if they fail, then the employer will fire them. The judge has no employer and is subject to impeachment for violation of the oath of office or violations of statute therein.

If it was a requirement of her position, I would agree with you. However, her position as Judge does not require her to perform any weddings. Other judges on her level do not perform weddings and are not required to.

Therefore, I disagree with you. However, I respect your opinion. Also, the people of her county are her employers. They have the right to have her removed from the bench.

As for the pharmacist in your example I agree. His employer has the right to make that decision. If the employer is the owner of the pharmacy (too bad the corner drug stores are on their way out!) then he has the right not to offer that product if he so chooses.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

Is that a yes or a no?

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

What if you change the question a million times?

Muslim bartender, that was a well thought out scenario.

Here's the thing, if anyone hires someone and that person preforms the job well, and then the job duties are changed to something that violates their religion, its the fault of the person or state that changed the rules or duties.

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

What makes you think Muslims weren't included in my answer?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if you change the question a million times?

Muslim bartender, that was a well thought out scenario.

Here's the thing, if anyone hires someone and that person preforms the job well, and then the job duties are changed to something that violates their religion, its the fault of the person or state that changed the rules or duties.

Why won't you take a position on Muslim religious rights?

What makes you think Muslims weren't included in my answer?

You didn't answer the question, period.

I'm enjoying, btw, seeing you squirm on this one. It's hard work being a *****, isn't it?

 

[saveliberty]

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

The "Muslim" part is irrelevant. The question is does a convenience store owner have a right not to hire an applicant who indicates they won't sell beer which is part of the job duties of the clerk position.

The answer is "Yes". It's based on an unwillingness to perform the duties of the job and nothing to do with religion.



>>>>

Exactly. I don't say, can you pick up 72 lbs. landscape block. I take them out to a block and say, this is part of what we do in our work. Is that something you can do? Male or female the question is the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If it was a requirement of her position, I would agree with you. However, her position as Judge does not require her to perform any weddings. Other judges on her level do not perform weddings and are not required to.

Therefore, I disagree with you. However, I respect your opinion. Also, the people of her county are her employers. They have the right to have her removed from the bench.

Ah, this is where we disagree, the people of her county are her subjects, not her employer. They have an opportunity to vote every what, 6 years? They cannot fire her, only impeachment will remove her from office.

As for the pharmacist in your example I agree. His employer has the right to make that decision. If the employer is the owner of the pharmacy (too bad the corner drug stores are on their way out!) then he has the right not to offer that product if he so chooses.

Immie

I agree completely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Exactly. I don't say, can you pick up 72 lbs. landscape block. I take them out to a block and say, this is part of what we do in our work. Is that something you can do? Male or female the question is the same.

In California, you can't legally require anyone to lift more than 50 pounds. Good thing you don't have your business here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.