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

[Immanuel]

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

Do you think a sporting goods store should have the right to not stock or sell firearms?

Yes

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A Muslim who won't sell beer is no different than a Christian who won't sell Plan B,

so the question is, if you want to dodge it again,

Should an employer have the right to refuse to hire Muslim to work in his convenience store if the Muslim won't sell beer, and should the employer have the right to determine that?

I never dodged the question, I answered it. That is not the issue that is being discussed in this thread, despite your attempt to say otherwise. The issue is does the state have the power to force people to do something against their religion. You keep trying to deflect it into employment issues, which just makes you look really stupid.

I'm going to ask you a very simple question:

Did you read any of the actual court decision cited in the OP of this thread, and linked in the link?

That is a yes or no.

No, I always post things I don't read.

 

[Uncensored2008]

if a sporting goods store decides that they want to sell that product, if they have the right license, then they are free to do so.

That isn't the question, do they have the right NOT to sell firearms?

You claim that pharmacies MUST carry contraceptives by merit of them being pharmacies. By your "logic," shouldn't sporting goods stores be forced to sell firearms?

answer my previous question though. if asking a pharmacist to dispense Plan B is aking to murder, how is selling a gun that is used to kill someone any different?

I have no interest in your straw man.

There is parity in the scenario I posed, both involve private business and products that some may object to distributing.

In fact, the case to compel sporting goods stores to sell firearms is stronger than the case to compel pharmacies to sell contraceptives; owning a gun is a constitutional right, owning a rubber is not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have time to read 32 pages, but this seems silly to me. If you're required by the State to dispense certain things in order to receive the licensing/registration of "Pharmacist," then you're required to do so. If you don't want to, you don't apply for the title, and do something else with your career that you don't find objectionable; that's all.

And Plan B is not an abortion pill as I understand it... But in any event... Can they point to the religion they claim to practice which bans this particular prophylactic but not say, condoms or other prophylactics?

That is not what the rule says. It specifically says that you cannot refuse to dispense Plan B simply because you have a religious objection. Then the state went out of its way to target one specific pharmacy, and ignored the fact that some pharmacies simply did not carry the drug because there was not enough demand for it, and they also ignored the fact that pharmacies at Catholic hospitals refused outright to even carry the drug.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes

Immie

But then you would allow the pharmacy decide what to sell or not sell.

My question is for those who would compel by force, pharmacies to sell contraception and abortificants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In case you missed it, after we finally dragged it out of him, saveliberty agreed that an employer should not have to employ someone who can't do his job because of his religion.

No he didn't, he agreed an employer should not have to hire anyone who refuses to do his job even if the reason he refuses to do it is religion.

Are you a mental retard?

That's the same thing you imbecile.

No it isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Someone, however, is trying to force people who own a business to do something that is against their religion.

Nobody is forcing them to be in business in that particular industry. This is exactly the kind of reasoning you would use, for example, toward gay marriage. You'd say that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and that nobody is forcing them to do otherwise. If it was about employers providing coverage for birth control in health insurance plans, you'd say that nobody is forcing the employees to stay at their job. If we were talking about wages being too low, you'd say that nobody is forcing employees to stay in their job as opposed to finding someone else who will pay them more. In any other subject, you'd adopt exactly the same rationale that you are rejecting here.

The simple fact of the matter is that the government has a legitimate place to regulate things, like employment law, and pharmaceutical distribution. These are not religious activities. Therefore, objections to, nor exceptions from, such laws based on the implications of a person's religion are not with standing of any kind. And no concern to the religious affiliation of people who might be involved in these activities should be tolerated, lest we start claiming all kinds of absurdities, like that there is a constitutional right to violate the speed limit because God told me so.

Wow, is that a great defense or what?

The simple fact is that the government does not have an unlimited right to regulate things like employment law, it actually has to prove it has a reason for doing so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nobody is forcing a person to become a pharmacist.

Someone, however, is trying to force people who own a business to do something that is against their religion.

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

Because the person we are actually discussing here has been a pharmacist for 40 years and these problems did not exist back when they decided to become a pharmacist? Or is that concept to complicated for you to track?

 

[Syphon]

Why would a pharmacist ever think they would be asked to kill someone as a part of their job in an industry that pledges no harm?

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

A person who has a problem with the fact a gun he/she sold to someone else might end up killing someone later, would never become a firearms dealer. It isn't like guns killing people is anything new.

Pharmacists are not being asked to kill someone. They are being forced to assist in the killing of someone. And, this is new to the profession.

Immie

Plan B was released to the public in 1999. i think 13 years is more than enough time to make a career change.

and again, how is a fire arms dealers not assisting in murder? (im not agreeing that he actually is, but by this line of reasoning it is entirely possible)

what if a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for the Pill? or (if they had control over them) they refused to distribute condoms? is that acceptable? this argument applies no just for a contraceptive but for any drug. pain killers, cancer drugs, steroids. etc etc etc

 

[Syphon]

Someone, however, is trying to force people who own a business to do something that is against their religion.

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

Because the person we are actually discussing here has been a pharmacist for 40 years and these problems did not exist back when they decided to become a pharmacist? Or is that concept to complicated for you to track?

they have had 13 years to either adjust their views or change professions. why has it taken them so long to object? Plan B was released in 1999.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

Do you think a sporting goods store should have the right to not stock or sell firearms?

Better question, should a sporting goods store be forced to stock and sell firearms even if the owner and employees object to people owning guns and killing animals?

 

[Syphon]

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

Do you think a sporting goods store should have the right to not stock or sell firearms?

Better question, should a sporting goods store be forced to stock and sell firearms even if the owner and employees object to people owning guns and killing animals?

i have already said that "owners" should not be forced to carry a product or service they disagree with. the issue at hand here is the employee. so i will rephrase your questions, does an antigun advocate working at a sporting good store that sell guns allowed to refuse to sell you a gun which you are legally allowed to purchase? (we can make the decision even easier) this specific employee is the only one currently working and no other employees can provide you with service.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

if a sporting goods store decides that they want to sell that product, if they have the right license, then they are free to do so.

That isn't the question, do they have the right NOT to sell firearms?

You claim that pharmacies MUST carry contraceptives by merit of them being pharmacies. By your "logic," shouldn't sporting goods stores be forced to sell firearms?

answer my previous question though. if asking a pharmacist to dispense Plan B is aking to murder, how is selling a gun that is used to kill someone any different?

I have no interest in your straw man.

There is parity in the scenario I posed, both involve private business and products that some may object to distributing.

In fact, the case to compel sporting goods stores to sell firearms is stronger than the case to compel pharmacies to sell contraceptives; owning a gun is a constitutional right, owning a rubber is not.

There are plenty of sporting goods stores that don't sell guns, your question makes no sense.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Do you think a sporting goods store should have the right to not stock or sell firearms?

Better question, should a sporting goods store be forced to stock and sell firearms even if the owner and employees object to people owning guns and killing animals?

i have already said that "owners" should not be forced to carry a product or service they disagree with. the issue at hand here is the employee. so i will rephrase your questions, does an antigun advocate working at a sporting good store that sell guns allowed to refuse to sell you a gun which you are legally allowed to purchase? (we can make the decision even easier) this specific employee is the only one currently working and no other employees can provide you with service.

And the very simple answer that you won't admit to because it ruins the game you're trying to play is that if the OWNER has given him permission to refuse to sell said items then there is NOTHING anyone should be able to do about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

how is a pharmacist asked to kill someone? thats like saying the guy selling guns down the street is asked to kill someone by allowing his customers to purchase guns. if you made that argument, then the guns dont kill people, people kill people argument is invalidated immediately.

A person who has a problem with the fact a gun he/she sold to someone else might end up killing someone later, would never become a firearms dealer. It isn't like guns killing people is anything new.

Pharmacists are not being asked to kill someone. They are being forced to assist in the killing of someone. And, this is new to the profession.

Immie

Plan B was released to the public in 1999. i think 13 years is more than enough time to make a career change.

and again, how is a fire arms dealers not assisting in murder? (im not agreeing that he actually is, but by this line of reasoning it is entirely possible)

what if a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for the Pill? or (if they had control over them) they refused to distribute condoms? is that acceptable? this argument applies no just for a contraceptive but for any drug. pain killers, cancer drugs, steroids. etc etc etc

What if the government decided to make you change your career after 40 years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

why would a person knowing go into a business that violates their beliefs in the first place? do you think someone who is pro life would go into the abortion business just to refuse to perform abortion?

Because the person we are actually discussing here has been a pharmacist for 40 years and these problems did not exist back when they decided to become a pharmacist? Or is that concept to complicated for you to track?

they have had 13 years to either adjust their views or change professions. why has it taken them so long to object? Plan B was released in 1999.

It didn't. No one actually required them to sell it until recently, but thanks for proving you are an idiot.

 

[Syphon]

A person who has a problem with the fact a gun he/she sold to someone else might end up killing someone later, would never become a firearms dealer. It isn't like guns killing people is anything new.

Pharmacists are not being asked to kill someone. They are being forced to assist in the killing of someone. And, this is new to the profession.

Immie

Plan B was released to the public in 1999. i think 13 years is more than enough time to make a career change.

and again, how is a fire arms dealers not assisting in murder? (im not agreeing that he actually is, but by this line of reasoning it is entirely possible)

what if a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for the Pill? or (if they had control over them) they refused to distribute condoms? is that acceptable? this argument applies no just for a contraceptive but for any drug. pain killers, cancer drugs, steroids. etc etc etc

What if the government decided to make you change your career after 40 years?

the government didnt force anything. they didnt force the pharmacist to carry the product. Plan B is also not manufactured by the government. if the pharmacist disagreed with a product that was being sold and he/she was expected to sell as part of their regular job duties, they they should have made that issue know in 1999 when it was released. not 13 years later. if they had brought up that issue at the time, the employer could have come up with a solution, whether it is removing that employee or developing an alternative plan such as having 2 pharmacists on duty at all times.

 

[Syphon]

Because the person we are actually discussing here has been a pharmacist for 40 years and these problems did not exist back when they decided to become a pharmacist? Or is that concept to complicated for you to track?

they have had 13 years to either adjust their views or change professions. why has it taken them so long to object? Plan B was released in 1999.

It didn't. No one actually required them to sell it until recently, but thanks for proving you are an idiot.

what part of the health care law requires all pharmacies to stock and supply Plan B?

FYI this is a state law, not a federal law.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-23/lifestyle/31091824_1_pharmacies-rules-drugs
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/09/nation/na-pill-ruling9

"The three 9th Circuit judges found common ground despite differing outlooks: Two conservatives named to the court by President George W. Bush and a liberal named by President Clinton made up the panel."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you think a sporting goods store should have the right to not stock or sell firearms?

Better question, should a sporting goods store be forced to stock and sell firearms even if the owner and employees object to people owning guns and killing animals?

i have already said that "owners" should not be forced to carry a product or service they disagree with. the issue at hand here is the employee. so i will rephrase your questions, does an antigun advocate working at a sporting good store that sell guns allowed to refuse to sell you a gun which you are legally allowed to purchase? (we can make the decision even easier) this specific employee is the only one currently working and no other employees can provide you with service.

How many times do I have to answer this question?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Better question, should a sporting goods store be forced to stock and sell firearms even if the owner and employees object to people owning guns and killing animals?

i have already said that "owners" should not be forced to carry a product or service they disagree with. the issue at hand here is the employee. so i will rephrase your questions, does an antigun advocate working at a sporting good store that sell guns allowed to refuse to sell you a gun which you are legally allowed to purchase? (we can make the decision even easier) this specific employee is the only one currently working and no other employees can provide you with service.

And the very simple answer that you won't admit to because it ruins the game you're trying to play is that if the OWNER has given him permission to refuse to sell said items then there is NOTHING anyone should be able to do about it.

Bingo. The issue here is does the government have the right to force anyone to sell something they object to selling. The owner is clearly free to fire them if they refuse to do their jobs, but the state cannot get into the middle of the situation.