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

[Immanuel]

you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.

Wow, did you get that backwards. The only way that would work is if the pharmacists don't have any rights themselves. Are they slaves?

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what? your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking. why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before? why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs? what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything? since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void. they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life. the religious right always gets this wrong. this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school. well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?

in this instance, the government is not mandating the an individual take or be forced to take / use certain product. they are mandating that it be accessible.

you fail see past the narrowness of your argument and apply your reasoning to other areas of the world. i can not pick and choose which parts of my job i am required to perform without consequence regardless of religious views. if dispensing medication is a required part of my profession, the type of medication with which i am required to dispense becomes irrelevant. i am not paid to be the moral gate keeper of another decisions. i am paid to perform a service.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.

My response even though this was not directed at me is you are right. I will never understand the government (well, I understand it, I just won't accept it) removing personal liberties. What I don't understand is individuals endorsing it.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.

Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.

Rights are always limited.

One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.

you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.

YOU

ARE

DUMB


No one's rights are being infringed if someone refuses to sell them something, because there is no protected right to buy whatever you want from whomever you want.

Sell me you house for $50. Oh you don't want to? But that's infringing on my right to buy your house.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Wow, did you get that backwards. The only way that would work is if the pharmacists don't have any rights themselves. Are they slaves?

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what? your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking. why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before? why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs? what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything? since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void. they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life. the religious right always gets this wrong. this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school. well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?

in this instance, the government is not mandating the an individual take or be forced to take / use certain product. they are mandating that it be accessible.

you fail see past the narrowness of your argument and apply your reasoning to other areas of the world. i can not pick and choose which parts of my job i am required to perform without consequence regardless of religious views. if dispensing medication is a required part of my profession, the type of medication with which i am required to dispense becomes irrelevant. i am not paid to be the moral gate keeper of another decisions. i am paid to perform a service.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.

My response even though this was not directed at me is you are right. I will never understand the government (well, I understand it, I just won't accept it) removing personal liberties. What I don't understand is individuals endorsing it.

Immie

Simply put it is because for the last 20 years , roughly, the government has been programming people to believe they are ALWAYS right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what?

Yeppers.

your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking.

I doubt it, but you can try to prove me wrong if you want.

why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before?

It doesn't.

why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs?

Why would anyone refuse to dispense antibiotics?

what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything?

Why would a Christian Scientist become a pharmacist?

since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void.

Umm, what?

they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life.

They are? Does a steakhouse that does not carry tofu burgers infringe on the rights of individual vegans?

the religious right always gets this wrong.

No one is always wrong, even you.

this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school.

Umm, what? The only people I see bringing up prayer in schools are the people arguing against people being able to not sell things.

well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?

It shouldn't. nor should it mandate that I follow yours. That is the entire point here. I oppose the government mandating anything, you support the government mandating things you like.

in this instance, the government is not mandating the an individual take or be forced to take / use certain product.

Never said it was.

they are mandating that it be accessible.

And, if you read the decision, you will see that the issue of accessibility was raised, and dismissed, because no one that needed the drug ever ended up not getting it. A few had to go a few blocks to a different pharmacy, but not a single person was ever denied access to the drug.

you fail see past the narrowness of your argument and apply your reasoning to other areas of the world.

No I don't, but your argument is really amusing.

i can not pick and choose which parts of my job i am required to perform without consequence regardless of religious views.

Who said you could?

if dispensing medication is a required part of my profession, the type of medication with which i am required to dispense becomes irrelevant.

Not according to the government. They think that some medicines are supposed to be denied just because people might do something wrong with them.

By the way, why are you arguing with me about this? I oppose drug laws.

i am not paid to be the moral gate keeper of another decisions.

Never said you were

i am paid to perform a service.

Good thing you aren't paid to think.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.

Understand what? That, by telling people that have certain jobs they no longer have a right to personal opinions, the collective is better off? I have to agree, I will never understand that.

 

[Immanuel]

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what? your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking. why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before? why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs? what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything? since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void. they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life. the religious right always gets this wrong. this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school. well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?

in this instance, the government is not mandating the an individual take or be forced to take / use certain product. they are mandating that it be accessible.

you fail see past the narrowness of your argument and apply your reasoning to other areas of the world. i can not pick and choose which parts of my job i am required to perform without consequence regardless of religious views. if dispensing medication is a required part of my profession, the type of medication with which i am required to dispense becomes irrelevant. i am not paid to be the moral gate keeper of another decisions. i am paid to perform a service.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.

My response even though this was not directed at me is you are right. I will never understand the government (well, I understand it, I just won't accept it) removing personal liberties. What I don't understand is individuals endorsing it.

Immie

Simply put it is because for the last 20 years , roughly, the government has been programming people to believe they are ALWAYS right.

Damn, I missed that lesson.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow, did you get that backwards. The only way that would work is if the pharmacists don't have any rights themselves. Are they slaves?

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what? your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking. why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before? why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs? what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything? since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void. they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life. the religious right always gets this wrong. this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school. well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?

in this instance, the government is not mandating the an individual take or be forced to take / use certain product. they are mandating that it be accessible.

you fail see past the narrowness of your argument and apply your reasoning to other areas of the world. i can not pick and choose which parts of my job i am required to perform without consequence regardless of religious views. if dispensing medication is a required part of my profession, the type of medication with which i am required to dispense becomes irrelevant. i am not paid to be the moral gate keeper of another decisions. i am paid to perform a service.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.

My response even though this was not directed at me is you are right. I will never understand the government (well, I understand it, I just won't accept it) removing personal liberties. What I don't understand is individuals endorsing it.

Immie

The needs of the few, or the one, is outweighed by the good of the many.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

My response even though this was not directed at me is you are right. I will never understand the government (well, I understand it, I just won't accept it) removing personal liberties. What I don't understand is individuals endorsing it.

Immie

Simply put it is because for the last 20 years , roughly, the government has been programming people to believe they are ALWAYS right.

Damn, I missed that lesson.

Immie

I ignored it.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what? your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking. why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before? why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs? what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything? since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void. they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life. the religious right always gets this wrong. this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school. well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?

in this instance, the government is not mandating the an individual take or be forced to take / use certain product. they are mandating that it be accessible.

you fail see past the narrowness of your argument and apply your reasoning to other areas of the world. i can not pick and choose which parts of my job i am required to perform without consequence regardless of religious views. if dispensing medication is a required part of my profession, the type of medication with which i am required to dispense becomes irrelevant. i am not paid to be the moral gate keeper of another decisions. i am paid to perform a service.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.

My response even though this was not directed at me is you are right. I will never understand the government (well, I understand it, I just won't accept it) removing personal liberties. What I don't understand is individuals endorsing it.

Immie

The needs of the few, or the one, is outweighed by the good of the many.

Fundamentally these people believe that THEIR "rights" should be protected and care nothing about your rights or any other person's. They are selfish.

 

[Syphon]

One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.

you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.

YOU

ARE

DUMB


No one's rights are being infringed if someone refuses to sell them something, because there is no protected right to buy whatever you want from whomever you want.

Sell me you house for $50. Oh you don't want to? But that's infringing on my right to buy your house.

actually the law being reference does mandate that pharmacists provide plan B. they are not putting a specific mandated costs to this. maybe you should read the argument first before interjecting.

the 9th circuit court of appeals, which included 2 conservative judges and 1 liberal judge unanimously agreed that they can.

The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state's dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct.
Washington State Plan B Ruling: Federal Judge Says State Cannot Force Pharmacies To Sell Plan B

The interveners included women who were denied timely access to Plan B when they needed it – one of whom cut short a vacation in central Washington to return home to Bellingham, where she knew she could obtain Plan B from her regular pharmacy – as well as HIV patients, who argued that if druggists could refuse to dispense Plan B for religious reasons, some might also refuse to dispense time-sensitive HIV medications.
"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first," said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.

Two Supreme Court cases guide judges in determining whether laws that infringe upon the free exercise of religion are legal.
In one, the court held that the state of Oregon could outlaw the use of the hallucinogenic peyote for everyone, even though some groups might use it in religious conduct.
In the other, the court held that a city in Florida could not outlaw animal sacrifices for religious purposes, while allowing the slaughter of animals for food, hunting and pest eradication.

The SCOTUS has already set precedent on this.

 

[Hum Dinger]

There are two separate issues here:

On one hand, the judge is correct in stating that laws should be enforced uniformly. If the state prosecutes selectively, then no prosecutions should be valid.

On the otherhand, the state has the responsibilty of setting uniform standards for the operation of pharmacies and to withhold or withdraw licenses for pharmacies that do not meet those standards.

There is no Constitutional right to operate a pharmacy or to do business.

So in this particular case, lack of uniform enforcement of the law means that the state is wrong.

However, the bigger picture is that pharmacies must provide services according to the standards set down by the states, which means that as long as the state does not selectively enforce the law or do some other objectionable thing, the pharmacies must provide this Plan B.

However, I would also think that a precident has already been set whereby individual pharmacists could opt out of this. The principal of the 'Conscientious Objector' could apply to individuals is this case. The pharmacy would still have to dispense Plan B - unless it could prove that it could not find pharmacists that were willing to do this.

Of course in the end, pharmacies would just have to pay pharmacists who were willing to dispense plan B more for their services.

 

[Syphon]

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what?

Yeppers.

your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking.

I doubt it, but you can try to prove me wrong if you want.



It doesn't.



Why would anyone refuse to dispense antibiotics?



Why would a Christian Scientist become a pharmacist?



Umm, what?



They are? Does a steakhouse that does not carry tofu burgers infringe on the rights of individual vegans?



No one is always wrong, even you.



Umm, what? The only people I see bringing up prayer in schools are the people arguing against people being able to not sell things.



It shouldn't. nor should it mandate that I follow yours. That is the entire point here. I oppose the government mandating anything, you support the government mandating things you like.



Never said it was.



And, if you read the decision, you will see that the issue of accessibility was raised, and dismissed, because no one that needed the drug ever ended up not getting it. A few had to go a few blocks to a different pharmacy, but not a single person was ever denied access to the drug.



No I don't, but your argument is really amusing.



Who said you could?



Not according to the government. They think that some medicines are supposed to be denied just because people might do something wrong with them.

By the way, why are you arguing with me about this? I oppose drug laws.



Never said you were

i am paid to perform a service.

Good thing you aren't paid to think.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.

Understand what? That, by telling people that have certain jobs they no longer have a right to personal opinions, the collective is better off? I have to agree, I will never understand that.

thanks for cherry pick some of the quote out of context. this one being the best:

"wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what?"
Yeppers.

Great by your reasoning, that means if i have a pharmacy, i can choose to only service a white male clientele. no women, no minorities, because that is my religious belief. women and minorities are not equal to white men under my religion.

so i am exercising my religious freedom? or am i violating civil rights?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.

YOU

ARE

DUMB


No one's rights are being infringed if someone refuses to sell them something, because there is no protected right to buy whatever you want from whomever you want.

Sell me you house for $50. Oh you don't want to? But that's infringing on my right to buy your house.

actually the law being reference does mandate that pharmacists provide plan B. they are not putting a specific mandated costs to this. maybe you should read the argument first before interjecting.

the 9th circuit court of appeals, which included 2 conservative judges and 1 liberal judge unanimously agreed that they can.

The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state's dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct.
Washington State Plan B Ruling: Federal Judge Says State Cannot Force Pharmacies To Sell Plan B

The interveners included women who were denied timely access to Plan B when they needed it – one of whom cut short a vacation in central Washington to return home to Bellingham, where she knew she could obtain Plan B from her regular pharmacy – as well as HIV patients, who argued that if druggists could refuse to dispense Plan B for religious reasons, some might also refuse to dispense time-sensitive HIV medications.
"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first," said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.

Two Supreme Court cases guide judges in determining whether laws that infringe upon the free exercise of religion are legal.
In one, the court held that the state of Oregon could outlaw the use of the hallucinogenic peyote for everyone, even though some groups might use it in religious conduct.
In the other, the court held that a city in Florida could not outlaw animal sacrifices for religious purposes, while allowing the slaughter of animals for food, hunting and pest eradication.

The SCOTUS has already set precedent on this.

Marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic and as such special rules apply that differentiate it from Plan B for instance, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Syphon]

YOU

ARE

DUMB


No one's rights are being infringed if someone refuses to sell them something, because there is no protected right to buy whatever you want from whomever you want.

Sell me you house for $50. Oh you don't want to? But that's infringing on my right to buy your house.

actually the law being reference does mandate that pharmacists provide plan B. they are not putting a specific mandated costs to this. maybe you should read the argument first before interjecting.

the 9th circuit court of appeals, which included 2 conservative judges and 1 liberal judge unanimously agreed that they can.

The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state's dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct.
Washington State Plan B Ruling: Federal Judge Says State Cannot Force Pharmacies To Sell Plan B

The interveners included women who were denied timely access to Plan B when they needed it – one of whom cut short a vacation in central Washington to return home to Bellingham, where she knew she could obtain Plan B from her regular pharmacy – as well as HIV patients, who argued that if druggists could refuse to dispense Plan B for religious reasons, some might also refuse to dispense time-sensitive HIV medications.
"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first," said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.

Two Supreme Court cases guide judges in determining whether laws that infringe upon the free exercise of religion are legal.
In one, the court held that the state of Oregon could outlaw the use of the hallucinogenic peyote for everyone, even though some groups might use it in religious conduct.
In the other, the court held that a city in Florida could not outlaw animal sacrifices for religious purposes, while allowing the slaughter of animals for food, hunting and pest eradication.

The SCOTUS has already set precedent on this.

Marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic and as such special rules apply that differentiate it from Plan B for instance, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

why are you talking about weed?

 

[Immanuel]

"Sorry, we're out. Next delivery sometime next month. Come back then."

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

"Sorry, we're out. Next delivery sometime next month. Come back then."

Immie

" get your ass out of here" sounds better to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

thanks for cherry pick some of the quote out of context. this one being the best:

"wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what?"
Yeppers.

How did I take that out of context? You asked a question, I answered it.

Great by your reasoning, that means if i have a pharmacy, i can choose to only service a white male clientele. no women, no minorities, because that is my religious belief. women and minorities are not equal to white men under my religion.

Yes, by my reasoning, you can do that. I doubt you would be able to keep a business you choose to run that way open for long, but you can do it. Nice to see you finally understand the concept.

so i am exercising my religious freedom? or am i violating civil rights?

You are exercising your right to be a stupid idiot. I do not have a civil right to demand that you associate with me, do business with me, or even talk to me. Me doing that violates your civil rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Sorry, we're out. Next delivery sometime next month. Come back then."

Immie

They can simply refer people to another pharmacy, and can even call them up and make sure that pharmacy has the drug.

 

[Immanuel]

"Sorry, we're out. Next delivery sometime next month. Come back then."

Immie

They can simply refer people to another pharmacy, and can even call them up and make sure that pharmacy has the drug.

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

"Sorry, we're out. Next delivery sometime next month. Come back then."

Immie

They can simply refer people to another pharmacy, and can even call them up and make sure that pharmacy has the drug.

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

He? Did say can, not must.

 

[Syphon]

"Sorry, we're out. Next delivery sometime next month. Come back then."

Immie

They can simply refer people to another pharmacy, and can even call them up and make sure that pharmacy has the drug.

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

if you are under obligation to perform a service as part of your employment, then yes you can be forced, or you can be subject to disciplinary action or even termination.