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

[Immanuel]

You got it wrong again. No one is discriminating against anyone, they are just refusing to sell a product they object to. The proper analogy is you make up a religion that says that eating apples is evil. You open a grocery store, and stock it full of all sorts of good food, except for apples. Then an idiot comes along who wants apples, gets upset that he has to walk another 20 feet to the guy who is selling appples around the corner, and demands the government fix it for him. They then come in, examine the situation, and declare that all grocery stores have to sell all food that is legal.

That is what is happening here, and it violates your right to not touch something your religion says is evil. Now that I have actually demonstrated the proper way to build an analogy that shows what is happening feel free to build one that is accurate and actually makes your point. I will bet you right here and now you can't do it.

your analogy is terrible. since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

You're missing the ******* point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. They don't have the right. They can get away with it but only because they have the force of power, but they are abusing their authority to no end.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

your analogy is terrible. since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

You're missing the ******* point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. They don't have the right. They can get away with it but only because they have the force of power, but they are abusing their authority to no end.

Immie

thats not the point you have been trying to make. you have been arguing that she has a religious right to refuse to provide a product that her employer has chosen to sell based upon her religious views.

the other side of the argument, is an entirely different argument.

 

[Immanuel]

You're missing the ******* point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. They don't have the right. They can get away with it but only because they have the force of power, but they are abusing their authority to no end.

Immie

thats not the point you have been trying to make. you have been arguing that she has a religious right to refuse to provide a product that her employer has chosen to sell based upon her religious views.

the other side of the argument, is an entirely different argument.

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

your analogy is terrible. since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

You're missing the ******* point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

your argument is all over the place. first you say that this is all about religious freedom and that she has a right to discriminate based upon that.

now your changing your whole argument to that government can not force a business to sell a certain product.
which in some ways i agree with... but that is a separate argument.

so which argument are you making?

Why don't you READ the thread. I have been consistent. This is NOT about religion. It's about liberty. Find me one post where I have said otherwise.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. They don't have the right. They can get away with it but only because they have the force of power, but they are abusing their authority to no end.

Immie

thats not the point you have been trying to make. you have been arguing that she has a religious right to refuse to provide a product that her employer has chosen to sell based upon her religious views.

the other side of the argument, is an entirely different argument.

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

He did the same to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

your analogy is terrible.

Why?

since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

I would say this is amazing, but I think the right word is pathetic. Even when I draw you a picture you still get it wrong.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

What about the pill? She doesn't have to sell that either, and her customers are free to go someplace else any buy it.

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

You are not imposing your religion in people by not selling something. A lack of action is not an imposition unless you think you deserve whatever the other person does not want to do.

 

[Immanuel]

You're missing the ******* point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

your argument is all over the place. first you say that this is all about religious freedom and that she has a right to discriminate based upon that.

now your changing your whole argument to that government can not force a business to sell a certain product.
which in some ways i agree with... but that is a separate argument.

so which argument are you making?

Why don't you READ the thread. I have been consistent. This is NOT about religion. It's about liberty. Find me one post where I have said otherwise.

Ditto.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. They don't have the right. They can get away with it but only because they have the force of power, but they are abusing their authority to no end.

Immie

thats not the point you have been trying to make. you have been arguing that she has a religious right to refuse to provide a product that her employer has chosen to sell based upon her religious views.

the other side of the argument, is an entirely different argument.

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

she does not have the right to refuse to dispense a product that would be considered a part of her job, even if that is based upon her religious views. she was not forced to become a pharmacist by anyone, it was her choice. if her job description states that it is her job to fill prescriptions, then she must peform that duty otherwise she can be subject to discipline or termination. religious freedom is not absolute. now if she took this job knowing that there may be a conflict of interest, should she not have raised those concerns at that time, so that the employer could factor that into the decision to hire her? that could almost be considered a misrepresentation of oneself. if you call her beliefs something other than religion, then this becomes simply discrimination. her personal views should not be forced upon her customers.

you again are making two different arguments. if you want to debate the idea of the government mandating a business sell certain products we can have that argument. but if you are saying that an employee can refuse to do her job based upon a religious view, then you are simply wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pharmacists can't refuse to provide what is legal by law because of their religious beliefs just like Mohammad Ali coudn't refuse to fight in Viet Nam because of his.

Law trumps religion when they are in conflict. Mormon's can't marry more than one wife for example.

Soon gays will be able to marry because law trumps religion.

He did not object to fighting in Vietnam because of religion, he did it because of racism in America.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

thats not the point you have been trying to make. you have been arguing that she has a religious right to refuse to provide a product that her employer has chosen to sell based upon her religious views.

the other side of the argument, is an entirely different argument.

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

she does not have the right to refuse to dispense a product that would be considered a part of her job, even if that is based upon her religious views. she was not forced to become a pharmacist by anyone, it was her choice. if her job description states that it is her job to fill prescriptions, then she must peform that duty otherwise she can be subject to discipline or termination. religious freedom is not absolute. now if she took this job knowing that there may be a conflict of interest, should she not have raised those concerns at that time, so that the employer could factor that into the decision to hire her? that could almost be considered a misrepresentation of oneself. if you call her beliefs something other than religion, then this becomes simply discrimination. her personal views should not be forced upon her customers.

you again are making two different arguments. if you want to debate the idea of the government mandating a business sell certain products we can have that argument. but if you are saying that an employee can refuse to do her job based upon a religious view, then you are simply wrong.

She has a right to do whatever her boss tells her she can do as long as she doesn't violate the law. Do you not get that, the government has no say in it.

 

[Immanuel]

thats not the point you have been trying to make. you have been arguing that she has a religious right to refuse to provide a product that her employer has chosen to sell based upon her religious views.

the other side of the argument, is an entirely different argument.

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

she does not have the right to refuse to dispense a product that would be considered a part of her job, even if that is based upon her religious views. she was not forced to become a pharmacist by anyone, it was her choice. if her job description states that it is her job to fill prescriptions, then she must peform that duty otherwise she can be subject to discipline or termination. religious freedom is not absolute. now if she took this job knowing that there may be a conflict of interest, should she not have raised those concerns at that time, so that the employer could factor that into the decision to hire her? that could almost be considered a misrepresentation of oneself. if you call her beliefs something other than religion, then this becomes simply discrimination. her personal views should not be forced upon her customers.

you again are making two different arguments. if you want to debate the idea of the government mandating a business sell certain products we can have that argument. but if you are saying that an employee can refuse to do her job based upon a religious view, then you are simply wrong.

Please, feel free to come back to this discussion when you have reviewed our arguments.

Here, although I think I told you I would not do this earlier, this has been my argument.

1) the government does not have the right to force a pharmacist to sell items that the pharmacist objects to.

2) If the pharmacist is the employee of the pharmacy it is the right of the owner of the pharmacy as to whether or not he will continue to employ the pharmacist.

I have said that probably six times in this thread. You are free to review my posts in that regard and you can do so by going to the thread in the forum and in the column that says "replies" you can click on that number there right now it is somewhere around 730. That will open up a window for you that will tell you how many posts each of us have made in this thread. You can then click on the number by my name and it will provide each and every post I have made in the thread. Look at some of the early posts.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

thats not the point you have been trying to make. you have been arguing that she has a religious right to refuse to provide a product that her employer has chosen to sell based upon her religious views.

the other side of the argument, is an entirely different argument.

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

she does not have the right to refuse to dispense a product that would be considered a part of her job, even if that is based upon her religious views. she was not forced to become a pharmacist by anyone, it was her choice. if her job description states that it is her job to fill prescriptions, then she must peform that duty otherwise she can be subject to discipline or termination. religious freedom is not absolute. now if she took this job knowing that there may be a conflict of interest, should she not have raised those concerns at that time, so that the employer could factor that into the decision to hire her? that could almost be considered a misrepresentation of oneself. if you call her beliefs something other than religion, then this becomes simply discrimination. her personal views should not be forced upon her customers.

you again are making two different arguments. if you want to debate the idea of the government mandating a business sell certain products we can have that argument. but if you are saying that an employee can refuse to do her job based upon a religious view, then you are simply wrong.

Stop with the religious bullshit, YOU are the only one arguing about religion, The rest of us are talking about doing business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

your analogy is terrible. since there is no law stating i would have to carry apples. now if there was such a law, then i would be required to carry them. now if one of my employees thought apples were offensive and violated her religion, and refused to sell them to my customers, then she in fact would be both breaking the law and not doing her job. i would be able to fire her based on that alone. you can not hide behind religion as a reason not to follow the law, or do a job. did you forget about the part where it was the law......
there was no law forcing her to take such a product. no law forcing her to condone the use of a product. she is forcing her views upon her customers.

again, is she doesnt believe in plan b because its "murder." what about the pill (it does the same exact thing as plan b, but plan b is a more concentrated dose) or condoms, or diaphragms. what if a man came in and tried to purchase plan b or the pill or condoms. would she object since it was a man and not a woman?

so i ask you again, can i impose my religious views upon my customers? now im a muslim and believe in sharia law. thus i refuse to have business transactions with women. its my right as a freedom of religion. so you come in and i say its against my religion to have business dealing with women. religious freedom or discrimination?

You're missing the ******* point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

your argument is all over the place. first you say that this is all about religious freedom and that she has a right to discriminate based upon that.

now your changing your whole argument to that government can not force a business to sell a certain product.
which in some ways i agree with... but that is a separate argument.

so which argument are you making?

No he didn't. He and I actually got into a bit of a disagreement in this thread because he said from the start this had nothing to do with religion and I explained why it was because the state was discriminating against religion. We both agree with the principle that the state cannot tell people what to sell, or buy, so we sorta left the religion debate behind.

 

[Syphon]

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

she does not have the right to refuse to dispense a product that would be considered a part of her job, even if that is based upon her religious views. she was not forced to become a pharmacist by anyone, it was her choice. if her job description states that it is her job to fill prescriptions, then she must peform that duty otherwise she can be subject to discipline or termination. religious freedom is not absolute. now if she took this job knowing that there may be a conflict of interest, should she not have raised those concerns at that time, so that the employer could factor that into the decision to hire her? that could almost be considered a misrepresentation of oneself. if you call her beliefs something other than religion, then this becomes simply discrimination. her personal views should not be forced upon her customers.

you again are making two different arguments. if you want to debate the idea of the government mandating a business sell certain products we can have that argument. but if you are saying that an employee can refuse to do her job based upon a religious view, then you are simply wrong.

Please, feel free to come back to this discussion when you have review our arguments.

Here, although I think I told you I would not do this earlier, this has been my argument.

1) the government does not have the right to force a pharmacist to sell items that the pharmacist objects to.

2) If the pharmacist is the employee of the pharmacy it is the right of the owner of the pharmacy as to whether or not he will continue to employ the pharmacist.

I have said that probably six times in this thread. You are free to review my posts in that regard and you can do so by bringing going to the thread in the forum and in the column that says "replies" you can click on that number there right now it is somewhere around 730. That will open up a window for you that will tell you how many posts each of us have made in this thread. You can then click on the number by my name and it will provide each and every post I have made in the thread. Look at some of the early posts.

Immie

1) government mandates exist all over. Perry has his cervical cancer shot mandate in texas, Mike "We Are All Catholics Today" Huckabee, when he was Arkansas governor, apparently signed a health insurance mandate law in 2005 that included contraception in preventive care. Romeny put the same mandate into his health care bill as well. So simply saying that the government does not have the right to mandate it is wrong. none of these mandates have been found to be unconstitutional....
Republicans in the past had backed similar mandates on contraceptive benefits | cleveland.com

2) agreed.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You're missing the ******* point. The government doesn't have a right to pass a law dictating that you must sell apples. Just like they don't have a right to tell someone they MUST sell Plan B.

And once again, the laws of discrimination trump any and all rights, but the Plan B controversy is NOT about discrimination at all, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

your argument is all over the place. first you say that this is all about religious freedom and that she has a right to discriminate based upon that.

now your changing your whole argument to that government can not force a business to sell a certain product.
which in some ways i agree with... but that is a separate argument.

so which argument are you making?

No he didn't. He and I actually got into a bit of a disagreement in this thread because he said from the start this had nothing to do with religion and I explained why it was because the state was discriminating against religion. We both agree with the principle that the state cannot tell people what to sell, or buy, so we sorta left the religion debate behind.

Correct, expect you forgot to add that we actually left it behind because you realized I was right, even non religious people have a right to determine what products THEY will sell.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

your argument is all over the place. first you say that this is all about religious freedom and that she has a right to discriminate based upon that.

now your changing your whole argument to that government can not force a business to sell a certain product.
which in some ways i agree with... but that is a separate argument.

so which argument are you making?

No he didn't. He and I actually got into a bit of a disagreement in this thread because he said from the start this had nothing to do with religion and I explained why it was because the state was discriminating against religion. We both agree with the principle that the state cannot tell people what to sell, or buy, so we sorta left the religion debate behind.

Correct, expect you forgot to add that we actually left it behind because you realized I was right, even non religious people have a right to determine what products THEY will sell.

 

[Immanuel]

Ah wrong! I have commented many times that if her employer chose to carry the product it was his right to decide whether or not to employer her, not the government's. You have misrepresented my arguments here, but the thread is nearly a thousand posts long, I can forgive you for that.

I have also been arguing that she has the right to refuse to dispense this product for any reason religious or not.

Now, why does she have that right? Because the government does not have the right to make laws that intrude on people's personal freedoms.

You might want to review the thread before you make statements defining my argument.

Immie

she does not have the right to refuse to dispense a product that would be considered a part of her job, even if that is based upon her religious views. she was not forced to become a pharmacist by anyone, it was her choice. if her job description states that it is her job to fill prescriptions, then she must peform that duty otherwise she can be subject to discipline or termination. religious freedom is not absolute. now if she took this job knowing that there may be a conflict of interest, should she not have raised those concerns at that time, so that the employer could factor that into the decision to hire her? that could almost be considered a misrepresentation of oneself. if you call her beliefs something other than religion, then this becomes simply discrimination. her personal views should not be forced upon her customers.

you again are making two different arguments. if you want to debate the idea of the government mandating a business sell certain products we can have that argument. but if you are saying that an employee can refuse to do her job based upon a religious view, then you are simply wrong.

Please, feel free to come back to this discussion when you have review our arguments.

Here, although I think I told you I would not do this earlier, this has been my argument.

1) the government does not have the right to force a pharmacist to sell items that the pharmacist objects to.

2) If the pharmacist is the employee of the pharmacy it is the right of the owner of the pharmacy as to whether or not he will continue to employ the pharmacist.

I have said that probably six times in this thread. You are free to review my posts in that regard and you can do so by bringing going to the thread in the forum and in the column that says "replies" you can click on that number there right now it is somewhere around 730. That will open up a window for you that will tell you how many posts each of us have made in this thread. You can then click on the number by my name and it will provide each and every post I have made in the thread. Look at some of the early posts.

Immie

Here, I did your digging for you.

Look at post #'s 15, 165, 285, 349, 393 and 532.

Post number 532 very clearly states my point as stated recently...

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

1) Plan B may have been released 13 years ago. How long have pharmacists been forced to dispense it against their will?

2) Again, anyone who had a problem with selling guns would not go into that line of work.

3) As far as I am concerned if a pharmacist had a problem selling baby aspirin then they should not be forced to do so. A pharmacy is a private business and has the right to make the decisions as to what products they will sell or not sell. And as stated earlier if the pharmacist is an employee of a pharmacy, the decision as to whether or not he will remain an employee is up to his employer not the state.

Immie

No where do I mention religion in that post and you will only find a few of my posts that mention religion at all and most of those will state that the reason need not be religious at all.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

What I found interesting was that the law made provisions to allow pharmacists NOT to dispense a while range of drugs. It just seems that the state specifically did not recognize any religious ones. This was a poorly designed law and will be struck down by the higher courts.

 

[Immanuel]

she does not have the right to refuse to dispense a product that would be considered a part of her job, even if that is based upon her religious views. she was not forced to become a pharmacist by anyone, it was her choice. if her job description states that it is her job to fill prescriptions, then she must peform that duty otherwise she can be subject to discipline or termination. religious freedom is not absolute. now if she took this job knowing that there may be a conflict of interest, should she not have raised those concerns at that time, so that the employer could factor that into the decision to hire her? that could almost be considered a misrepresentation of oneself. if you call her beliefs something other than religion, then this becomes simply discrimination. her personal views should not be forced upon her customers.

you again are making two different arguments. if you want to debate the idea of the government mandating a business sell certain products we can have that argument. but if you are saying that an employee can refuse to do her job based upon a religious view, then you are simply wrong.

Please, feel free to come back to this discussion when you have review our arguments.

Here, although I think I told you I would not do this earlier, this has been my argument.

1) the government does not have the right to force a pharmacist to sell items that the pharmacist objects to.

2) If the pharmacist is the employee of the pharmacy it is the right of the owner of the pharmacy as to whether or not he will continue to employ the pharmacist.

I have said that probably six times in this thread. You are free to review my posts in that regard and you can do so by bringing going to the thread in the forum and in the column that says "replies" you can click on that number there right now it is somewhere around 730. That will open up a window for you that will tell you how many posts each of us have made in this thread. You can then click on the number by my name and it will provide each and every post I have made in the thread. Look at some of the early posts.

Immie

1) government mandates exist all over. Perry has his cervical cancer shot mandate in texas, Mike "We Are All Catholics Today" Huckabee, when he was Arkansas governor, apparently signed a health insurance mandate law in 2005 that included contraception in preventive care. Romeny put the same mandate into his health care bill as well. So simply saying that the government does not have the right to mandate it is wrong. none of these mandates have been found to be unconstitutional....
Republicans in the past had backed similar mandates on contraceptive benefits | cleveland.com

2) agreed.

Government mandates do exist all over. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. My point is and always has been contradictory to what the law states. I am arguing that the state is wrong. I am arguing that the two pharmacists in this case have every right to fight this mandate AND, I will throw this in, that we as freedom loving individuals damn well should be supporting their cause, because if we don't then it won't be long before our own states are restricting our liberties as well.

Can we win? No, I doubt it. We've given too much leeway to the politicians in Washington. We've screwed ourselves royally, but we should be defending our damned freedoms to our dieing breaths rather than laying over and begging the government to rub our bellies.

Immie

 

[Montrovant]

Please, feel free to come back to this discussion when you have review our arguments.

Here, although I think I told you I would not do this earlier, this has been my argument.

1) the government does not have the right to force a pharmacist to sell items that the pharmacist objects to.

2) If the pharmacist is the employee of the pharmacy it is the right of the owner of the pharmacy as to whether or not he will continue to employ the pharmacist.

I have said that probably six times in this thread. You are free to review my posts in that regard and you can do so by bringing going to the thread in the forum and in the column that says "replies" you can click on that number there right now it is somewhere around 730. That will open up a window for you that will tell you how many posts each of us have made in this thread. You can then click on the number by my name and it will provide each and every post I have made in the thread. Look at some of the early posts.

Immie

1) government mandates exist all over. Perry has his cervical cancer shot mandate in texas, Mike "We Are All Catholics Today" Huckabee, when he was Arkansas governor, apparently signed a health insurance mandate law in 2005 that included contraception in preventive care. Romeny put the same mandate into his health care bill as well. So simply saying that the government does not have the right to mandate it is wrong. none of these mandates have been found to be unconstitutional....
Republicans in the past had backed similar mandates on contraceptive benefits | cleveland.com

2) agreed.

Government mandates do exist all over. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. My point is and always has been contradictory to what the law states. I am arguing that the state is wrong. I am arguing that the two pharmacists in this case have every right to fight this mandate AND, I will throw this in, that we as freedom loving individuals damn well should be supporting their cause, because if we don't then it won't be long before our own states are restricting our liberties as well.

Can we win? No, I doubt it. We've given too much leeway to the politicians in Washington. We've screwed ourselves royally, but we should be defending our damned freedoms to our dieing breaths rather than laying over and begging the government to rub our bellies.

Immie

Hey, who doesn't want a good belly rub?!