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

[Ravi]

If I were a pharmacist I would refuse to fill prescriptions for Republicans because I am morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.

Umm, that would be discrimination based on current law. Now I agree with you that a person should be able to discriminate in their own business dealings , under current law we can not.

How come so many on this board are incapable of comparing apples to apples?

what if he called it his religious belief? would that be acceptable then?

Sorry, I should have said it was against my religion. Because my moral beliefs are my religion.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I think Ali would have willingly gone to jail if he had lost his appeal. I doubt a pharmacist would, though, they'd want big government to underwrite their discrimination.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

I think Ali would have willingly gone to jail if he had lost his appeal. I doubt a pharmacist would, though, they'd want big government to underwrite their discrimination.

What discrimination? I'm serious here. Tell me how you think they are discriminating against anyone?

 

[Ravi]

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.

I think Ali would have willingly gone to jail if he had lost his appeal. I doubt a pharmacist would, though, they'd want big government to underwrite their discrimination.

What discrimination? I'm serious here. Tell me how you think they are discriminating against anyone?

By not filling a legal prescription. IMO, if they can't do that, they need to find other employment.

Pharmacists shouldn't be thought police.

 

[Full-Auto]

I think Ali would have willingly gone to jail if he had lost his appeal. I doubt a pharmacist would, though, they'd want big government to underwrite their discrimination.

What discrimination? I'm serious here. Tell me how you think they are discriminating against anyone?

By not filling a legal prescription. IMO, if they can't do that, they need to find other employment.

Pharmacists shouldn't be thought police.

Store owners have the right to choose what to stock. If he/ she goes against store policy they get canned. Just because someone wants a certain product doesnt mean you have the right to demand it.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I think Ali would have willingly gone to jail if he had lost his appeal. I doubt a pharmacist would, though, they'd want big government to underwrite their discrimination.

What discrimination? I'm serious here. Tell me how you think they are discriminating against anyone?

By not filling a legal prescription. IMO, if they can't do that, they need to find other employment.

Pharmacists shouldn't be thought police.

Who is that discriminating against though? I mean I suppose it IS discriminating against a certain product, but surely you don't think THAT should be illegal?

 

[Cuyo]

Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

Which would be relevant if we were talking about a pharmacist whose beliefs prohibited him from ever giving ANY medication to ANYONE. Since we aren't, perhaps you could find an analogy that means something.

I'm still waiting for the name of the religion that prohibits this particular prophylactic but not others. That's Ok, I didn't expect an answer.

The cop is a suitable analogy. It's not that he can't do anything encompassed by being a police officer, he just can't shoot people, including dangerous perps. By contrast, a pharmacist doesn't do much else besides dispense drugs.

 

[candycorn]

I think Ali would have willingly gone to jail if he had lost his appeal. I doubt a pharmacist would, though, they'd want big government to underwrite their discrimination.

What discrimination? I'm serious here. Tell me how you think they are discriminating against anyone?

By not filling a legal prescription. IMO, if they can't do that, they need to find other employment.

Pharmacists shouldn't be thought police.

Plan B isn't a prescription item. The entire OP is disingenuous.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

Which would be relevant if we were talking about a pharmacist whose beliefs prohibited him from ever giving ANY medication to ANYONE. Since we aren't, perhaps you could find an analogy that means something.

I'm still waiting for the name of the religion that prohibits this particular prophylactic but not others. That's Ok, I didn't expect an answer.

The cop is a suitable analogy. It's not that he can't do anything encompassed by being a police officer, he just can't shoot people, including dangerous perps. By contrast, a pharmacist doesn't do much else besides dispense drugs.

The cop is NOT a suitable analogy, since police are PUBLIC employees and thus required by law to service ALL . A suitable analogy to THAT would be a VA pharmacy, an employee there can just shut the **** up and disperse Plan B or quit.

 

[saveliberty]

Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

Firemen don't run into burning buildings. They evaluate the best way to attack the fire and assess the risks of entry. The thing is, firemen know that is part of the job in advance of taking the job. Its not like they just started doing that back in 2007. In both of your examples the risk is to the employee. They don't hand the hose or gun over to a victim and say here you go use this.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Forcing people OUT of their profession isn't very American in my opinion.

What about a fireman who's not crazy about running into a burning building? Or a cop who's religion won't permit him to fire a gun at someone under any circumstances?

Firemen don't run into burning buildings. They evaluate the best way to attack the fire and assess the risks of entry. The thing is, firemen know that is part of the job in advance of taking the job. Its not like they just started doing that back in 2007. In both of your examples the risk is to the employee. They don't hand the hose or gun over to a victim and say here you go use this.

if we keep burning down their strawmen how will they ever have a real argument?

 

[saveliberty]

What can I say, I like fires.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

What can I say, I like fires.

Want to see me destroy their entire fireman analogy in one final swoop?

Rural fire departments have legally been refusing to service certain fires for years now. We're talking about volunteer fire departments where the houses on fire haven't paid their dues. Some of those home owners have sued and lost.

So it seems that the courts have recognized that even fireman who are not PUBLIC employees have the right to refuse to service whomever they want.

 

[Immanuel]

What can I say, I like fires.

Want to see me destroy their entire fireman analogy in one final swoop?

Rural fire departments have legally been refusing to service certain fires for years now. We're talking about volunteer fire departments where the houses on fire haven't paid their dues. Some of those home owners have sued and lost.

So it seems that the courts have recognized that even fireman who are not PUBLIC employees have the right to refuse to service whomever they want.

I'm in a piss poor mood so over look the fact that we have been on the same side in this thread, but, the fact that these are volunteer fire fighters would make a huge difference here and would leave them an out as to not having to fight fires at homes that do not pay dues. Now, maybe if they were public servants and paid by the county someone might actually have a right to sue them, but since these are volunteers, the people that lost property really would not have a leg to stand on.

IMHO

Immie

 

[Cuyo]

What can I say, I like fires.

Want to see me destroy their entire fireman analogy in one final swoop?

Rural fire departments have legally been refusing to service certain fires for years now. We're talking about volunteer fire departments where the houses on fire haven't paid their dues. Some of those home owners have sued and lost.

So it seems that the courts have recognized that even fireman who are not PUBLIC employees have the right to refuse to service whomever they want.

:sigh:

I'm glad you guys are pleased with yourselves.

I was kinda sorry I posted that fireman bit even seconds after I posted it. The cop thing is more plausible, because of the legitimate religious concern attached to it. But the premise of the argument is this: Do your f*ckin job. If you don't want to dispense drugs, don't be a pharmacist.

It's not that complicated.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

What can I say, I like fires.

Want to see me destroy their entire fireman analogy in one final swoop?

Rural fire departments have legally been refusing to service certain fires for years now. We're talking about volunteer fire departments where the houses on fire haven't paid their dues. Some of those home owners have sued and lost.

So it seems that the courts have recognized that even fireman who are not PUBLIC employees have the right to refuse to service whomever they want.

I'm in a piss poor mood so over look the fact that we have been on the same side in this thread, but, the fact that these are volunteer fire fighters would make a huge difference here and would leave them an out as to not having to fight fires at homes that do not pay dues. Now, maybe if they were public servants and paid by the county someone might actually have a right to sue them, but since these are volunteers, the people that lost property really would not have a leg to stand on.

IMHO

Immie

we are in 1000% agreement sir. As I've been saying all along. The government OBVIOUSLY has the right to dictate what public employees may or may not do, so all this talk about cops and fireman and politicians is stupid. But the volunteer fireman perfectly illustrates what you and I, and others, have been saying. Private employees have the right to be in full control of their own businesses. Within certain legal boundaries of course.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

What can I say, I like fires.

Want to see me destroy their entire fireman analogy in one final swoop?

Rural fire departments have legally been refusing to service certain fires for years now. We're talking about volunteer fire departments where the houses on fire haven't paid their dues. Some of those home owners have sued and lost.

So it seems that the courts have recognized that even fireman who are not PUBLIC employees have the right to refuse to service whomever they want.

:sigh:

I'm glad you guys are pleased with yourselves.

I was kinda sorry I posted that fireman bit even seconds after I posted it. The cop thing is more plausible, because of the legitimate religious concern attached to it. But the premise of the argument is this: Do your f*ckin job. If you don't want to dispense drugs, don't be a pharmacist.

It's not that complicated.

Even simpler. The government doesn't have the right to tell me to do my job unless I work for the government. PERIOD. If I want to open a restaurant and then sit on my ass all day long refusing to serve food to anyone. That is MY business AND my right.

 

[Cuyo]

Want to see me destroy their entire fireman analogy in one final swoop?

Rural fire departments have legally been refusing to service certain fires for years now. We're talking about volunteer fire departments where the houses on fire haven't paid their dues. Some of those home owners have sued and lost.

So it seems that the courts have recognized that even fireman who are not PUBLIC employees have the right to refuse to service whomever they want.

:sigh:

I'm glad you guys are pleased with yourselves.

I was kinda sorry I posted that fireman bit even seconds after I posted it. The cop thing is more plausible, because of the legitimate religious concern attached to it. But the premise of the argument is this: Do your f*ckin job. If you don't want to dispense drugs, don't be a pharmacist.

It's not that complicated.

Even simpler. The government doesn't have the right to tell me to do my job unless I work for the government. PERIOD. If I want to open a restaurant and then sit on my ass all day long refusing to serve food to anyone. That is MY business AND my right.

Wrong. You're talking about working in a regulated industry.

I myself work in a very heavily regulated industry. Although I am a private entity, you're damn right I'm told what I may and may not sell.

In my industry there is no requirement to sell any particular product, but the healthcare industry is obviously regulated differently.

Once more, if I don't want to work in a regulated industry, I'm free to go elsewhere. Same goes for a pharmacist who has moral objections to certain healthcare products.

 

[Full-Auto]

:sigh:

I'm glad you guys are pleased with yourselves.

I was kinda sorry I posted that fireman bit even seconds after I posted it. The cop thing is more plausible, because of the legitimate religious concern attached to it. But the premise of the argument is this: Do your f*ckin job. If you don't want to dispense drugs, don't be a pharmacist.

It's not that complicated.

Even simpler. The government doesn't have the right to tell me to do my job unless I work for the government. PERIOD. If I want to open a restaurant and then sit on my ass all day long refusing to serve food to anyone. That is MY business AND my right.

Wrong. You're talking about working in a regulated industry.

I myself work in a very heavily regulated industry. Although I am a private entity, you're damn right I'm told what I may and may not sell.

In my industry there is no requirement to sell any particular product, but the healthcare industry is obviously regulated differently.

Once more, if I don't want to work in a regulated industry, I'm free to go elsewhere. Same goes for a pharmacist who has moral objections to certain healthcare products.

What industry isnt regulated?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

:sigh:

I'm glad you guys are pleased with yourselves.

I was kinda sorry I posted that fireman bit even seconds after I posted it. The cop thing is more plausible, because of the legitimate religious concern attached to it. But the premise of the argument is this: Do your f*ckin job. If you don't want to dispense drugs, don't be a pharmacist.

It's not that complicated.

Even simpler. The government doesn't have the right to tell me to do my job unless I work for the government. PERIOD. If I want to open a restaurant and then sit on my ass all day long refusing to serve food to anyone. That is MY business AND my right.

Wrong. You're talking about working in a regulated industry.

I myself work in a very heavily regulated industry. Although I am a private entity, you're damn right I'm told what I may and may not sell.

In my industry there is no requirement to sell any particular product, but the healthcare industry is obviously regulated differently.

Once more, if I don't want to work in a regulated industry, I'm free to go elsewhere. Same goes for a pharmacist who has moral objections to certain healthcare products.

Can you show me any specific regulation requiring any industry to sell a certain product.