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

[Immanuel]

: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.

When they start forcing you to sell a product that you know is bad... maybe environmentally, then I will be on your side if you refuse to sell it.

I understand the government has a legitimate interest in not allowing someone to sell harmful materials, say pesticides, but that is different IMHO than the government forcing someone to sell something that they believe to be harmful.

Immie

 

[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.

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.

Pharmacists want government to pay them to discriminate?

Tell me something, who killed Kennedy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Do you realize that the rule we are discussing here allows pharmacies to not stock medicines that are rarely asked for, or if the pharmacist has any of a number of reasons for not carrying it? That, under this rule, a pharmacist can actually refuse to fill a prescription even if he has it in stock if, in his opinion, it would be harmful? That there are, quite literally, millions of legal drugs available in this country and it is absolutely impossible to have every possible drug available? Should a pharmacist find another job if the doctor prescribes something the pharmacy simply doesn't have?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The word prescription does not appear in the OP, how is it disingenuous?

By the way, you need a prescription if you are under 18.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 can even beat that, firemen will not put out a fire if there is a danger of explosion or getting shot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Do you know of any religions anywhere that dictate the hatred of Republicans? No? Then would it be too much to ask for you to pull your head out of your sphincter and confine your "debate" - and boy, am I using THAT term loosely in your case - to the realm of "vaguely possible at some point in THIS reality", instead of rambling off into half-assed fantasy hypotheticals that we're all supposed to pretend constitute rational, adult thought?

Thanks ever so.

 

[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 can even beat that, firemen will not put out a fire if there is a danger of explosion or getting shot.

Oh, you're one of THOSE guys.


I honestly can't believe some people have to have it explained to them that freedom means being able to choose not to sell a certain product.

 

[Cecilie1200]

if these pharmacists are against the distribution of plan B, are they also against the distribution of the pill or the distribution of condoms as well?

Could you tell us, before we make the effort to take you seriously, what possible frigging difference what OTHER things they might object to makes to the issue of what they actually HAVE objected to? Are we now to hear some ignorant, rambling rant from you about how they're only allowed to object to Plan B if they also object to the Pill or condoms, because you in your infinite, omnipotent wisdom have decreed that that is the only viewpoint which may exist? Because I have to tell you, I have almost as little patience with hubristic simpletons as I do with morons who can only debate in the context of asinine, would-never-ever-happen hypotheticals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look, it's became abundantly clear to me that you are mentally slow so I will try once more to explain this to you, but this is it.

A fire department is a public service, a pharmacy is a private concern. The rules are different.

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

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.

Do you get the feeling that this dimwit doesn't understand religion any better than he understands debating?

 

[Cecilie1200]

youre missing the entire point. just as our right to free speech is not absolute, neither is the freedom of religion. that is the entire point. i made no reference to the FD or any other public service. get that through your thick, mentally slow head. your head is so far up the church's ass you cant see past your nose.

i could create a religion today, (as is my right) and hold the belief that white men are all are devil worshipers. thus i own a private business (a grocery store for example). does that give me the right to discriminate against white males only? its my religious belief....... so its protected under the constitution. or am i just choosing to discriminate against a single group and hide behind my religion.....

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?

Brilliant. "It would never happen that a law would be passed that I have to carry a product, because there's no law NOW that requires me to carry it."

Truly, your "logic" does not resemble our Earth logic.

Skipping all your other extraneous bullshit, let's just clarify: do you understand the difference between products and customers? Do you at all comprehend the difference between refusing to sell a certain product to any and all customers, and refusing to sell any and all products to certain customers? Is any of this penetrating your thick skull?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Of course he can't. That's all he's been doing all thread, making shit up.

what am i making up? im using your same exact argument of religious freedom as a form of legal discrimination.

you are in affect saying that one can refuse to provide goods and services based on my religious beliefs. even if those beliefs target only one specific group of people.

pull your head out.

Who's arguing discrimination, moron? Just you. There's no discrimination inherent in refusing to sell a specific product, so long as you're refusing to sell it to EVERYONE. You are the only person here who keeps bringing up, "Yeah, but what if bigotry is my religion?" which tells me you're probably a bigot yourself.

Pull your own head out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Perhaps you could show us where Unknown said, "She has a right to discriminate". Perhaps you could show us where ANYONE said that. In fact, why don't you show us where anyone other than YOU brought up discriminating against people at all.

The only argument that's all over the place is the one you're trying to force down other people's throats because you'd rather argue against IT than the ones they're actually making.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"Considered part of her job" by whom? Her employer? He doesn't appear to have a problem with her, and if he did, that would be between him and her, and none of your business OR the government's. "Considered part of her job" by you? Unless you're writing her paycheck, it's none of your frigging business to define her job for her. Ditto the customer and the government. No one asked any of you to define other people's jobs, so why don't you get over yourself and stop arrogating yourself powers that aren't yours?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You shouldn't expect an answer because, amazingly enough, you don't have any right to one. I know leftist twerps don't get this, but the rest of the world is NOT obligated to explain and justify itself to you whenever you decide to demand it. Put simply, it's really none of your goddamned business what her religion is, or why she holds the particular belief that God doesn't approve of Plan B. That's between her and God, and you're not either one.

As for "suitable analogy", since I just got done telling you that your analogy was an ignorant, unrelated piece of shit, coming back and telling me it's good holds all the weight of a taco fart in a high wind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

: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.

Do you understand the difference between "may and may not sell" and "have to sell"?

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Do you understand the difference between "may and may not sell" and "have to sell"?

Yes, and I think that distinction is made rather clear in the very post you've just responded to.

 

[Syphon]

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.

Do you understand the difference between "may and may not sell" and "have to sell"?

do you understand the difference between a regulated industry and non regulated industry?

 

[Syphon]

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?

Perhaps you could show us where Unknown said, "She has a right to discriminate". Perhaps you could show us where ANYONE said that. In fact, why don't you show us where anyone other than YOU brought up discriminating against people at all.

The only argument that's all over the place is the one you're trying to force down other people's throats because you'd rather argue against IT than the ones they're actually making.

your so biased towards the "freedom of religion", you are advocating that its ok to discriminated based upon a religious view.

you cant see that denying a customer a product which your employer has already agreed to sell, based upon an individual view is discrimination? you dont even think its discrimination

and you wonder why those of us who are sane, call you all religious nut jobs

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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?

Perhaps you could show us where Unknown said, "She has a right to discriminate". Perhaps you could show us where ANYONE said that. In fact, why don't you show us where anyone other than YOU brought up discriminating against people at all.

The only argument that's all over the place is the one you're trying to force down other people's throats because you'd rather argue against IT than the ones they're actually making.

your so biased towards the "freedom of religion", you are advocating that its ok to discriminated based upon a religious view.

you cant see that denying a customer a product which your employer has already agreed to sell, based upon an individual view is discrimination? you dont even think its discrimination

and you wonder why those of us who are sane, call you all religious nut jobs

Psst except for narrowly defined legal standards we in this country are in fact allowed to discriminate. So now explain to me how you think refusing to sell a product to ANYONE is discrimination...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 can even beat that, firemen will not put out a fire if there is a danger of explosion or getting shot.

Oh, you're one of THOSE guys.


I honestly can't believe some people have to have it explained to them that freedom means being able to choose not to sell a certain product.

What really gets me is the same people who ***** and moan about not being able to demand any store sell Plan B have no problem with being forced to ask a pharmacist to hand over OTC cold meds simply because the state decided to hide them in the back of the store. Some states are even requiring people to get a prescription in order to buy non prescription drugs.