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

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I don't think he understands breathing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

The difference between "regulated" and "unregulated", so far as I can see from this thread, is that "regulated" means "the government is doing it, so leftists think it's perfectly okay".

While you're running around, demanding answers from others, perhaps you can sack up a little and answer the question I was asking when you barged in. (Just for the record, and you might want to write this down, "regulated" does NOT actually mean "it's okay for the government to do whatever it wants".)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No one with a working brain agrees.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Why do some of you NOT get that it it is NOT okay for the government to just force people to do something they don't want to do UNLESS not doing that something interferes with another person's rights?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

First of all, if you're looking for me to get all shamefaced and embarrassed about being biased in favor of religion, you're even dumber than I initially assumed.

Second of all, I'm still waiting for an answer. Hitting reply and then just going off into another of your delusional monologues, as though I or anyone else asked you to blindly lecture us on your opinions is only going to get you dismissed in record time.

So we're going to try this again, and if you come back with yet another putative "reply" which, in fact, has ****-all to do with the post you're supposedly replying to, I'm just going to assume you're beneath notice and move on to someone who notices other people as something besides props in their life movie.

She has an employer. The employer is a private business. What business is it of yours OR the government's who he hires or how he requires them to relate to his customers? How does "this is a bad business decision" translate into "the government should tell him which business decisions to make" in your addled brain?

You have one shot at actually answering and acquiring some sort of credibility as a real poster, instead of a lurking crackpot. Good luck.

 

[Immanuel]

Why do some of you NOT get that it it is NOT okay for the government to just force people to do something they don't want to do UNLESS not doing that something interferes with another person's rights?

Because the government is not forcing them to do something they don't want to do. If the government were to make a law requiring gay people to get annual HIV tests they would have a literal shit fit, rightfully so, but in this case, the shoe is on the other foot.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Why do some of you NOT get that it it is NOT okay for the government to just force people to do something they don't want to do UNLESS not doing that something interferes with another person's rights?

Because the government is not forcing them to do something they don't want to do. If the government were to make a law requiring gay people to get annual HIV tests they would have a literal shit fit, rightfully so, but in this case, the shoe is on the other foot.

Immie

Yep exactly what I said in the Judge in dallas thread, which by the way bears some striking similarities to THIS thread. IE should a private person or business be FORCED to do something they don't want to , when I said that if the shoe were on the other foot I believe people would be arguing the opposite argument.

 

[saveliberty]

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

This country was settled because people were fleeing religious intolerance. Pretty sad to see all the intolerance we have today. Just so some of you know, when I hear all the complaints about religion and the put downs. What I really hear is evil attempting to make my relationship with God difficult. Bring it!

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

One of the most idiotic things you have said here. Law does not simply 'trump' religion mostly because religion is actually protected in the supreme law: the constitution. Law ONLY trumps religion when that said religion is affecting others rights. Hint, you do not have a right to be sold anything whatsoever. You have a right to bear arms but that does not mean someone MUST sell guns in your area or even your state. If no one chooses to sell something you want then tough, that's life.


As far as drugs go, if a private pharmacist does not carry them then go to a public hospital where, as a citizen, you actually do have the right to dictate what they sell.


Also, you actually can refuse to fight, they do actually have laws that protect pacifists.

Why do some of you NOT get that it it is NOT okay for the government to just force people to do something they don't want to do UNLESS not doing that something interferes with another person's rights?

Because the government is not forcing them to do something they don't want to do. If the government were to make a law requiring gay people to get annual HIV tests they would have a literal shit fit, rightfully so, but in this case, the shoe is on the other foot.

Immie

Yes the government is. They are forcing someone to carry and dispense a specific product to people that they do not want to sell. That is forcing someone to do an action (sell) that they do not want to do. How is that not clear? Hell, that is not even any different from your example.

I will bring up a point that I brought up earlier and did not receive ONE SINGLE ANSWER TO earlier. The fact is that carrying this particular drug is a wedge issue and being used as a political football. It has nothing to do with woman's rights or with the drugs need. No one, anywhere, ever NEEDS this particular drug. It is a convenience. I have specific drug needs. My son was diagnosed with leukemia. HE needs specific drugs on a verry strict schedule. Should we fail to give him the drugs he needs AT THE TIME HE NEEDS THEM he will die. PERIOD. There is no if's and's or but's about it. Dead. Somehow, pharmacies are not required to carry those drugs or dispense them. As a matter of fact, no one except specific hospitals (and not all hospitals but just the one with cancer centers in them) carry those drugs. The fact is it is not profitable to carry them. However, you assclowns actually believe that YOU should be afforded the right to FORCE people to sell you a drug for you own ******* convenience because you want to **** but I do not have that right when the life of a five year old child hangs in the balance. You are all idiots if the highest order. I do not want pharmacies to carry the drugs I need because they are forced to. It would be wrong and I am responsible for the care and availability of the drugs I need to have. I expect that same level of responsibility from all those women and men that are having sex out there and if not, screw them. It is not right for them to force what they want on others for their own convenience.


No one has addressed this argument because they can't, PERIOD. There is not one single reason why a pharmacist must carry plan B other than radical left wing ideology somehow needs to FORCE this bullshit down our throats. We are not going to take it. I assume that this came back up because the courts actually agree but I will bring up the link anyway:

Federal judge says Washington State cannot force pharmacies to sell morning after pill « Down on the Pharm

I really hope that moron Gregoire actually does appeal the decision because the supreme court is going to crush them if it get there. Then we won't have any more asinine discussion on this bullshit.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

One of the most idiotic things you have said here. Law does not simply 'trump' religion mostly because religion is actually protected in the supreme law: the constitution. Law ONLY trumps religion when that said religion is affecting others rights. Hint, you do not have a right to be sold anything whatsoever. You have a right to bear arms but that does not mean someone MUST sell guns in your area or even your state. If no one chooses to sell something you want then tough, that's life.


As far as drugs go, if a private pharmacist does not carry them then go to a public hospital where, as a citizen, you actually do have the right to dictate what they sell.


Also, you actually can refuse to fight, they do actually have laws that protect pacifists.

Why do some of you NOT get that it it is NOT okay for the government to just force people to do something they don't want to do UNLESS not doing that something interferes with another person's rights?

Because the government is not forcing them to do something they don't want to do. If the government were to make a law requiring gay people to get annual HIV tests they would have a literal shit fit, rightfully so, but in this case, the shoe is on the other foot.

Immie

Yes the government is. They are forcing someone to carry and dispense a specific product to people that they do not want to sell. That is forcing someone to do an action (sell) that they do not want to do. How is that not clear? Hell, that is not even any different from your example.

I will bring up a point that I brought up earlier and did not receive ONE SINGLE ANSWER TO earlier. The fact is that carrying this particular drug is a wedge issue and being used as a political football. It has nothing to do with woman's rights or with the drugs need. No one, anywhere, ever NEEDS this particular drug. It is a convenience. I have specific drug needs. My son was diagnosed with leukemia. HE needs specific drugs on a verry strict schedule. Should we fail to give him the drugs he needs AT THE TIME HE NEEDS THEM he will die. PERIOD. There is no if's and's or but's about it. Dead. Somehow, pharmacies are not required to carry those drugs or dispense them. As a matter of fact, no one except specific hospitals (and not all hospitals but just the one with cancer centers in them) carry those drugs. The fact is it is not profitable to carry them. However, you assclowns actually believe that YOU should be afforded the right to FORCE people to sell you a drug for you own ******* convenience because you want to **** but I do not have that right when the life of a five year old child hangs in the balance. You are all idiots if the highest order. I do not want pharmacies to carry the drugs I need because they are forced to. It would be wrong and I am responsible for the care and availability of the drugs I need to have. I expect that same level of responsibility from all those women and men that are having sex out there and if not, screw them. It is not right for them to force what they want on others for their own convenience.


No one has addressed this argument because they can't, PERIOD. There is not one single reason why a pharmacist must carry plan B other than radical left wing ideology somehow needs to FORCE this bullshit down our throats. We are not going to take it. I assume that this came back up because the courts actually agree but I will bring up the link anyway:

Federal judge says Washington State cannot force pharmacies to sell morning after pill « Down on the Pharm

I really hope that moron Gregoire actually does appeal the decision because the supreme court is going to crush them if it get there. Then we won't have any more asinine discussion on this bullshit.

No, no, no, you mis-understood what I said. Let me clarify it because I can see where someone who has not read all 800 posts might miss this.

My "them" was refering to the "you" of Unknown_Soldier who happen to be the lefties on this thread that are arguing that the government is not forcing pharmacists to sell products they don't want to sell.

My point was that the reason those people don't understand that it is not okay for the government to dictate what a business sells, is because it does not directly affect them. If this were the case of the government requiring all gays to have annual AIDS tests, you can damned well bet they'd be pitching a fit. And rightfully so.

Now, I'll go back and read the rest of your post.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

My extreme condolences on the news about your son!

I will ignore the "assclowns" comment because you clearly mis-understood my post.

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

My extreme condolences on the news about your son!

I will ignore the "assclowns" comment because you clearly mis-understood my post.

Immie

Well, the assclowns was not directed at you in particular but.... I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I was confused because I did remember you on the other side of the augment in the beginning of this thread oh so long ago but it makes sense now. Thanks for the correction and not jumping all over me

 

[Ravi]

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.

But you still get them, if you have a prescription. It's mind boggling that you can't see the difference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

But you still get them, if you have a prescription. It's mind boggling that you can't see the difference.

Do I see the difference between stopping at a gas station and buying a cold pill and taking a day off work, paying for a doctors appointment, making him write me a prescription, standing in line at the pharmacy, waiting for them to fill the prescription, and then paying for that extra service? I sure do.

Why do I need a prescription for an OTC cold pill?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

But you still get them, if you have a prescription. It's mind boggling that you can't see the difference.

Unless the pharmacy decides not to carry them, which they can do with essentially any cold medicine.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

But you still get them, if you have a prescription. It's mind boggling that you can't see the difference.

you know , I live in a pretty rural area. population about 5,000 in my town. small towns around 10 miles away on two sides, population around 5,000 each to them to. Within 50 miles there are two more towns, population around 10,000 each. Move to within 100 miles and one can get to major metropolitan areas, population of several hundred thousand. Figure 5 hours driving at the outside to get to the major metropolitan areas. Within that 100 mile drive from in any direction I just found 347 pharmacies by doing a basic search on my smartphone. Pretty good odds that they all have telephones and at least a handful of them CHOOSE to carry Plan B. So , stands to reason that NO ONE is being denied a right here, except the pharmacies you want to force into selling something they don't want to sell.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

But you still get them, if you have a prescription. It's mind boggling that you can't see the difference.

Let me ask you another question to. What if you went to a doctor and told him/her you wanted a prescription for Plan B and they responded with "I'm sorry I don't prescribe that, but I can refer you to a doctor who will?"

 

[Montrovant]

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.

But you still get them, if you have a prescription. It's mind boggling that you can't see the difference.

Do I see the difference between stopping at a gas station and buying a cold pill and taking a day off work, paying for a doctors appointment, making him write me a prescription, standing in line at the pharmacy, waiting for them to fill the prescription, and then paying for that extra service? I sure do.

Why do I need a prescription for an OTC cold pill?

If you need a prescription, doesn't that make it, by definition, no longer an OTC drug?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But you still get them, if you have a prescription. It's mind boggling that you can't see the difference.

Do I see the difference between stopping at a gas station and buying a cold pill and taking a day off work, paying for a doctors appointment, making him write me a prescription, standing in line at the pharmacy, waiting for them to fill the prescription, and then paying for that extra service? I sure do.

Why do I need a prescription for an OTC cold pill?

If you need a prescription, doesn't that make it, by definition, no longer an OTC drug?

Only if you ignore the fact that the FDA says it is an OTC drug.

 

[saveliberty]

The cold medication restriction to behind the counter is driven by meth production. You have to show ID and are limited in quantity. I'm sure if it could stop a pregnancy in a 15 year old, it would be out on a shelf.