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

[DontBeStupid]

No you cannot.

Really? So, if a Muslim man owns a grocery store and a woman goes in and gets a bottle of wine and the man refuses to sell to her because of his religious beliefs, you think he can't be sued? And you support him?

Holy ehit you are stupid. If that muslim is sellng wine to men yes he better sell to women to but if he just doesnt sell wine at all tough shit

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? So, if a Muslim man owns a grocery store and a woman goes in and gets a bottle of wine and the man refuses to sell to her because of his religious beliefs, you think he can't be sued? And you support him?

If a Muslim actually owned a liquor store he would have no problem selling alcohol to a woman.

Nest moronic example?

And if a Catholic owned a pharmacy, he would have no problem selling the morning after pill to a woman.

Good one, it is even more moronic than your Muslim example. Keep up the good work.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Really? So, if a Muslim man owns a grocery store and a woman goes in and gets a bottle of wine and the man refuses to sell to her because of his religious beliefs, you think he can't be sued? And you support him?

If a Muslim actually owned a liquor store he would have no problem selling alcohol to a woman.

Nest moronic example?

And if a Catholic owned a pharmacy, he would have no problem selling the morning after pill to a woman.

You do understand that Catholics believe in medicine just not birth control. Right? I assume a catholic pharmacist would not sell condoms either. So bye bye discrimination claims

 

[DontBeStupid]

If a Muslim actually owned a liquor store he would have no problem selling alcohol to a woman.

Nest moronic example?

And if a Catholic owned a pharmacy, he would have no problem selling the morning after pill to a woman.

Good one, it is even more moronic than your Muslim example. Keep up the good work.

heh heh You guys are funny.

Look, you can believe that this case would only pertain to this one situation and that it would never be applied in any fashion with any other business or religious belief. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

Those of us who actually understand laws and court rulings, we'll be the ones smiling as this gets overturned.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Really? So, if a Muslim man owns a grocery store and a woman goes in and gets a bottle of wine and the man refuses to sell to her because of his religious beliefs, you think he can't be sued? And you support him?

Holy ehit you are stupid. If that muslim is sellng wine to men yes he better sell to women to but if he just doesnt sell wine at all tough shit

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

I ignore the religeous aspect because its irrelevant. Even an atheist pharmacist has a right to decide which legal products he will sell and frankly shouldnt have to explain himself to anyone. Its HIS,or hers. Business

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? So, if a Muslim man owns a grocery store and a woman goes in and gets a bottle of wine and the man refuses to sell to her because of his religious beliefs, you think he can't be sued? And you support him?

Holy ehit you are stupid. If that muslim is sellng wine to men yes he better sell to women to but if he just doesnt sell wine at all tough shit

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

The ruling is about state discrimination against religious beliefs, not religious beliefs.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Holy ehit you are stupid. If that muslim is sellng wine to men yes he better sell to women to but if he just doesnt sell wine at all tough shit

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

I ignore the religeous aspect because its irrelevant. Even an atheist pharmacist has a right to decide which legal products he will sell and frankly shouldnt have to explain himself to anyone. Its HIS,or hers. Business

False.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Holy ehit you are stupid. If that muslim is sellng wine to men yes he better sell to women to but if he just doesnt sell wine at all tough shit

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

The ruling is about state discrimination against religious beliefs, not religious beliefs.

False.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

I ignore the religeous aspect because its irrelevant. Even an atheist pharmacist has a right to decide which legal products he will sell and frankly shouldnt have to explain himself to anyone. Its HIS,or hers. Business

False.

False? Please shoe me where the government is given the authority to tell anyone what products they must sell. Do you realize how small of a leap it is from there to the government setting prices?



The saddest part is you truly think youre smart

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Holy ehit you are stupid. If that muslim is sellng wine to men yes he better sell to women to but if he just doesnt sell wine at all tough shit

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

The ruling is about state discrimination against religious beliefs, not religious beliefs.

At its base its even simpler than that. Its government trying to control small businesses.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I ignore the religeous aspect because its irrelevant. Even an atheist pharmacist has a right to decide which legal products he will sell and frankly shouldnt have to explain himself to anyone. Its HIS,or hers. Business

False.

False? Please shoe me where the government is given the authority to tell anyone what products they must sell. Do you realize how small of a leap it is from there to the government setting prices?



The saddest part is you truly think youre smart

Not how it works.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, you need to show how they are prohibited from doing it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

The ruling is about state discrimination against religious beliefs, not religious beliefs.

At its base its even simpler than that. Its government trying to control small businesses.

No. It's about government protecting the rights of women.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

False.

False? Please shoe me where the government is given the authority to tell anyone what products they must sell. Do you realize how small of a leap it is from there to the government setting prices?



The saddest part is you truly think youre smart

Not how it works.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, you need to show how they are prohibited from doing it.

Lol holy shit. That isnt even close to a correct interpretation


Im sickened actually that you truly belive the government should be able to force a business to sell products.

God hrlp this country

 

[Texanmike]

This is stupid. The state is perfectly within its rights to require someone have access to plan B. This is not a federal issue at all. What is funny is sitting here watching you guys argue the opposite side of the issue when it comes to the Constitution.

The guys on the right who argue that marriage is a state issue have suddenly seen the "nationalist" light and think this is a violation of the first amendment. The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Let me go ahead and explain for all of you (who will probably dismiss me because I'm reading the Constitution and not case precedence). The first amendment does not apply to the states. It applies to congress. Congress shall create no law...

This is a perfect example of the federal courts overreaching an inserting political beliefs/philosophy in such a way that they will claim authority over this again at a later date. The 14th amendment (which is funny, i'm about to see a bunch of people tell me that the 14th amendment incorporates all of the bill of rights against the states- it does not) does not apply here. It says that the states must apply the laws within the states equally. The State has the authority to require this. If the pharmacist doesn't like it then they should either a. MOVE or b Campaign to have it changed[/b].

This isn't a first amendment issue, it isn't a 14th amendment issue, it isn't a federal government issue.

Oh, and for the record, I think they should be able to refuse to sell it. I don't live in Washington though and I'm quite sure that Washingtonians should be able to figure out how they want their pharmaceutical licenses to work.

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And if a Catholic owned a pharmacy, he would have no problem selling the morning after pill to a woman.

Good one, it is even more moronic than your Muslim example. Keep up the good work.

heh heh You guys are funny.

Look, you can believe that this case would only pertain to this one situation and that it would never be applied in any fashion with any other business or religious belief. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

Those of us who actually understand laws and court rulings, we'll be the ones smiling as this gets overturned.

No, that is what you believe, and you are projecting. I believe that all religions have an equal right to their beliefs, including the ones that I disagree with.

The case came about because the state suddenly decided that referrals for refusal to stock the drug for religious reasons was unacceptable, but it sill allowed a pharmacist who decided that it was simply uneconomical to stock the drug was acceptable. Even morons like you have a hard time actually justifying that position, which is why you are trying to turn this into something else that has nothing to do with the facts.

By the way, the state pharmacy board admitted that not a single person in the entire state that needed the drug was unable to obtain it because one pharmacist refused to stock the drug. The state allows people to not provide other services if they have a religious objection, the only exception to this is for pharmacists that refuse to sell Plan B. There is no way this will ever be overturned, there is way to much egregious conduct upon the part of the state licensing board.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The ruling is about state discrimination against religious beliefs, not religious beliefs.

At its base its even simpler than that. Its government trying to control small businesses.

No. It's about government protecting the rights of women.

What rights of women?

First youd have to show me where you have a right to buythe morning after pill at any drug store

Then you would have to show me that these drug store are selling the morning after pill to men but not women.

Failing either of those makes your claim bogus

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

This is stupid. The state is perfectly within its rights to require someone have access to plan B. This is not a federal issue at all. What is funny is sitting here watching you guys argue the opposite side of the issue when it comes to the Constitution.

The guys on the right who argue that marriage is a state issue have suddenly seen the "nationalist" light and think this is a violation of the first amendment. The guys on the left who always argue that the federal government has supreme authority in cases like these are saying that the state does have the authority to make a ruling like this.

Let me go ahead and explain for all of you (who will probably dismiss me because I'm reading the Constitution and not case precedence). The first amendment does not apply to the states. It applies to congress. Congress shall create no law...

This is a perfect example of the federal courts overreaching an inserting political beliefs/philosophy in such a way that they will claim authority over this again at a later date. The 14th amendment (which is funny, i'm about to see a bunch of people tell me that the 14th amendment incorporates all of the bill of rights against the states- it does not) does not apply here. It says that the states must apply the laws within the states equally. The State has the authority to require this. If the pharmacist doesn't like it then they should either a. MOVE or b Campaign to have it changed[/b].

This isn't a first amendment issue, it isn't a 14th amendment issue, it isn't a federal government issue.

Oh, and for the record, I think they should be able to refuse to sell it. I don't live in Washington though and I'm quite sure that Washingtonians should be able to figure out how they want their pharmaceutical licenses to work.

Mike

I happen to agree with you, but in fact incorporation is the law of the land so ....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You just refuse to discuss the religious aspect of this, don't you? Kind of odd, since the ruling is about religious beliefs.

The ruling is about state discrimination against religious beliefs, not religious beliefs.

False.

Read the decision and the finding of facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False.

False? Please shoe me where the government is given the authority to tell anyone what products they must sell. Do you realize how small of a leap it is from there to the government setting prices?



The saddest part is you truly think youre smart

Not how it works.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, you need to show how they are prohibited from doing it.

Read the 14th Amendment sometime, you might learn something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False? Please shoe me where the government is given the authority to tell anyone what products they must sell. Do you realize how small of a leap it is from there to the government setting prices?



The saddest part is you truly think youre smart

Not how it works.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, you need to show how they are prohibited from doing it.

Lol holy shit. That isnt even close to a correct interpretation


Im sickened actually that you truly belive the government should be able to force a business to sell products.

God hrlp this country

Women do not have any rights men don't.