SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contra[W;261]

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

1.)If you think you have a right to someone else's labor and property then you're wrong and it matters not how many years pass as that will always be true.
2.) Involuntary servitude is, was, and will always be wrong.
3.) Forcing someone to sell their property is, was, and will always be wrong. These matters are matters of fact that care little of the passing of time.

1.) I don't so no worries
2.) I agree so no worries
3.) I agree so no worries

None of this is the on of this is topic please stay on topic thanks!

 

[Moot]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Yes, I think the idea of something lasting forever is fallacious and historically invalid. I also do in fact believe the country is start enough to restore the rights of their people. They might be on the wrong path now, but I think that can be corrected.

Btw, you might want to check your math.

I suspect you won't live long enough to see the demise of the Constitution, BoR or Civil Rights...if that's what you mean.

What rights restored? We all have the same rights, Henrin. Civil rights laws are protected political, social and equal rights of the people in the same vein that the BoR's are. So are you arguing for the rights of the people....or business?

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

I suspect you won't live long enough to see the demise of the Constitution, BoR or Civil Rights...if that's what you mean.

What rights restored? We all have the same rights, Henrin. Civil rights laws are protected political, social and equal rights of the people in the same vein that the BoR's are. So are you arguing for the rights of the people....or business?

Involuntary servitude is forbidden by the thirteen amendment, The right to association is protected by the first amendment, and a few amendment protect property. Would you like to try again?

 

[iguanaman]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Refusing to help women with their issue is not forcing them to remain pregnant. If they desire to get the service they are after they can just go somewhere else.

Exactly and the psuedo-pharmacy/religious zealot can close their doors. A Pharmacist has no business or license to practice medicine or question a doctors prescription. Their job is to supply drugs when they are ordered. If they cannot do that they can close their doors.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Exactly and the psuedo-pharmacy/religious zealot can close their doors. A Pharmacist has no business or license to practice medicine or question a doctors prescription. Their job is to supply drugs when they are ordered. If they cannot do that they can close their doors.

So demanding someone close their doors because they won't sell a product you want is ok? I find statists repulsive more times than not to be honest, but this idea that you are somehow in the right here makes me doubt just how much you care about you fellow human beings. Why do liberals go and on about the poor and the needy and as soon as one of them gets their crap together and opens a business they treat them like slaves?

 

[Moot]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

If you think you have a right to someone else's labor and property then you're wrong and it matters not how many years pass as that will always be true. Involuntary servitude is, was, and will always be wrong. Forcing someone to sell their property is, was, and will always be wrong. These are matters of fact that care little of the passing of time.

If the pharmacist earns a living off the public and there's an exchange of money for service/goods rendered...then it's not "involuntary servitude" or "forced labor". No one is expecting the pharmacist to work for free.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

If the pharmacist earns a living off the public and there's an exchange of money for service/goods rendered...then it's not "involuntary servitude" or "forced labor".

You really should avoid logic like that. It really doesn't matter to me in the slightest how they earn their money. Anyway, they earn their money by selling goods to consumers. There is no reason to expect that by doing so they should forgo their right to decide what they desire to sell or who they desire to sell things to.

Part of the right to property is having the right to determine who will have your property in trade. Another part of the right to property is having the right to decide what you desire to sell.

If they are forced into labor at any point along the way in a transaction then they have in fact been made into involuntary servants.

 

[Moot]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

You really should avoid logic like that. It really doesn't matter to me in the slightest how they earn their money. Anyway, they earn their money by selling goods to consumers. There is no reason to expect that by doing so they should forgo their right to decide what they desire to sell or who they desire to sell things to.

Personal attack noted.

If a business wants the right to profit off the public...then they give up the right to discriminate against the public based on religion, gender, race and disability.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

If a business wants the right to profit off the public...then they give up the right to discriminate against the public based on religion, gender, race and disability.

Liberals care so much about someone profiting off of trade, don't they? I have to wonder why they think anyone is convinced of anything because of their fetish with the wrongness of making money. Yes, they profit of trade. So what?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

If the pharmacist earns a living off the public and there's an exchange of money for service/goods rendered...then it's not "involuntary servitude" or "forced labor". No one is expecting the pharmacist to work for free.

100% correct, there is no involuntary service or forced labor here by any factual definition at all. The ruling in the OP doesn't violate any rights or force anything. Scotus didnt take up the challenge cause it works like this:

nobody is forced to be a pharmacist, they CHOOSE to
nobody is forced to be a pharmacist and then to agree to a business contract/license that requires them to follow certain rules. they CHOOSE to
nobody is forced to be a pharmacist, then to agree to a business contract/license that requires them to follow certain rules and then agree to open a public access business, they CHOOSE to
after CHOOSING the above nobody forces them to break the law, contract or licenses agreements and or violate the rights of others if they do that too would be there choice . .

if they dont like any of those things above, they can choose at any time not to be a pharmacists or agree to that licenses the governed that particular type of business and open a different type that suits their needs and or choose not to open a public access business with laws they dont like. Its really easy and basic common sense.

I myself am a christian, i would have to be a complete moron to think I can simply deny service to non christians based on my religion and thing that i get special treatment and that my faith allows me to break the law, violate andy contracts i'm in or violate the rights of others. Just like if I was an a landlord I cant deny service to non christians or refuse to follow local laws and codes about smoke detectors and claim its in gods hands.

We all have the same rights and the rules, rights and laws apply to use all, i dont get special treatment based on my faith.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Is the doctors in control over their own labor? Does the patient have claim to their doctors body?

Nobody is forcing the pharmacists to work. They don't have to work if they don't want to. Are you actually trying to argue that Doctors are undergoing slavery because of this ruling? Otherwise, your statement isn't grounded in reality.

You need to come up with a different justification, mon ami.

There is no reason to force the issue either. They can go somewhere else to get it. The suggestion I offered earlier would in fact open up more choices to do that.

Really? Where does a woman go to get emergency contraception when a pharmacy turns her away for religious reasons, in time to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? PUTTING ASIDE pro-life/pro-choice issues (which I'm not sure you can do).

This is not an essential service and even if it was the provider would still own their own labor.

Emergency medicine is definitely essential, which is what emergency contraception is. The courts are simply removing an impediment to it.

Why should I respect their opinion? Give me one reason that I can't easily debunk by proving how they are wrong and sexist on MGM. Want to try?

No, because it has nothing to do with the subject we're currently discussing. Are you really trying to bait and switch the topic now?

Look, if you're against women having access to emergency contraception, you should state those reasons, rather than dancing around some non-existent issue about forced labor. Nobody is forcing pharmacists to work against their will. What the courts have done is said that if they want to practice pharmacy then they should do their damn jobs and provide the medicines that the FDA and the AMA says they should. If they can't do that then they shouldn't be pharmacists.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Nobody is forcing the pharmacists to work. They don't have to work if they don't want to. Are you actually trying to argue that Doctors are undergoing slavery because of this ruling? Otherwise, your statement isn't grounded in reality.

Useless argument. Your argument is no better than Harry Reid telling the people that income taxes are not involuntary because people can just not work. You should keep your nonsense to yourself. I find it amazing that liberals like you always go with the but they can be homeless argument. You know, slaves could have killed themselves, so they weren't slaves according to your logic.

Really? Where does a woman go to get emergency contraception when a pharmacy turns her away for religious reasons, in time to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? PUTTING ASIDE pro-life/pro-choice issues (which I'm not sure you can do).

Is an unwanted pregnancy somehow a medical condition? It doesn't really matter to me where she goes. None of that somehow matters to the equation. She doesn't just somehow gain a right to have people serve her because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Pregnancy is not even a medical condition, ffs.

Emergency medicine is definitely essential, which is what emergency contraception is. The courts are simply removing an impediment to it.

Foolishness. Nothing about the desire for nature to not take it's course makes a service essential.

No, because it has nothing to do with the subject we're currently discussing. Are you really trying to bait and switch the topic now?

Not at all. Just telling you exactly why I don't care what the AMA thinks. You can always try to reference a group a bit more respectable if you want.

Look, if you're against women having access to emergency contraception, you should state those reasons, rather than dancing around some non-existent issue about forced labor. Nobody is forcing pharmacists to work against their will. What the courts have done is said that if they want to practice pharmacy then they should do their damn jobs and provide the medicines that the FDA and the AMA says they should. If they can't do that then they shouldn't be pharmacists.

I do believe I have offered you my real reasons. Also, the store gets to determine what their job is.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Nobody is forcing the pharmacists to work. They don't have to work if they don't want to. Are you actually trying to argue that Doctors are undergoing slavery because of this ruling? Otherwise, your statement isn't grounded in reality.

You need to come up with a different justification, mon ami.



Really? Where does a woman go to get emergency contraception when a pharmacy turns her away for religious reasons, in time to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? PUTTING ASIDE pro-life/pro-choice issues (which I'm not sure you can do).



Emergency medicine is definitely essential, which is what emergency contraception is. The courts are simply removing an impediment to it.



No, because it has nothing to do with the subject we're currently discussing. Are you really trying to bait and switch the topic now?

Look, if you're against women having access to emergency contraception, you should state those reasons, rather than dancing around some non-existent issue about forced labor. Nobody is forcing pharmacists to work against their will. What the courts have done is said that if they want to practice pharmacy then they should do their damn jobs and provide the medicines that the FDA and the AMA says they should. If they can't do that then they shouldn't be pharmacists.

also 100% correct there is no force

 

[Moot]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Liberals care so much about someone profiting off of trade, don't they? I have to wonder why they think anyone is convinced of anything because of their fetish with the wrongness of making money. Yes, they profit of trade. So what?

In spite of what you've been told to believe..conservatives don't have exclusivity over making money and trade and never did.

According to the bible...it's the Christians that have a fetish about the wrongness of money...not liberals. So I have to wonder about a pharmacist using his/her religion to push their political agenda at a place of business that depends on the public to exist.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

In spite of what you've been told to believe..conservatives don't have exclusivity over making money and trade and never did.

Yes, and I'm not a conservative. The two largest groups that make up the one percent are liberals and libertarians. I have no idea why you thought your comment was a news break or why you thought I was a conservative.

According to the bible...it's the Christians that have a fetish about the wrongness of money...not liberals. So I have to wonder about a pharmacist using his/her religion to push their political agenda at a place of business that depends on the public to exist.

I don't care about the bible or faith for that matter. It doesn't interest me. I will also go with what I see on this forum daily on what I think about liberals and their views on making money, thank you. Your little, but they are making profit off selling to the public says it all. Btw, are people supposed to sell in some sort of tight knit group? Is that something you approve of?

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Why can liberals never do their own damn ****? They want other people to do it for them, always. I have belief and I think people should have _____, but instead of doing it myself, I will force you to do it. After they do this little repulsive game they think people will somehow respect them for it. Being a dickhead doesn't make me like you, it makes me return the favor.

 

[David_N]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Why can liberals never do their own damn ****? They want other people to do it for them, always. I have belief and I think people should have _____, but instead of doing it myself, I will force you to do it. After they do this little repulsive game they think people will somehow respect them for it. Being a dickhead doesn't make me like you, it makes me return the favor.

Why can liberals never do their own damn ****?

Why can't conservatives stop bitching about contraceptives?

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Why can't conservatives stop bitching about contraceptives?

Why do liberals think it is right to force people to provide them against their will? People in a free country are free to have their own beliefs.

And why did you just mention conservatives? lol.

 

[David_N]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Why do liberals think it is right to force people to provide them against their will? People in a free country are free to have their own beliefs.

Of course they're free to have their own beliefs. They also have the right to choose whether or not they work at a pharmacy.

 

[Moot]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Yes, and I'm not a conservative. The two largest groups that make up the one percent are liberals and libertarians. I have no idea why you thought you comment was news break or why you thought I was a conservative.

I don't care about the bible or faith for that matter. It doesn't interest me. I will also go with what I see on this forum daily on what I think about liberals and their views on making money, thank you.

It's irrelevant what you call yourself when almost everything you say is steeped in conservative ideology. I'll go by that as well...thank you.

I think the topic is about mixing business with religious ideology. So if it doesn't interest you...then what are you arguing about?

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

It's irrelevant what you call yourself when almost everything you say is steeped in conservative ideology. I'll go by that as well...thank you.

I could easily prove that wrong. Hint: People don't call me an anarchist around here for no reason.

I think the topic is about mixing business with religious ideology. So if it doesn't interest you...then what are you arguing about?

Only liberals think business should always be secular. People sometimes attach their beliefs to how they operate their business and there is nothing wrong with that. Oh, and I'm an atheist, btw.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Of course they're free to have their own beliefs. They also have the right to choose whether or not they work at a pharmacy.

Indeed. If they decide to work at a pharmacy or not is none of your business.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Indeed. If they decide to work at a pharmacy or not is none of your business.

And if they decide to work at a pharmacy, the need to follow the rules of the pharmacy or the owner can fire them.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Some far-right evangelicals would like to get the U.S. government off of Wall Street's back and into every American bedroom controlling every American's private life.

That's not going to happen.Not today,not tomorrow,not ever.

Wait and see.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time,GOP.

 

[Moot]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

I could easily prove that wrong. Hint: People don't call me an anarchist around here for no reason.



Only liberals think business should always be secular. People sometimes attach their beliefs to how they operate their business and there is nothing wrong with that. Oh, and I'm an atheist, btw.

I really don't want to get into what people around here call you. lol

Okay, so you're not religious...but you're arguing against secular business...and against civil rights...because...liberals are trying to "force" pharmacists to work against their will to fill prescriptions for women? Is that right?