- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from Washington state pharmacists who said they have religious objections to dispensing Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.
The justices' order leaves in place rules first adopted in 2007 following reports that some women had been denied access to emergency contraceptives that are effective when taken within a few days of unprotected sex. Pharmacies must fill lawful prescriptions, but individual pharmacists with moral objections can refer patients to another pharmacist, as long as it's at the same store.
Good decision. Religious freedom does not mean the right to force your religion on others.
Article is here.
Good decision. Religious freedom does not mean the right to force your religion on others.
Article is here.
I only have one question, where's Minnie?
How about the right to decide who gets your labor, property, and association?
And why can't people refuse service because of their religious beliefs? How is forced labor constitutional?
Not wanting to participate in abortion, is not " forcing your religion on others".
Not wanting to participate in abortion, is not " forcing your religion on others".
Good decision. Religious freedom does not mean the right to force your religion on others.
They don't have to participate. All they have to do is have someone else at the store who is not a religious extremist that can fill the prescription.
People can refuse, as long as someone else in the same store will do it for them. You realize you are literally defending pharmacists that refuse to give legal drugs to people that should be allowed to have them? Would you support someone that religiously argues that they are against heart or diabetes medication?
Not wanting to participate in abortion, is not " forcing your religion on others".
People can refuse, as long as someone else in the same store will do it for them. You realize you are literally defending pharmacists that refuse to give legal drugs to people that should be allowed to have them? Would you support someone that religiously argues that they are against heart or diabetes medication?
Dana doesn't care about the pharmacist's rights, only the customer.
How about the right to decide who gets your labor, property, and association?
And why can't people refuse service because of their religious beliefs? How is forced labor constitutional?
I find it funny that people claim the US is a free country while supporting involuntary servitude, forced association, and forced property transfers.
You aren't participating in abortion, in the same way that scanning alcohol and checking someone out isn't particpating in getting drunk.
The pharmacist is generally working in a store that sells these pills. The pharmacist doesn't have rights to refuse sale of something that the store sells.
Not wanting to participate in abortion does not make one a "religious extremist".They don't have to participate. All they have to do is have someone else at the store who is not a religious extremist that can fill the prescription.
The seller of alcohol does however make it possible to get drunk.
Mickey divorced her, after finding out that she was ****ing goofy. :mrgreen:
Public accommodation, pal.
The seller of alcohol does however make it possible to get drunk.
What if the store says they do?
Why does anyone have to fill the prescription? Why is having a prescription give you ownership of another human being?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?