Supreme Court rejects pharmacists' religious rights appeal

[Cryptic]

There is factually ZERO force LMAO if you disgaree please bring one fact to the table that shows force . . one

you CHOOSE to be a pharmacist, and you CHOOSE to be the kind that does business with the public.

Good grief, is this really the entire basis of your "argument" / rant? Owning private property of any sort is a choice- right?

Now try telling the moslem store owner that he needs to sell beer because he chooses to open a restaraunt. Or, because a guy chooses to open a book store, he must sell Bibles. Heck, there is a Hindu owned gas station in my town that refuses to stock beef jerky- in Texas no less. But, as opening a gas station is a choice.... .

Lets extend your "logic" to the black guy who gave me a T-shirt shop advertizement at the MLK parade my children were in. Let me see, he you know...chose to open a T-shirt shop. What T-shirt shop is complete in a former confederate state with out CSA battle flag themed merchandise?

Or maybe, just maybe allowing me force others to sell legal products that I select for them is not a good idea?

 

[Scrabaholic]

The pragmatic reality is that those seeking to buy pork, weapons, beer, beef, or abortion inducing drugs are not protected social groups. Therefore, there is no complusion to serve them.

The morning after pill is none of the above.

What about insulin? Would it be okay for a Muslim pharmacist to refuse to dispense pork insulin?

 

[Scrabaholic]

That's a want, you know.

What if she would die from pregnancy?

 

[Henrin]

LMAO theres nothing in this whole post that shows factual use of force
That might be the most retarded failed and factually wrong argument i have ever heard in my life . .

you realize that your argument is so retarded that it insinuates that EVERY filled prescription is force, EVERY baking of a cake is forced labor

I agree it takes some real mental magic to even suggest you provide ANYTHING that supports your failed and destroyed claims

Ill aks you AGAIN and you will dodge and run away AGAIN...

No rights are factually infringed on that you dishonestly claim
There is factually no forced labor like you dishonestly claim
there is factually no forced servitude like you dishonestly claim
there is factually no forced associations like dishonestly claim
there is factually no forced property transfers like you dishonestly claim

if you disagree please simply post one fact that supports you and shows force . . . ONE .. . thanks you

opcorn2:

That's pretty retarded logic you have there. If the individual bakes the cake or fills the prescription against their will then it's hard to argue they were not forced into it.

 

[Henrin]

What if she would die from pregnancy?

If she would die from pregnancy then she should consider not having sex or getting herself fixed.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Is this really the entire basis of your "argument"?
2.) Owning private property of any sort is a choice- right?
3.)Now try telling the moslem store owner that he needs to sell beer because he chooses to open a restaraunt.
4.)Or, because a guy chooses to open a book store, he must sell Bibles.
5.) Heck, there is a Hindu owned gas station in my town that refuses to stock beef jerky- in Texas no less.
6.) But, as opening a gas station is a choice.... .
7.)Or maybe, just maybe allowing me to compel others to use their private poretry to further my social goals is not a good idea.

1.) my argument? this has nothing to do with "me" or any "argument"
there is factually no force, see the facts, court cases, rights etc etc that all show that.
2.) meaningless to the discussion but yes it is a choice.
3.) that has nothing to do with this, theres ZERO rules, laws or regulations that say a restaurant has to serve beer . . .ZERO and CHOOSING not to do so violates ZERO rights of others . . that example completely fails, is a strawman and isnt even analogous

most importantly it changes nothing of the fact i pointed out. Theres ZERO force.
4.) see #3
theres ZERO rules, laws or regulations that say a bookstore has to sell bibles . . .ZERO and CHOOSING not to do so violates ZERO rights of others . . that example completely fails, is a strawman and isnt even analogous

most importantly it changes nothing of the fact i pointed out. Theres ZERO force.
5.) see #3
theres ZERO rules, laws or regulations that say a gas station has to sell beef jerky . . .ZERO and CHOOSING not to do so violates ZERO rights of others . . that example completely fails, is a strawman and isnt even analogous
most importantly it changes nothing of the fact i pointed out. Theres ZERO force.
6.) yes it is a choice and sticking to the REAL topic and actual things that arent strawman, the hindu owner could not refuse to sell gas to people of other religions, or to dispose of waste gas violating the EPA cause his faith allows it. see the HUGE and glaring factual difference.
7.) that would not be a good idea, good thing that isnt whats going on here with PA laws LMAO

so now that you see how your examples and strawmen dont apply in anyway, please let us know when you can use facts and show there is FORCE.

 

[Quazimodo]

Boy, this is just one big mess. The next thing you know, we will be forced to sell condoms to transgender hermaphrodites.

 

[AGENT J]

That's pretty retarded logic you have there. If the individual bakes the cake or fills the prescription against their will then it's hard to argue they were not forced into it.

I agree 100% what you posted is completely retarded on every logical, factual and honest level. Hopefully you learn from this mistake and you're welcome.
Now we are still waiting, please in your next post simply use facts and support your claim of force, thanks

opcorn2:

 

[Cryptic]

The morning after pill is none of the above.

What about insulin? Would it be okay for a Muslim pharmacist to refuse to dispense pork insulin?

Yes, private business owners get to go whole hog in picking what legal products they want to sell. That would include pork based insulin, pork rind, and pork chops.

 

[Bodi]

Presumably that they heard something funny.

So, you're a hypocrite? Cool.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If she would die from pregnancy then she should consider not having sex or getting herself fixed.

Why? Sex is normal and healthy and there's no reason someone should abstain if they don't want to. There's also no reason a pharmacist should refuse to fill a prescription for the morning after pill unless there are contraindications or it conflicts with a drug she's taking.

ETA: Haven't you spoken out against vasectomy, calling it mutilation? Why is tubal ligation different?

 

[Cryptic]

that has nothing to do with this, theres ZERO rules, laws or regulations that say a restaurant has to serve beer . . .ZERO and CHOOSING not to do so violates ZERO rights of others . . that example completely fails, is a strawman and isnt even analogous

most importantly it changes nothing of the fact i pointed out. Theres ZERO force.
4.) see #3
theres ZERO rules, laws or regulations that say a bookstore has to sell bibles . . .ZERO and CHOOSING not to do so violates ZERO rights of others . . that example completely fails, is a strawman and isnt even analogous

most importantly it changes nothing of the fact i pointed out. Theres ZERO force.
5.) see #3
theres ZERO rules, laws or regulations that say a gas station has to sell beef jerky . . .ZERO and CHOOSING not to do so violates ZERO rights of others . . that example completely fails, is a strawman and isnt even analogous
most importantly it changes nothing of the fact i pointed out. Theres ZERO force.

Very true, there are no laws forcing moslems to sell beer, hindus to sell beef and T-short shop woners to sell socio poltical merchandise. These fact, however are completely irrelevent. Lets examine your circular logic:

- Opening a business is a choice ergo
- if a regulation exists forcing the sale of a product, it must be constitutional (wrong) and

- Well a law does exist compelling some people to sell a particular product
- Therefore, that law must be constitutional, or it would not exist. (wrong)

theres ZERO rules, laws or regulations that say a bookstore has to sell bibles . . .ZERO and CHOOSING not to do so violates ZERO rights of others . . that example completely fails, is a strawman and isnt even analogous

What- not selling a particular product (abortion pills) is now violating another person's "rights"? Are you really serious? Those "rights" might be illustrated in marxist theory- but not in the US constitution.

Where in the US constitution does it say that I have a "right" to buy product "X" at business "Z"? Rather, I might be able to buy any legal product anywhere- so long as I can find a vendor willing (very key concept- willing) to carry that product.

Nope, I should not be able to force people to sell anything. No, if you dont want to carry beer, abortion pills, or say Honda cars, you are not violating my "rights". No, the fact that you sell other books does not mean I can force you to sell bibles. No, not all existing laws are automatically constitutional.

-

 

[Henrin]

Why? Sex is normal and healthy and there's no reason someone should abstain if they don't want to. There's also no reason a pharmacist should refuse to fill a prescription for the morning after pill unless there are contraindications or it conflicts with a drug she's taking.

ETA: Haven't you spoken out against vasectomy, calling it mutilation? Why is tubal ligation different?

Yes, I have and I'm not a supporter of tubal ligation either, but it might a good idea for her to get it done if she is at a high risk of dying if she gets pregnant.

 

[Cryptic]

Why? Sex is normal and healthy and there's no reason someone should abstain if they don't want to. There's also no reason a pharmacist should refuse to fill a prescription for the morning after pill unless there are contraindications or it conflicts with a drug she's taking.

Nor is there a reason why any business owner should be forced to sell a product they dont want to. Likewise, a book store owner can choose to sell alot of different books- but not to sell bibles. If I want to buy one, all I need to do is find a willing vendor.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Very true, there are no laws forcing moslems to sell beer, hindus to sell beef and T-short shop woners to sell socio poltical merchandise. These fact, however are completely irrelevent.

2.)Lets examine your circular logic:

3.) Opening a business is a choice
4.)ergo - if a regulation exists forcing the sale of a product, it must be constitutional (wrong) and
5.)- Well a law does exist compelling some people to sell a particular product - Therefore, that law must be constitutional, or it would not exist. (wrong)
6.) What- violating somebody's rights? Where in the constitution does it say that have a "right" to buy product "X" at business "Z"? Pick any amendment you want..... .
7.)Rather, I might be able to buy any legal product anywhere- so long as I can find a willing vendor. Nope, I should not be able to force people to sell me anything- not even if a "law" exists.

-

1.) wrong again, its not "mu" logic. YOU brought up the examples LMAO
I am talking about laws, rights and the definition of force.
You are making up failed straw man scenarios that dont apply

2.) PLEASE lets do because you are going to get it wrong and totally own your own made up posts and show YOUR made up logic has ZERO to do with the facts I stated. This will be AWESOME

3.) yes its a choice
4.) nope never said that one single time ever LMAO the way you say it and there again is no FORCE., thank you for proving me right and your strawman wrong,
5.) again no force, yes your strawmna is wrong
6.) BOOM!!!!! and another strawman bite the dust . . . where did i ever say that a person has a right to buy something? Please quote me saying that RIGHT now. You cant cause I never did.

Wow please try to stick to what was actually said. Man i called this from a mile away
7.) I agree . . the problem is there isnt any force nor have you shown any, you argued a bunch of random strawmen that dodnt matter and made up scenarios that have nothign to do with the actual discussion,.

Fact remains there is no force and you havent even come close to showing that any exists . . .

Again, please let us know when you can use facts and show there is FORCE. Thank you

 

[Cardinal]

Nor is there a reason why any business owner should be forced to sell a product they dont want to. Likewise, a book store owner can choose to sell alot of different books- but not to sell bibles. If I want to buy one, all I need to do is find a willing vendor.

I have not been able to find any hard information on this. I would only be able to comment that if someone buys a Rite-Aide franchise location, that owner would probably be obligated to abide by the rules that Rite-Aide sets out. If someone set up an independent mom-and-pop pharmacy, then it's not beyond the pale that they could refuse to stock Plan B. There might be other licensing factors I'm not aware of, however.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Nor is there a reason why any business owner should be forced to sell a product they dont want to.
2.) Likewise, a book store owner can choose to sell alot of different books- but not to sell bibles. If I want to buy one, all I need to do is find a willing vendor.

1.) There is no force as facts already prove
2,) good thing no store owner is forced to sell bibles, are you from america?

 

[Cryptic]

I have not been able to find any hard information on this. I would only be able to comment that if someone buys a Rite-Aide franchise location, that owner would probably be obligated to abide by the rules that Rite-Aide sets out. If someone set up an independent mom-and-pop pharmacy, then it's not beyond the pale that they could refuse to stock Plan B. There might be other licensing factors I'm not aware of, however.

I can agree with you about Right Aid as the franchise owner must follow the rules of the franchise.

Any licensing requirements that force somebody to carry a certain product, however, are unconstitutional. I cant force say, a moslem store owner to sell beer to get an operator's license for his gas station. Nor can I create a requirement that all book stores must sell bibles. Likewise, I should not be able to force a pharmacist to sell Plan B, or Plan Z for that matter.

 

[Cryptic]

1.) There is no force as facts already prove
2,) good thing no store owner is forced to sell bibles, are you from america?

Yes.

Now apply that same concept to Plan B. Lets see, I can't force people to sell bibles, I can't force them to sell beer, I can't force them to sell Honda cars, rebel flags, televisions, or say lumber. Why should I be able to force somebody to sell me Plan B?

Lets just say, your "well the law says they need to" point is not well thought out- at all.

 

[Cardinal]

I can agree with you about Right Aid as the franchise owner must follow the rules of the franchise.

Any licensing requirements that force somebody to carry a certain product, however, are unconstitutional. I cant force say, a moslem store owner to sell beer to get an operator's license for his gas station. Nor can I create a requirement that all book stores must sell bibles. Likewise, I should not be able to force a pharmacist to sell Plan B, or Plan Z for that matter.

I wouldn't be able to comment on the constitutionality of such a regulation, although if such a regulation existed and it was constitutional, I would imagine it would fall under "undue burden" somewhere, though the application of undue burden has not always been 100% clear to me.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Yes.
2.) Now apply that same concept to Plan B.
3.) Lets see, I can't force people to sell bibles
4.) I can't force them to sell beer
5.) I can't force them to sell Honda cars
6.) rebel flags
7.) televisions
8.) or say lumber.
9.) Why should I be able to force somebody to sell me Plan B?
10.)Lest just say, your "well the law says they need to" point is not well thought out.

1.) then how could you apply that non analogous scenario to this, it makes no sense.
2.) again this is where you repeat your obvious mistake. nobody is forcing anybody to sell plan B

Pharmacies sell PRESCRIPTION drugs that are PRESCRIBED to people. You need a licenses to do so and are regulated by the medical community FDA etc. You CHOOSE to be a pharmacy that does what i just described. If you dont like that then dont CHOOSE be a public pharmacy. SImply and factual solution that shows there is ZERO force LMAO

But i can easily use your failed logic against you.
Can a gas station only sell soda and still get all the classifications of a gas station? tax breaks, incentives, or whatever they may get?
Im a christian, if i become a cop can i choose to only enforce the laws of my god? or what if i become a judge, im going to base all my rulings on the bible . . is that ok?

3.) correct
4.) correct
5.) correct
6.) correct
7.) correct
8.) correct
9.) you cant and NOBODY is LMAO
10.) I agree your strawman is not well thought out at all

thank you for further proving the facts right and showing there is no proof. This is a VERY simple concept.

 

[Cryptic]

I wouldn't be able to comment on the constitutionality of such a regulation, although if such a regulation existed and it was constitutional, I would imagine it would fall under "undue burden" somewhere, though the application of undue burden has not always been 100% clear to me.

In contrast to what Agent J bases his arguments on (creating fictitious "rights" and giving them to people), I think the legal basis for the law is the concept of "compelling public interest".

This forces manufacturers to ineffect, sell cars with seat belts, and in some states, forces gun store owners to provide trigger locks with weapons. Where I think the law regarding Plan B is weak is that it forces pharmacists to carry a product, rather than regulate how that product is sold if they choose to sell it.

Pharmacies sell PRESCRIPTION drugs that are PRESCRIBED to people.

So what?

You need a licenses to do so and are regulated by the medical community FDA etc.

Once again, the fact that a regulation exists does not make it constitutional. Blacks used to regualted to the back of the bus. No, just because that regulation existed did not make it constitutional.

 

[Cardinal]

In contrast to what Agent J bases his arguments on (creating fictitious "rights" and giving them to people), I think the legal basis for the law is the concept of "compelling public interest".

This forces manufacturers to ineffect, sell cars with seat belts, and in some states, forces gun store owners to provide trigger locks with weapons. Where I think the law regarding Plan B is weak is that it forces pharmacists to carry a product, rather than regulate how that product is sold if they choose to sell it.

Frankly, I don't even know if pharmacists are required to carry Plan B. I've only ever participated in these threads with concern to the religious exemption of employees.

 

[Cryptic]

Frankly, I don't even know if pharmacists are required to carry Plan B. I've only ever participated in these threads with concern to the religious exemption of employees.

I believe in Washington, all lisensed pharmacists must sell (or obtain for sale) all legally prescribed drugs.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Pharmacies should carry or be able to supply in a timely manner, every drug in the US Parmacopeia/formulary.