Not in the slightest. There’s nothing hypocritical about disagreeing with their view. I apologize for my mistake in suggesting your were – I felt sure that you would say that the rule was not legitimate for some reason. To agree it’s legitimate and simply disagree with it is absolutely consistent and appropriate, and I hope you’ll accept my apology.
I don’t agree anyone has a right to medical care. I don’t agree that if someone has a right to medical care, that right extends to getting the medical care from anyone they please.
So before I can clarify what rights are appropriate to deny, I’d have to know what other “rights” you believe I even have? The right to have sex with Helen Hunt, maybe? That’d be a good one.
Of course, we could solve this whole ridiculous problem by letting this stuff be sold OTC. If anyone is denying rights, it’s the government, which is needlessly controlling our access to medications.
By all means criticise Bricker’s stance in general as being ridiculous, but he does have integrity.
He actually believes this. This is a hilarious thing to believe. But he has the guts to stick his head up above the parapet and own his delusional ideas. He is far better than most of the equivicoaters who try to justify their insanity.
There is a paradox here I suppose. Bricker is a very decent, intelligent man with shedloads of integrity - yet with utterly horrific ideas. And I believe that those ideas come are not ones that he has reasoned himself into. They ultimately come from the mother church.
This is why catholicism is evil. You should all be sympathising with Bricker and working towards the downfall of that evil religion, for when it is destroyed Bricker, freed from the shackles of popish hatred, will still be a decent and intelligent man - but now he’ll be an ally 
I appreciate the kind words.
Of course, in my view this isn’t a hilarious idea at all, but I absolutely recognize how it must seem utterly without supporting evidence to you.
Thanks. It is a weird sentiment to communicate actually - not quite paradoxical but somewhat close to it. I am sincere in my respect for you, while at the same time sincere in my belief that some of your ideas are entirely twisted in a consistent manner, that is to fit them in with catholic doctrine.
As another point, and it’s not something I’m accusing you of at all, I do wonder how many intelligent religious people are genuinely religious at all. I understand that in the US there are big social advantages from being in a church, and even outside of that there is stuff like knights of columbus and things. I had better be careful about specifying exactly who as I operate on the assumption my RL idenity may get out, but a very part of my family tree is part of the catholic church and the funny thing is when you talk to them individually in confidence only one of the ones that is still alive actually believes (in the sense of much more than being a deist) but they won’t admit it to one another.
Excellent argument for resegregating restaurants, hotels, apartment houses etc.
People should be able to sell their legal products to whoever they want, correct?
And yes, I think access to a critically needed drug (and adequate health care in general) is a compelling individual right. At the risk of getting I’ve-got-bucketloads-of-integrity-Bricker upset and stamping his feet again, a helluva lot of people agree.
By the way, emergency contraceptive medication is not a superspecialized drug with no uses other than to prevent pregnancy. There are different hormonal meds that can be used, including standard birth control pills. The synthetic progestin most commonly associated with emergency contraception (levonorgestrel) is a component of some birth control pills, and is also being studied as a drug to control symptoms of menopause in older women. Now that will pose an interesting dilemma for our Conscience Pharmacists. Do they decide that a woman with a prescription for levonorgestrel is too young to be using it for “legitimate” purposes? Ask to see proof of (menopausal) age?
No, it’s an excellent argument that a Jewish restaurant owner shouldn’t be forced to put pork on the menu.
Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. But even if this is a “right”, all rights have competing interests and there is one right, religious freedom, which is explicitly in the constitution. Can you cite the part of the constitution that declares a person not only has the right to such medications but that private citizens can be compelled to sell them?
Nope. I also can’t find a constitutional clause that says that pharmacists can pick and choose what legal prescriptions they choose to fill.
Your religious analogy breaks down when you consider that segregationists often used to cite the Bible as proof of the inferiority of blacks, thus justififying discrimination.
Next time you “feel sure” about what I think, take a moment and pause. Perhaps my thinking is not monolithic and set in stone.
If pork ever becomes a medication, prescribed by a professional doctor, and if a restaurant owner ever becomes a medical professional whose job it is to dispense life-saving medication, then you’ll have a point. Until then, however, you don’t.
You have an odd idea of what the purpose of the constitution is. It’s purpose is to delineate the powers granted by the states and the people to the federal government.
So, they don’t need a clause in the constitution that tells them they can do that. The federal government needs a clause that tells them they have the authority to compel pharmacists to do it and to do so in a way that doesn’t violate the 1st amendment.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that the federal government can compel Jewish restaurant owners to serve pork?
Can you remind me again which “life-saving medication” we’re talking about?
I think a simple solution here is for any pharmacist who doesn’t want to dispense this non-life-saving medication to have information available as to where it can be purchased. Everyone wins.
Yes, I meant the American Pharmacist’s Association, not the American Psychological Association. Apologies for the error.
I was referring to the post of yours quoted from another thread by CMC:
I originally wanted to compare the relative advantages. Allowing a pharmacist to refuse to sell contraception would engender greater liberty, but reduce the utility for the person incapable of purchasing contraception. In a “Pareto efficient” libertarian Utopia, everything is legal and everything has its price - they’d be able to get their fourth trimester abortion if they so desired. Impinging slightly on the utility of their child, perhaps, but at least they’re not a coercive actor. In reality, as long as there are alternatives available, the pharmacist should be able to exercise their freedom to refuse (within the ethical guidelines of commitment to individual and societal welfare).
As it stands, I think where Bricker departs from the teaching of the Church I disagree with him most (apart from our agreement on public funding for contraception). According to the catechism:
Menorrhagia can be very serious, and I would hope that a woman who was prescribed “the pill” by her doctor to control bleeding would be able to get it from a professional pharmacist. Or maybe her body has a way of shutting that thing down. More prayer perhaps. Pregnancy itself can be very dangerous for some women with certain conditions. But I guess they should just never have sex. The sluts.
This is a good idea. Perhaps also a large sign above the store that says “THIS IS NOT A PHARMACY. THIS IS A CHRISTIAN STORE WHERE WE WILL DISPENSE JUDGEMENT AND ATTITUDE INSTEAD OF WHAT YOUR DOCTOR HAS PRESCRIBED.”
Nice dodge.
Alternatively, we can just live and let live. I can’t be all that upset about someone not wanting to sell me something if they really don’t want to. I’ll find someone else.
Because a religious hatred of women is what opposition to abortion is about. It’s a hate movement, no better than the KKK. Abortion is just the club they’ve chosen to beat on women with. They aren’t allowed to beat women to death for being “sluts” or rape them, so they do this instead.
:rolleyes: A typical right wing dodge. The bigots supposedly have the “right” to inflict their bigotry on unwilling women, and their victims should just shut up and take it.
Yes, I’m fond of using medical facts as a “dodge”.
Totally agree if we’re talking about a pulled pork sandwich. Totally disagree if we’re talking about providing prescription medication as prescribed by your doctor. “Live and let live?” More like “I’ll keep my religious stance, and you remain sick”
There are lots and lots of examples of restrictions on business - what you can sell and what you can’t. Where you can set up a certain kind of store.
However, these restrictions or other legal requirements cannot be arbitrary - there must be a very good reasons before we (the public) interfere. The providing of medication is one such “good reason” in my opinion. Getting a nice lean mutton on rye,where the mutton is sliced really thin? Not so much.
None of your “facts” support your claim that we were dealing with “life-saving medication”. That is what we in the business would call an Appeal to Emotion.
If a person had a monopoly on the pharmacy business, you might have a case. But no one has such monopoly.
We’re not talking about restrictions on what you can or cannot sell. We’re talking about things you must sell.
Typical nonsense from you.
No, the “victims” are supposed to take their business elsewhere. In fact, I would expect many “non-victims” to do the same. I certainly would. And you already said you would, too. In fact, you said you’d be afraid that such a person would purposely give you dangerous medicine. If they are forced to provide the medication in question, you’ll have no way of knowing which ones are dangerous and which are not.