Not if they’re doing it BECAUSE he is black. If they offer that service to everyone but the black guy then its not OK.
If a vegan restaurant doesn’t serve meat and a black guy walks in and says I want a steak and they say we object to meat on principle so we will not serve you meat. Can the black guy cry racism?
Perhaps I didn’t understand your point. Let me just say that if your religious beliefs interfere with your job, you can be fired.
If you are a government employee, you may not “establish a religion”
Can states mandate curricula for private schools? If so then she must teach it or lose her ability to teach. If that state required the dispensation of birth control pills then the pharmacist would have to dispense them. You’re saying that the pharmacist has to dispense them even if there isn’t a law saying they must.
And the state can pass a law requiring them to do what you want them to do. But absent that, what makes you think we can make the pharmacist sell soemthing they don’t want to sell?
So do pharmacists and if you make dispensing birth control pills part of that law, then they will have to do so.
I don’t think they can be discriminatory in who they choose to dispense to. But I think they don’t have to stock a drug no matter how much you want to buy it.
I thought I said that the law that allowed the pharmacist to refuse to sell bleeding pills because he suspected it might be helping someon that had an abortion seemed too broad.
I defend a pharmacist’s right to refuse to sell a drug. They can be fired by their boss if they don’t own their own pharmacy. If they own their own pharmacy, they can refuse to stock the drug.
Your analogies between this debate and racism and segregation doesn’t seem apt.
I don’t really care how much of a burden it is. You can’t force pharmacists to sell something without passing a law unless the abortion penumbra right has its own penumbra that give your the right to force pharmacist to sell you birth control pills. If you can do that then congrats you have taken the first step towards forcing doctors to perform abortions, which is a step closer to forcing all sorts of things (like forcing women to carry pregnancies to term).
Not really. I think some states have a formulary that requires you to carry some basics to call yourself a pharmacy.
[quote]
I believe the CC laws explicitly make it impossible for the store to fire the pharmacist for that though…
If that’s your point then I agree that employers should be able to fire their employees who do not dispense what is probably the most common prescription in the country.
I used to think I was a conservative but according to “real” conservatives, I’m a socialist. I think a pharmacy owner should be able to fire a pharmacist that won’t dispense a drug for religious reasons.
I think you could pass a law that prohibited this but I think that would be a bad law.
No mistake on your part doreen, that is exactly what FinnAgain and Whack-a-Mole are trying to say.
Except it’s more like this.
Poster F and W say “It’s discrimination against all women”
Others say “No it is not. See this cite, see this distinction, see this result.”
Poster F and W. “No, is too.”
Others say “No it is not. See this additional cite, see this additional distinction, see this additional result.”
Poster F and W. “No, is too.”
Others say “No it is not. See yet another cite, see yet another distinction, see yet another result.”
Poster F and W. “No, is too.”
I gained a lot of respect for day care workers who have rooms full of 2 year olds by participating in this thread.
Did you attend the same school Whack-a-Mole did, where the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was inexplicably omitted from textbooks??
True enough.
But you can look at every single one of my posts that’s dealt with abortion, and in every thread you’ll find me saying something like, “In my opinion, abortion is a moral wrong. But I recognize that it’s the law of the land, and people who seek abortions are acting in good faith. I don’t think Roe v. Wade was decided correctly, and I’d like to see it overturned. But until it is, it’s the law, and people who rely on it are doing so in good faith.”
You know why I always say stuff like that?
Because I’m not you, and I don’t confuse my opinions with Unalterable Fact. You’re free to argue that we should change the law; you’re not free to claim that your side is the absolute truth, and the opposition has nothing going for it except bad faith and animus against women.
I’m in absolute agreement that laws can be wrong, but I further recognize that this is my opinion only, and I have no grounds to assert otherwise. In this country, we rely on legislatures to make the law. My biggest beef with Roe is that it arose not from legislators, but from jurists. But even that is ultimately, if a bit circuitously, the expression of the people’s will, since federal judges may be impeached by Congress, and Congress is elected by the people.
I think it’s unwise in the extreme to vest such direct legislative power in unelected judges with lifetime appointments, but I recognize others disagree, and reasonable people can reach opposite conclusions.
You see what’s present in my statements and missing in yours? Acknowledgement that when the other side has the law on their side, you can disagree but you can’t dismiss them as utterly without foundation.
F and W: “This is a bad law”
B and M: “But it’s the law.”
F and W: “We are saying it is a bad law and here is why.”
B and M: “But it’s the law.”
F and W: “It is a bad law because it is akin to these other laws that were clearly bad laws.”
B and M: “But people got rid of those bad laws and this is the law so pffft.”
F and W: “What rationale makes this a good law?”
B and M: {fingers in their ears} “I can’t hear you…LA LA LA LA…it’s the law…LA LA LA LA.”
Two year olds indeed. :rolleyes:
I did?
I don’t remember limiting my opinion to “very rare circumstances.” In my personal view, the pharmacy owner should be able to fire the pharmicist for curling his upper lip in slight disdain as he fills a prescription.
Where did I advert to these “very rare circumstances?”
Where have I said the current law does not exist or people should operate as if there is no such law?
Why is it different when I debate my side suggesting this is a bad law but you are different when you argue a law is a bad law?
I have answered this question many times. I’ll do so again:
Our basic principles of freedom make this a good law. Our notion of freedom includes not compelling persons to do work they don’t wish to do, and is outweighed only by strongly compelling circumstances.
I’ve said that before, and you surely know it.
Our disagreement is not that I refuse to give a rationale. It’s that you and I don’t agree on the weights to assign to the various factors in play. We agree that when the issue involved is racial discrimination, our notions of freedom to work as one pleases give way to a greater societal command to forbid racial discrimination.
But we don’t assign the same value to the issue of purchasing pharmacy-delivered medicines. You believe that because this issue impacts women, we should consider it gender discrimination, and we should treat it similarly, or even treat it similarly to racial discrimination, and find that society has a similar interest in forbidding it.
I don’t.
One side has based their opinion on emotion, the other side, on facts and/or the will of the people.
Asked and answered by me above, but this thread seems to benefit by repetition, so I’ll give it another discussion.
In my opinion, the law goes too far when it protects the pharmacist from losing his job for not following his employer’s directions. This is why I praised California’s scheme: they protect the refusal only when the employer agrees.
The government shouldn’t force a person to act against his beliefs… but neither should it force an employer to continue to pay an employee that won’t do his job, because there’s no bar against the private employer telling the provate employee, “Do this or leave.” The government shouldn’t say that, but the employer can.
Where have I denied the reality of the existing law?
Since when is “the will of the people” the final arbiter of what is right or just? I think we have pretty clearly shown that “the will of the people” can be pretty fucked-up.
Because you don’t “suggest.” You declare, as unalterable fact, that your position is correct.
You make no room for the necessary concession that the opposing position is acting from a reasonable position.
If your posts said, “In my opinion, this is unwise, and here’s why…” we’d have little problem here, and no ire. But your position is framed as the One Truth, which is a silly conceit when the law directly opposes you.
But that’s an uphill climb.
Look back over this thread. Have I, even once, said that the people of New Jersey are fucked up? No. I recognize their actions in adopting what they think is a reasonable position, and that they are acting in good faith.
I disagree with the wisdom of their choice, but I recognize that’s my opinion, not The One Truth. In your first post, you said, “A pharmacist should dispense legally prescribed drugs. Period.” The One Truth, delievered by you.
No one is saying that the will of the people doesn’t change. It most certainly is fluid, and period sensitive, but it remains the will of the people. The alternative is something like the government stepping in and dictating that all pharmacist will dispense all medications for whatever reason, whether or not participating in said act is against their moral conscious.
Since all morals are subjective, it seems unnecessary to add an “in my opinion,” before each and every morality-themed statement.
[sub]In my opinion.[/sub]