In other words, you are going to dodge answering villa’s question because it shows how morally bankrupt your position is.
People oppose abortion because they hate women? I wasn’t aware of that.
When a product is regulated to this extent–IIRC all the drugs we are talking about are either by prescription or behind-the-counter only, shouldn’t that abrogate the pharmacist’s discretion as to personal moral disapproval? It seems to me it should, because state and/or federal law has determined under what circumstances these drugs should be sold. OTOH I can understand why, for security reasons, some pharmacists might not be comfortable stocking large quantities of narcotics and other controlled substances. For example, in my area most of the CVS stores don’t stock a great deal of them, and if you need a prescription filled quickly you need to go to a particular location that has an especially large dispensing department. But that’s a different matter than not selling something because you disapprove of it.
Just like you weren’t aware of religious sexism and weren’t aware of religious racism.
Yeah, but nomention of enabling the murdering of abortion doctors, AKA what I was respondig to.
I’m sorry if I’m not clear.
The specific point Iwas trying to make is that if you say there is " a conspiracy to murder doctors" and there is no proof, the conspiracy does not exist. A massive thirty-year old muder conspiracy vanishes if there aren’t enough murders.
This in no way AT ALL should be understoodas condoning the murders or saying any number>0 is acceptable.
Good quotes.
RE: Army of God. If any/all of the members are criminals, arrest them and put them to prison
You’re talking about dodging?
This thread has been Red Shirted, so it’s hopeless, I rather enjoyed the first section before it devolved into a base argument.
Excuse me. A well known nationwide campaign, complete with deathlist websites, folk songs and commemorative T-shirts for prominent killers like Eric Robert Rudolph does not exist?
Yes I’m talking about it. You and others however are actually doing it. You are trying to pretend that a well known national phenomena is both unknown and implausible. What next? Are you going to try to argue that Bush II would never get us into a war with Iraq?
I told you all you need to know.
Should pharmacists have the same right to refuse to fill the prescription of a black person if:
A) The objection to interaction with black people is based on a deep seated religious belief; and
B) The objection is grounded in non-religious based racism?
The deadly power of songs and t-shirts. THe conspiracy make the Illuminati look very lame now.
Still dodging the simple question “How many?” (someone else answered it very well). It’s obvious you won’t answer it because your gigantic woman-hating hordes become a different criminal phenomenon.
Bush II would get you, not **me **into a war.
No, I didn’t answer because it’s irrelevant and I didn’t bother to look it up. You can google as well as I, presumably. You are trying to pretend that the very fringe of a multimillion person movement is all there is, so you can dismiss the whole problem.
Are you saying that the number of murders in murder conspiracy is irrelevant?
Nobody can google as well as you because your answers are always right and need no backing.
I’m not pretending anything, you are. You started with the conspiracy and now say it’s only the fringe who kills. That means that the conspiracy is not about murdering abortionists.
BTW, I will use the word “abortionist” as much as I please. You can google both the denotation and connotation.
I don’t think that there needs to be any special protection either for or against this. I think it is perfectly analogous to a customer at a local convenience store buying beer and smokes. If the clerk feels that alcohol and tobacco violate his religious convictions then that’s too bad because he has voluntarily taken a position that requires he sell these products, and he could and should be terminated.
On the other hand, if the store doesn’t stock beer or cigs, or the owner has a policy that allows his employees to refuse to sell these products, then that is his right as a business owner. As a customer, you are free to shop at stores/pharmacies that represent your feelings on the matter.
But the people of Illinois DO care. They believe that pharmacists should have the right to indulge what you consider a “primitive” belief.
So it’s perfectly fine with me to hear that you disagree, because you don’t get to make the laws of Illinois, and they do. And the laws of Illinois protect these “primitive” beliefs in action.
Hmm…were these laws a result of a statewide referendum? 
But they don’t protect the women being victimized by those evil beliefs. I won’t dignify them with a mere label of “primitive”.
Let’s say you have a condition, doesn’t matter, let’s say ulcerative colitis. You need to take your asacol regularly or you’ll be in bad shape, but every pharmacist in your state is a Christian Scientist and they all refuse to dispense your medication to you because they say you obviously haven’t prayed hard enough and, maybe, after enough prayer, they’ll help you stop your guts from bleeding. Fair?
Or you’ve just gone through surgery/had a traumatic accident, and you’re in massive pain for which your doctor give you a scrip for painkillers. But then all the pharmacists you speak to are Manly Men who believe that taking pain killers is a sign of weakness, and they refuse to give you any pills, and you just have to suffer. Fair?
Or you have panic attacks and your doctor give you a scrip for xanax, but your pharmacist won’t fill it because she thinks that you should just man up and maybe try cognitive behavior therapy, and really it would be better for you in the long run if you didn’t use a chemical aid. So you just have crippling bouts of anxiety and fear for a while. Fair?
What if it wasn’t you, but someone you loved who was suffering? You’re a parent, IIRC. What if your child had a raging ear infection that was excruciatingly painful and you went to all of the pharmacies within driving distance, and all of them told you that they could not approve dispensing antibiotics, what with the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and potential hearing loss in your child was just a small price to pay to help eliminate the spread of superbugs. Would you be happy that a pharmacist had exercised his/her right to dispense pills in accordance with their conscience, would you be happy to explain that fact to your child? Or would you be outraged?
The issue isn’t really what the law says (assuming that the court interpreted it correctly), but that if the law does say that, then it’s a bad law. A person’s medical treatment should be between them and their doctor. Pharmacists, to the degree they play a part, should help spot any potential interactions that one doctor may be unaware of due to other medications being prescribed by other physicians, or what have you. But a pharmacist should never be in the position of denying medication on the basis of whether or not they would, themselves, take it or whether they’d prescribe it if they were a physician.
Why should pharmacists/pharmacies be different than any other licensed professions/businesses? Doctors and dentists aren’t required to perform any specific procedures even within their specialties. I can only buy liquor in a liquor store, but liquor stores are not required to stock any particular brands or even types of liquor.
And about those example- how about a more realistic one? Chain pharmacies will never allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill antibiotic, painkiller or antidepressant prescriptions for the same reason that independent pharmacies won’t refuse to fill them. They won’t make money - and why would a Christian Scientist become a pharmacist anyway?
Let’s say that all the pharmacists within 100 miles refuse to stock Latisse. They refuse to stock Latisse because they have a moral objection to pharmaceutical companies developing and doctors prescribing a prescription medication which can have side effects simply to grow thicker eyelashes. Or they don’t stock Restylane because of a moral objection to providing prescription medication for wrinkle reduction. Are you still outraged?
IF you could flip that switch, would you change the laws of Illinois that concern this case? Are they right, or wrong?
The fact is that the court held that the right of specific individuals, to exercise their religious beliefs, under certain circumstances, by refusing to provide a service was reasonable and permissible under our constitution. I don’t disagree with that. It’s stated in such clear language that even a con-law lay person such as myself can understand it. (the 1st Amendment that is)
Perhaps you should post your race-card hypothetical to the court, along with your “I told you all you need to know” cite, and ask their opinion.
So you’re ok with a health care system that starts with the doctor, goes through the voters, then to the patient?
And people thought Obamacare was bad.