# Pharmacy and Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859 "2010-03-26T10:54:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/201 "2010-03-30T17:31:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) my argument. I am not saying that the pharmacy’s business is contraception based on cites and historical trends. I am arguing that it should be _declared_ the pharmacy’s business by _governmental fiat_. There is a demonstrated demand for contraception and a **proven** social good to having ways to avoid and prevent unwanted pregnancy. And I happen to feel that that government good _alone_ is sufficient justification for the government to step in and ensure that contraception is available to those who want it. And since they already regulate licensed pharmacists up the yin-yang, it’s natural and intuitive to extend that regulation a little further to assure that religious bigots don’t use their position of government-authorized power to inflict their personal religious morals on those around them. > > So. You pretend that we have to tolerate the tyrannical religious bigotry or lose our heart pills, which is red-herring bullshit. On the other hand, it is an indisputable fact that the government _can_ use the law to prevent this sort of religious tinpot dictatorship (since they’ve done it in places), and I argue that they should do it in _more_ places, in the interest of the greater social good for everyone who doesn’t laud people being able to force their religious morality on others. Not exactly the same sort of argument, is it? I fully understand that it is your desire that government force people who open pharmacies to sell contraception. I simply disagree with your position. I would hope you won’t want to force the pharmacy to stay open or force somone to poen it because of “common good”. Also, “common good” does not mean “convnience”. It is not a red-herring nor bullshit. It is common knowledge that business owners decide if they want to do business. It is you who prefers closing it. It is disingenious to use phrases like “religious bigots” or “inflict personal morals” or “tryrannical religious bigotry” to the discussion, it doesn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/202 "2010-03-30T17:38:10Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I fully understand that it is your desire that government force people who open pharmacies to sell contraception. I simply disagree with your position. I would hope you won’t want to force the pharmacy to stay open or force somone to poen it because of “common good”. Also, “common good” does not mean “convnience”. Well, you simply disagreed _and_ invalidly categorized it as a red herring, if one wants to be precise. And I’ve already said I don’t want to force anybody to stay open - and I dont think I _need_ to, because it is indeed a bullshit red herring that the conservative communities will eschew all access to medical supplies out of a _protest_ against the mere existence of contraceptives on the shelves. That’s pure fantasy. Simply not going to happen. Period. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It is disingenious to use phrases like “religious bigots” or “inflict personal morals” or “tryrannical religious bigotry” to the discussion, it doesn’t help. Nonsense - the **entire basis** of this this thread is that people in control of pharmacies are denying other people the ability to buy contraceptives for purely religious reasons. That is a textbook example of inflicting personal religious morals on others, of predjudicial behavior against people with differing religious morality, and the tyrannical abuse of a position of authority. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/203 "2010-03-30T17:38:31Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > But you’re arguing that a restaurant has to serve all kinds of food. It’s a bad analogy. > > So you would have no objection if the pharmacy had a sign on the door that said: > > ATTENTION CUSTOMERS: Please be aware that this pharmacy is unable to fulfill prescriptions for contraceptive pharmaceuticals, including “the Pill” and “morning-after” type drugs. We regret any inconvenience this may cause. It needs to go beyond that, particularly in areas where there is no alternative for filling prescriptions. It could take the form of the pharmacy guaranteeing fast delivery of needed items from a pharmacy in another locality (and paying for the express delivery). This is less workable for emergency contraception. You want state licensure to run a highly regulated business, you accept the regulations that require that you serve everyone. Trivializing health care by equating it to buying liquor or DVDs does one’s argument no good. > [@Bricker](#): > > There are states, dominated by the left, where people do accept the viewpoint that pharmacology, or I imagine any occupation, exists to serve the public good, and therefore may be dictated to about what they sell, or don’t sell. “Damn that business of the public good! I wanna sell narcotic painkillers to whoever I want and not have to document that prescriptions are legitimate and keep appropriate records. Why should I have to certify that pharmacists and techs are properly trained? That’s an infringement on my personal freedoms! If I don’t like your looks, you’re not getting any drugs. It’s _my_ business and I should be able to do what _I_ want!” Sure, that attitude will fly in some state that values Personal Freedom and Responsibility. :dubious: Let’s not pretend that there’s some overriding right to run or work in a pharmacy that trumps all efforts at state/federal regulation. What this particular brouhaha boils down to is whether a particular type of regulation is justified. Many of us are all for an individual right to get a legally written prescription filled and to have that codified into law, whether or not it miffs Mr. Christian Pharmacist (or for that matter any business owner who thinks he has a god-given right to engage in any sort of harmful practices). Of course this upsets certain right-wingers who just _hate_ the idea of any newly guaranteed right, unless of course it’s in the service of people selling something\*. \*for instance, the concept of [“health freedom”](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/quackery_promotion_zones.php) (meaning the right of quackery promoters to sell garbage without annoying regulations, as championed by people like Orrin Hatch). ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/204 "2010-03-30T17:42:27Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It is disingenious to use phrases like “religious bigots” or “inflict personal morals” or “tryrannical religious bigotry” to the discussion, it doesn’t help. No those terms are correctly used. You say that you want people because of religious beliefs, based on ancient superstitions to be able to decide what medical services or products I can buy or use. That sounds like religious tyranny to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/205 "2010-03-30T17:45:51Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Slight tangent - something I touched on earlier that probably got lost in the scramble… > > Am I correct in assuming then you oppose the laws you earlier referred to as “victories” that grant individual employees exemptions being required by their employers to sell such products? (Unless I am misreading and misremembering those laws). Yes, to the extent a law like that protects a pharmacist from being fired by his employer, I object to it. But those same laws also protect an owner from being forced by a licensing board to sell contraceptives, and I approve of that feature. > [@](#): > > Where do you stand on their constitutionality? I agree with your comment above that laws requiring pharmacies to sell contraceptives are constitutional; I would think you would argue that laws exempting an individual from discipline from an employer for this are constitutional but unwise. Correct. They don’t offend the constitution; they are simply unwise. > [@](#): > > I’m troubled by their constitutionality. I think they would be found constitutional under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, but seem to be to be unconstitutional preferences given to religious belief (as opposed to, for example, political or economic belief that contraception is wrong). Not at all. They balance a well-defined rule about employer accommodation of religious needs against an ill-defined, vague sense that there is a government interest in ensuring that contraception is widely and easily available. They’re clearly constitutional. Just dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/206 "2010-03-30T17:49:48Z")
(deleted) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/207 "2010-03-30T17:49:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, to the extent a law like that protects a pharmacist from being fired by his employer, I object to it. > > But those same laws also protect an owner from being forced by a licensing board to sell contraceptives, and I approve of that feature. Do you approve of the licencing board being able to place _any_ requirements on owners? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/208 "2010-03-30T17:50:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Nonsense - the **entire basis** of this this thread is that people in control of pharmacies are denying other people the ability to buy contraceptives for purely religious reasons. > [@Cumberdale](#): > > You say that you want people because of religious beliefs, based on ancient superstitions to be able to decide what medical services or products I can buy or use. That sounds like religious tyranny to me. You’re both completely wrong. I (in the hypothetical role of a pharmacist) don’t give a shit what you buy, and I’m not stopping you from buying anything. You can use all the contraceptives you want. I’m not going to sell them to you, but I’m not trying to stop you from getting them. Your freedoms are not being abridged in any way. Again, if I were a doctor and set up an oncology clinic, would you require me to treat sprained ankles? Or give flu shots? If I don’t, am I denying you the ability to get one or deciding what treatment you can or cannot get? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/209 "2010-03-30T17:54:54Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > You’re both completely wrong. I (in the hypothetical role of a pharmacist) don’t give a shit what you buy, and I’m not stopping you from buying anything. You can use all the contraceptives you want. I’m not going to sell them to you, but I’m not trying to stop you from getting them. Your freedoms are not being abridged in any way. > > Again, if I were a doctor and set up an oncology clinic, would you require me to treat sprained ankles? Or give flu shots? If I don’t, am I denying you the ability to get one or deciding what treatment you can or cannot get? Don’t move the goalposts. It is expressly and specifically a part of this discussion that the _reason_ the pharmaceuticals are not being sold is religious. I don’t know who you hope to impress by pretending otherwise, but it’s not working on _me_. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/210 "2010-03-30T17:54:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. They balance a well-defined rule about employer accommodation of religious needs against an ill-defined, vague sense that there is a government interest in ensuring that contraception is widely and easily available. They’re clearly constitutional. > > Just dumb. Why then isn’t this a reasonable accomodation? For example, if there are multiple pharmacists at a location, and a person arrives with a script for birth control, would/should reasonable accomodation law protect them from termination (presuming they had already discussed it with their employer) if they refused to fill it, and told the person they had to wait for the other pharmacist? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/211 "2010-03-30T17:58:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What huge bar has been overcome with regard to criminalizing and prosecuting prostitution, drug use, or atypical sexual practices? You’ve posted in support of all three here in the past. I doubt you will find any posts of mine that evince strong support, as a matter of wise public policy, for any of these. Certainly you will find strong support for the proposition that a state may, constitutionally, criminalize any of these, and strong condemnation for the proposition that it may not. Likewise, here, I certainly concede a state MAY, constitutionally, impose such restrictions on pharmacists. I just don’t think it should. As to the three specifics… I think there are no strong reasons for a state to criminalize atypical sexual practices, and don’t think they should. If I said something to the contrary in the past, I’d be very interested in reading it now. I think there are reasons for a state to criminalize prostitution, as a public health risk, but if those factors are removed (al la Nevada’s approach) I have no strong objections to it. And the term “drug use” is too wide to respond to. I have a general sense that the high bar for criminalizing certain drugs exists, but I am more than willing to be convinced of my error there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/212 "2010-03-30T18:01:08Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Why then isn’t this a reasonable accomodation? For example, if there are multiple pharmacists at a location, and a person arrives with a script for birth control, would/should reasonable accomodation law protect them from termination (presuming they had already discussed it with their employer) if they refused to fill it, and told the person they had to wait for the other pharmacist? Because the employer may not wish to deploy a business model that requires their paying customer to wait for some unspecified time while another pharmacist is summoned. It’s perfectly reasonable for the employer to say, “Our business model is that if we have it, the customer gets it – now.” And to fire those staff members incapable of providing that service. Asking them to adopt a “Wait while I see who else can come in,” is not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/213 "2010-03-30T18:04:31Z")
Don’t get me wrong - I agree with you. I just expected you to have a rather broader view of what constituted a reasonable accomodation of religious belief than I did. I’m pleasantly surprised on this issue I was wrong. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/214 "2010-03-30T18:13:32Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Don’t move the goalposts. It is expressly and specifically a part of this discussion that the _reason_ the pharmaceuticals are not being sold is religious. > > I don’t know who you hope to impress by pretending otherwise, but it’s not working on _me_. Why does the reason matter? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/215 "2010-03-30T18:32:47Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Why does the reason matter? Here’s two responses for you. Pick one. 1. _You’re_ the guy who rolled in claiming I was mischaracterizing these people. The reason matters because taking into account their actual reasons, I’m _not_ mischaracterizing them. 2. When it comes down to figuring out if the social need justifies using the government to overrule these people’s personal concerns, then it matters quite a bit what the personal concerns in question _are_. Nobody thinks that pharmacists should be put in physical peril to ensure that contraceptives will be sold. Nobody even thinks that hindu pharmacists should be forced to eat beef to insure that contraceptives will be sold. But we’re just talking about selling the things. It’s not like we’re asking the pharmacists to use them themselves! Okay, so there is a possibility that a pharmacist might feel some real distress from ‘aiding and abetting’ in the immoral behavior of another person. Maybe. I freely admit that it’s _possible_ at least. But it’s not like I’m preventing them from quitting to avoid being put in this situation. (I _am_ maintaining that _somebody_ will step in to fill the void - but that’s a different situation.) And seriously - when they got into pharmaceuticals, it shouldn’t be a _surprise_ that contraceptions might be prescribed to people. It’s an occupational risk. And if they _were_ suprised, well, make it a licensing requirement and in a year or two everyone will catch on to the new reality. No biggie. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/216 "2010-03-30T18:39:02Z")
I think we’re moving towards a general acceptance, if not consensus, that the pharmacy should be allowed to dispense whatever it likes, and that a pharmacist should be fired for failing to dispense pursuant to the pharmacy’s guidelines. Fair assessment? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/217 "2010-03-30T18:41:58Z")
Not a fair assessment - I will continue to argue that it is good public policy that a requirement of licensing for pharmacies be a willingness to supply prescription drugs. Because I am a fair minded individual, I’d be willing to consider grandfathering exemptions for people who have already become licensed. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/218 "2010-03-30T18:44:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think we’re moving towards a general acceptance, if not consensus, that the pharmacy should be allowed to dispense whatever it likes, and that a pharmacist should be fired for failing to dispense pursuant to the pharmacy’s guidelines. > > Fair assessment? I don’t accept. Does that matter? Plus, “whatever it likes” is _awfully_ broad. I have this bottle of chalk dust; can I press it into pills and sell it as viagra? (I think we do have agreement that a pharmacist that defies his boss is begging for a pink slip.) ETA: I too would (grudgingly) consent to grandfathering in existing licenced physicians, at least regarding the ‘I own the pharmacy and don’t wanna sell it’ angle. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/219 "2010-03-30T18:49:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think we’re moving towards a general acceptance, if not consensus, that the pharmacy should be allowed to dispense whatever it likes, and that a pharmacist should be fired for failing to dispense pursuant to the pharmacy’s guidelines. > > Fair assessment? I certainly will sign on to this statement. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/220 "2010-03-30T18:57:31Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > No, we’re not talking about that at all, we’re talking about you infringing on others’ religion by mandating that their business provide certain products that they don’t want to provide, when such products are easily available elsewhere. Which is no different than running a store that won’t sell to blacks or Irish. Hey, they can go shop somewhere else! And what about places where those products aren’t “easily available elsewhere”? Well, I guess it doesn’t matter; it’s only women, not real people we are talking about after all. So what do you care? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=12)