# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/501 "2010-04-02T14:41:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow. > > This may be the most succinct explanation of what it feels like to be a liberal. Or maybe (hopefully) it’s just you. I’m a liberal and I think that if that means sometimes defnding the opinions and rights of people I don’t agree with, then so be it. Begbert’s view is not liberal, if he were liberal, he wouldn’t be so flip about dismissing people’s first amendment rights. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/502 "2010-04-02T14:46:49Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Obviously this isn’t the end of the argument - the question still exists of what responsibilities you undertake through licensing. But it should be an end to the whole “this is inaction, it cannot be regulated” crapola. Nobody said inaction can’t be regulated, it clearly can be. It was someone on YOUR side of the argument that said something about swinging arms and punching noses. Geez talk about spin. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/503 "2010-04-02T14:53:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am pretty sure the law distinguishes between action and inaction. Don’t you see a difference between throwing a baby into a lake and watching that baby crawl off a pier into the lake? Nah, both are fun. :dubious: You need to bronze some of these arguments for posterity. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/504 "2010-04-02T14:54:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Translation: women should shut up, submit and be good little brood mares. “Lifestyle purposes”. :rolleyes: You do realise those phrases have not been said or even implied in this debate, don’t you? Yet, you keep saying them. Are you trying to get a response? Or maybe, and that’s your plan, you want to catch us unpreprared, break character and shout _“yeah, keep the bitches pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, that’s our plan, they are all cunts that need to be restrained!!!”_ If it is, it is very sad. Unless that’s how you actually feel about women and it is you who’s playing the high-minded liberal…nah, it is all part of your single-proficiency small-equinesness. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Garbage. The First Amendment doesn’t extend to forcing your beliefs on others by refusing to do your job, in a government licensed job at that. Cite that they are not following government regulations? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/505 "2010-04-02T15:04:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am pretty sure the law distinguishes between action and inaction. Don’t you see a difference between throwing a baby into a lake and watching that baby crawl off a pier into the lake? One is “attempted murder”, and the other is “depraved indifference to human life”? And both are disgusting. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You do realise those phrases have not been said or even implied in this debate, don’t you? The contempt you show for the rights and needs of women certainly implies them, Mister “Pregnancy Isn’t A Real Medical Issue”. I would not be at all surprised if you refer to women that way off of a public forum like this one. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Cite that they are not following government regulations? That’s not the point and I expect you know it since its been made before. The government puts them in a position of privilege, lets them distribute products others can’t. That means they aren’t just random private citizens anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/506 "2010-04-02T15:27:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes, I’m dodging the question a bit, but the question is essentially pointless…However, since you ask, I would favor requiring a qualified physician to write a prescription for birth control if asked to do so, absent any _medical_ reason to object. > > By the same token, I fully support the right of an individual pharmacist to refuse to fill a script because of a drug-drug interaction, drug-seeking behavior or any other valid pharmacological or medical reason. The refusal for medical reasons is actually required of them, even if the doctor gets on the phone and yells at the pharmacist, I believe the pharmacist is supposed to yell back and call the doctor an idiot. > [@](#): > > No, but I agree that it may not be practicable based on existing law. OK then if you were king for a day, one of the things you might do is require all pharmacies to carry and dispense the pill unless there is a medical reason not to? The problem I see in this attitude is that one day someone like George Bush might become king for a day and if we have already thrown the first amendment under the bus because we didn’t like how it protected the religious whackos or how it premitted the KKK to march down main street, then how will it protect us when the shoe is on the other foot. > [@](#): > > The pervasiveness of the practice has to be measured against the likelihood that a pharmacist objects to dispensing. Maybe I am not readin this correctly but what does the likelihood of “a” pharmacist objecting have to do with the first amendment analysis? If a pharmacist genuinely has a religious objection then the state can’t force him unless there is a good reason and as far as I can tell the ONLY good reasons might be that the act is so pervasive that is restricts access to the pill (that and the fact that the pill is also used for therapeutic reasons). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/507 "2010-04-02T15:29:45Z")
> [@otternell](#): > > If 1 place exists where one person’s belief system could potentially interfere with another person receiving their prescribed therapeutic medication, then that’s too many places. I don’t know if hypothetical barriers to access (like driving 4 miles IF the local pharmacist doesn’t want to fill the prescription) is enoug to overcome the first amendment. I always thought of the first amendment as being more robust than that. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/508 "2010-04-02T15:30:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am pretty sure the law distinguishes between action and inaction. Don’t you see a difference between throwing a baby into a lake and watching that baby crawl off a pier into the lake? Actually, if the end results of action or inaction are the same, and you could reasonably foresee that, the law doesn’t really treat it all that differently. In your drowning baby example, you’d probably still be going to trial for your role in the baby’s death, it’s just a matter of whether you were charged with murder or depraved indifference manslaughter. Hell, in some jurisdictions I think the charge can actually be bumped up to murder in depraved indifference cases. And surely you’re not arguing that every inaction is right and just and morally acceptable. Just because you didn’t actively engage in harming the baby, that doesn’t make it okay to watch it crawl off the pier to its death. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/509 "2010-04-02T15:40:17Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > A vastly better analogy than **Damuri** ’s is this: Let’s say a woman should not have/does not want children. Her physician recommends a tubal ligation and the patient agrees. Surgery is scheduled. Just before the procedure is scheduled to start, the nurse anesthetist in the OR refuses to provide anesthesia. He disapproves of tubal ligations because “God tells us to be fruitful and multiply”. Should that be a stance protected by law? That is a very good analogy. I will pick a few nits before I address it. Refusing to participate in scheduled surgery is a bit different than refusing to carry or sell sometrhing when someone walks in the door and drops a prescription on your counter. I assume you know what kind of surgery is scheduled with sufficient advance notice to switch out, in that case I think you can get fired and be sued for the cost of rescheduling. If the nurse said they didn’t want to do it well in advance of surgery for religious reasons, do you think they could get fired or sued? > [@](#): > > And it is likely in any case that a physician who won’t prescribe contraceptive medication for personal reasons and who causes a delay in care by refusing to arrange prompt referral to a physician who will, is likely to come under scrutiny by their state medical board and/or specialty board. Cite please? I’d like to see where a doctor has to do anything of the sort when it comes to prescribing birth control pills for a non-therapeutic use. > [@](#): > > Get your limp, passive-aggressive self out of the way and stop attempting to deny patients needed health care. Please cite a few cases where someone was unable to get the pill because of a refusal to prescribe or dispense. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/510 "2010-04-02T15:54:06Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I don’t want a doctor who discriminates based on his religious belief, no matter how good he is. It’s not a matter of skill, other pharmacists will fill that gap. But I want the discrimination to stop and that’s why it’s preferable to have him be a mechanic instead, no religious objections to spark plugs. And do you think that position is supported by the first amendment? > [@](#): > > Lost in the debate and the suggestions of pharmacies banning Viagra or Rogaine is that fact that contraceptions are for women only. That is why its discriminatory. Until men can get pregnant, this fact will not change. And yes, I would also be for the firing of pharmacists who refuse to sell Viagra because it’s a product exclusively for men. Rogaine, not so much, since it’s pretty common. You have an overly broad view of what constitutes discrimination. Sure there is a doctrine of discriminatory impact but this is not that. > [@](#): > > Not to me. I don’t have a cite, but I’d wager that there are a lot more women buying contraceptives than blind people with seeing-eye dogs. What does frequency have to do with whether or not its discriminatory? The burden. > [@](#): > > Plus, the consequences of missing a few taxis are not as severe as being unable to prevent a pregnancy. Once again, please cite a few cases where women have been unable to get the pill because of some pharmacist’s refusal to dispense. > [@](#): > > Lastly, I think most people think the blind as more sympathetic victims because of their conditions, but fail to think of women forced to carry pregnancies to term as victims as well The pharmacist is forcing women to carry unwanted babies to term? > [@](#): > > So in summary: I think it’s discrimination because the product is one for a specific group, the reason for the objection is religious, and it’s not a first amendment issue and more like a dispute between labor and management. Its not discrimination just because it affects one group. discriminnion usually has an intent element to it. Disparate impact is something that has really only been applied to emplyers and state actors, I am not aware of any theory under which you could apply it to this case. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/511 "2010-04-02T16:29:34Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And do you think that position is supported by the first amendment? I do, and many agree with me. Many also don’t, which is why we’re having this discussion. I’ve laid out why I think so already. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You have an overly broad view of what constitutes discrimination. Sure there is a doctrine of discriminatory impact but this is not that. I disagree > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What does frequency have to do with whether or not its discriminatory? The burden. You’re going to have to explain to me exactly what you mean by that > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Once again, please cite a few cases where women have been unable to get the pill because of some pharmacist’s refusal to dispense. The fact that discrmination goes on and you ask me to provide examples where it was widespread is irrelevent. Those women should never have been denied in the first place. It matters little if they walked across the street the next minute and got a year’s supply of the stuff. The fact is the pharmacy, or the pharmacist, was not upfront about his religious bigotry and through this caused the woman undue burden. You wouldn’t be speaking the same way if a black guy was refused service by a white pharmacist even if he could have gotten the drugs somwhere else. It was wrong to deny care and it’s wrong to suggest that it’s ok because it wasn’t too much of a burden By the same token, I’ve already said that I’m fine with pharmacies displaying the fact that they dont’ carry certain products openly, to let the customer decide whether or not to patronize the store. I don’t consider such openness to be discrimination. I consider getting up to the counter and being refused service discrimination. The KKK can open a store, they should just be open about it > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The pharmacist is forcing women to carry unwanted babies to term? Or forcing them to get pregnant by refusing them contraceptives. Despite what the religious claim, there’s no inherent wrongness in having sex and using contraceptives. If he forces that change in the woman’s behavior, then it is he who has intruded into her life. Her use of contraceptives has no impact on his life whatsoever, and he should stay out of it > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its not discrimination just because it affects one group. discriminnion usually has an intent element to it. Disparate impact is something that has really only been applied to emplyers and state actors, I am not aware of any theory under which you could apply it to this case. The intent is to prevent woman from having sex and not getting pregnant, and the motive of that is religious bigotry. That’s a pretty clear case of discrimination right there. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/512 "2010-04-02T16:33:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You don’t think there is a difference between prescribing a drug for lifestyle purposes and prescribing a drug for therapeutic purposes? I can’t support doctors that refuse to prescribe birth control pills when they know its medically necessary but I still have trouble shoving this sort of thing down people’s throats. I said they shouldn’t be able to refuse to prescribe the pill for religious reasons. Your response is talking about something completely different and irrelevent to that point; why did you say it? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > BTW,plenty of pharmacists do things other than retail. I have four pharmacists in the family and none of them are in retail pharmacy. One is a pharmacy sales rep, one is a director at an insurance company setting up formularies (or something like that), one teaches, and the last one could get a job outside of retail so she went to med school, they are all women, they are all Christian and they all dispensed the pill at some point in their career. So your point is, that if we compell all the Jesus pharmacists\* to quit retail out of protest for selling the pill, we’re not even forcing them out their field? Great! So what’s the problem? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/513 "2010-04-02T16:40:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Nobody said inaction can’t be regulated, it clearly can be. It was someone on YOUR side of the argument that said something about swinging arms and punching noses. Geez talk about spin. So stop spinning. Putting aside how worthlessly pathetic and pedantic the ‘arguments’ against that have been, it was a frikking quip! Are you that desperate for things to hang arguments on? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m a liberal and I think that if that means sometimes defnding the opinions and rights of people I don’t agree with, then so be it. Begbert’s view is not liberal, if he were liberal, he wouldn’t be so flip about dismissing people’s first amendment rights. I’ve _yet_ to see an argument that the pharmacists aren’t _themselves_ directly violating the first amendment by using their government-liscenced position to enforce their religiously-motivated lifestyle of “don’t use contraception” on others. I would see restricting such behavior on the pharmacists’ part as _enforcing_ the first amendment, not dismissing it; in fact, why are _you_ dismissing the customers’ first amendment rights? I’m not kidding. Make an argument here. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/514 "2010-04-02T17:30:00Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Here, you’re probably right. Doesn’t stop me from arguing it _should_, though, does it? And would requiring him to sell you those pills violate his first amendment rights? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/515 "2010-04-02T17:39:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And would requiring him to sell you those pills violate his first amendment rights? I don’t see how. Seriously! The catholic church requires that their priests do caholic priestish things. Is that a violation of their first amendment right to be an atheist? No, because nobody’s forcing them to be a priest, but if they become a priest, then being religious is part of the job - or at least they have to act that way while _on_ the job. I think that acting like an atheist (or at least making decisions like an atheist - ie based on a scientifically supportable rationalist basis) could very easily be considered part of the job description of a pharmacist. They don’t have to actually _be_ an atheist, mind you - but no slipping frog spleens into the pill mixes for their chakra-aligning value, or whatever. The saving grace here on a constitutional front is that nobody’s forcing a person to be a pharmacist. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/516 "2010-04-02T18:05:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Cite please? I’d like to see where a doctor has to do anything of the sort when it comes to prescribing birth control pills for a non-therapeutic use. It was the gist of the discussion on the subject when my husband was taking medical ethics classes in med school. The thing about medical ethics is this: your first priority is supposed to be the patient’s best interests. If there is a medical reason you can argue that providing a treatment (and yes, contraception is considered a medical treatment) is not in the patient’s best interests (and this includes the fact that something just plain isn’t effective), you have no ethical obligation to provide the treatment or a referral to someone who will. If there is no evidence the treatment is not in the patient’s best interests, but it’s not something you’re trained to do or is outside your scope of practice, it’s a bit of a gray area, but most people agree you have an obligation to provide a referral. But if something is within your scope of practice and you’re qualified to do it, and there is no _evidence-based_ reason not to provide the service, the onus is on you to either provide the treatment or supply a prompt referral to someone who will. Your patient’s well-being is supposed to trump your personal beliefs. One of the analogies I’ve heard used when doctors discuss this issue is that of a patient wanting counseling to “cure” homosexuality. There are reasons you can refuse to provide this service and fall within ethical guidelines–because you are not qualified to provide such counseling because of your scope of practice or lack of training in this treatment, or because the literature shows that such treatment is ineffective. You can refuse to write a referral and stay on the right side of ethical guidelines, because the evidence shows such treatment is ineffective and thus isn’t in the patient’s best interest. But it’s generally considered ethically questionable to say to someone, “No, I don’t like the idea of such counseling, so I’m not going to write the referral.” And it’s ethically right out to say, “I’m trained to do ex-gay counseling, and it’s effective, but I don’t like it so I’m not going to help you and I’m not going to refer you to anyone else who will.” (This is, incidentally, part of the reason learning to perform an abortion isn’t a standard part of your ob/gyn rotations in an American medical school. Actually, it’s not a mandatory part of doing an ob/gyn residency, either, AFAIK. It’s just easier, ethically speaking, to withhold an effective treatment because it’s outside your scope of practice/training.) Prescribing birth control pills is something that every single person who has managed to drag themselves through a medical school is trained and qualified to do. It is an effective treatment for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and for various minor to major gynecological unpleasantries, which is in the patient’s best interest. So, barring any medical contraindications like blood pressure or clotting problems or drug interactions…yes, the general agreement among doctors is that you have an ethical obligation to either write for the pill or provide a referral for same. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/517 "2010-04-02T18:09:45Z")
> [@otternell](#): > > As a bonus, in this article the issue that all these pharmacists (and some GP’s and Gyno’s) have is that birth control pills cause the fertilized egg to not implant in the wall, thus causing a “silent abortion”. I believe I recall a poster saying that this was not their reason for refusing to fill the prescriptions. Turns out - yes it is their reason. I don’t think it matters how stupid or idiotic someone’s religious convictions seem to you, if they are genuinely held religious beliefs, I am still trying to figure out how you overcome the first amendment absent a compelling state interest where there is no actual harm (or at least noone has been able to provide a cite to a case where a woman has not been able to reasonably access the pill because of this). I also find this “life begins when the sperm penetrates the eggs” notion really wierd (I mean it is a single cell isn’t it? Sure it has human genetic material but so does my spit. Sure it can potentially become a human being but if science ever advances where they can clone a human being from any cell in my body has every cell in my body become a human being?), but if its a deeply held belief and there is no actual barrier to the pill, don’t we have to experience at least some level of inaccessibility before we push aside the first amendment? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/518 "2010-04-02T18:19:05Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The contempt you show for the rights and needs of women certainly implies them, Mister “Pregnancy Isn’t A Real Medical Issue”. I would not be at all surprised if you refer to women that way off of a public forum like this one. > > That’s not the point and I expect you know it since its been made before. The government puts them in a position of privilege, lets them distribute products others can’t. That means they aren’t just random private citizens anymore. Cite that I said “Pregnancy isn’t a Real medical issue”? (Hint: I didn’t) Of course they are not random and they have a position of privilege. You should also know that I said that I expect the pharmacist to follow the law, that is, if the law says “fill every fucking prescrition and screw your idiotic beliefs”, I say he has to follow the law. I also said that the attendant serves at the pleasure of the owner and the law and for the convenience of the customers. If he’s uncomfortable with being ordered to sell any product, he should get another job. However, if the law allows the owner to stock whatever he wants, he should be allowed to follow it. The owner can run his shop at his pleasure within the law. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/519 "2010-04-02T18:21:55Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Wait, what? > > You don’t think pregnancy is a real medical issue? You are not treating pregnancy when you are prescribed the pill. It is a contraceptive. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/520 "2010-04-02T18:21:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think it matters how stupid or idiotic someone’s religious convictions seem to you, if they are genuinely held religious beliefs, I am still trying to figure out how you overcome the first amendment absent a compelling state interest where there is no actual harm (or at least noone has been able to provide a cite to a case where a woman has not been able to reasonably access the pill because of this). > > I also find this “life begins when the sperm penetrates the eggs” notion really wierd (I mean it is a single cell isn’t it? Sure it has human genetic material but so does my spit. Sure it can potentially become a human being but if science ever advances where they can clone a human being from any cell in my body has every cell in my body become a human being?), but if its a deeply held belief and there is no actual barrier to the pill, don’t we have to experience at least some level of inaccessibility before we push aside the first amendment? You said this to me before on this subject: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No that’s not even close. You don’t truncate first amendment rights unless base don some hypothetical harm that might occur if the whole world just went nuts and you just couldn’t get the pill because every pharmacist in your area is a religious whacko. Before you truncate first amendment rights you should really have a reason other than “I really don’t even want one pharmacist to make any professional decisions based on religious conviction because I think religious whackos don’t deserve rights” , but I still don’t understand - I still don’t understand what your position is. It seems to be that you accept that there is _some_ level of interference pharmacists could present that would justify tabling first amendment rights\* - perhaps if 100% of pharmacists worldwide stood up and said that nobody could have contraceptives, and by the way you have to be baptised before they’ll sell you asprin, or something like that. Thing is, though, if in that circumstance it would be justified, then you’re saying that the first amendment is _fundamentally_ trumped\* by the need to have pharmaceutical services available. In other words we’ve already established what you are, and now we’re only haggling about the price, so to speak. The thing is, though, wether a law is morally/legally/ethically justifiable has nothing to do with how many people’s behavior would be changed by it; wrong is wrong, right is right, and constitutionally permissible is constitutionally permissible. Sure, we often don’t _bother_ to write a law if everyone’s already complying with what it says, but that doesn’t mean we _can’t_. So, showing that this is a problem in the real world would be helpful in getting the law passed by an actual governing body…but is pretty much completely irrelevent in an abstract discussion on a message board. That’s the way I see it, anyway. At what point does your thinking diverge with mine on this specific line of argument? - putting aside for a moment that no such thing is occuring [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=27)