# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/621 "2010-04-07T12:05:58Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > It’s interesting that the only person calling these women sluts and whores are you. Project much? Did you miss the part that they don’t sell them to married women either? It doesn’t matter, the arguments are the same regardless of the pejoratives that may or may not be applied: [ul] [li]women using hormonal birth control are rejecting the authority of God to be the arbiter of when they get pregnant, and how dare they be so unfaithful and try to make good godfearing pharmacists complicit in their acts of rejection of God’s authority over their wombs? **or** [/li][li]women using hormonal birth control are committing tiny acts of abortion every month by making their wombs inhospitable to the implantation of a 50-70 cell blastocyst which these good godfearing pharmacists posit to be the moral and ethical equivalent of an already born infant and how dare they try to force the pharmacist to be a virtual abortionist?[/li][/ul] Marriage doesn’t matter to these people. The fact that HBC is prescribed for a variety of hormonal issues as well as contraceptive use doesn’t matter to these people. Any way you slice it, women are the only ones who have reported denial of pharmacists to fill their prescriptions for no reason other than the pharmacists’ personal religious beliefs. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/622 "2010-04-07T14:30:29Z")
I’ll keep saying this until someone hears: the pharmacists isn’t refusing to sell birth control to prevent the woman from using birth control. The pharmacist is refusing to sell birth control so the _pharmacist_ is not complicit in the use of birth control. That’s why, in most cases, the pharmacist is willing to refer the woman elsewhere to get it. Are there pharmacists who refuse to do referrals or return the scrip? Well we’ve heard of one in this thread, anyway, and everyone has agreed that pharmacist crossed the line. But folks need to stop making up motives for these religious pharmacists. It’s not about hating or oppressing women; it’s not about enforcing a particular sexual ethic; it’s not about making any kind of judgement on the customer. It’s this: the pharmacist believes that contraception is wrong. Therefore the pharmacist does not want to participate in the act of contraception. All the attempts to assume false ulterior motives to the pharmacists are red herrings and betray a religious intolerance. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/623 "2010-04-07T15:43:52Z")
This brings joy to my inner Nelson Muntz. > **[No Pill, No Porn, No Service](https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/no-porn-no-smokes-no-service/1864976/)** > > Apparently a pharmacy’s gotta sell more than drugs to stay afloat. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/624 "2010-04-07T15:48:01Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Are there pharmacists who refuse to do referrals or return the scrip? Well we’ve heard of one in this thread, anyway, and everyone has agreed that pharmacist crossed the line. Why should they give a referral? The handing back of the prescription is because it is the property of the whore, and even whores have property rights. But why do people such as yourself which to force pharmacists to become complicit in the sins of others by requiring them to provide information to enable the whore to carry on being a whore? That you would require a pharmacist to do this shows the ridiculous nature of this. It is against an infringement of a persons’ religious freedom to require them to hand a box of pills across a coutner, because that is requiring them to be complicit in something they find objectionable, but it is not an infringement to require them to tell that person where they can go to get the pills. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/625 "2010-04-07T15:48:31Z")
> [@villa](#): > > This brings joy to my inner Nelson Muntz. > > [No Pill, No Porn, No Service – NBC4 Washington](http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/No-Porn-No-Smokes-No-Service-90086097.html) Perfect! You see, this proves that the forces of government regulation are absolutely necessary to stop this kind of pernicious behavior. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/626 "2010-04-07T15:57:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > This brings joy to my inner Nelson Muntz. > > [No Pill, No Porn, No Service – NBC4 Washington](http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/No-Porn-No-Smokes-No-Service-90086097.html) See? And you said the market wouldn’t work. Looks like it worked perfectly. > [@villa](#): > > Why should they give a referral? The handing back of the prescription is because it is the property of the whore, and even whores have property rights. But why do people such as yourself which to force pharmacists to become complicit in the sins of others by requiring them to provide information to enable the whore to carry on being a whore? > > That you would require a pharmacist to do this shows the ridiculous nature of this. It is against an infringement of a persons’ religious freedom to require them to hand a box of pills across a coutner, because that is requiring them to be complicit in something they find objectionable, but it is not an infringement to require them to tell that person where they can go to get the pills. Because by giving the filthy whore a referral, the pharmacist has removed himself from the transaction and his conscience is clear. The use of the contraception is now between the filthy whore, the godless pharmacist across the street, and the God that will condemn them to hell for it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/627 "2010-04-07T16:18:53Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > See? And you said the market wouldn’t work. Looks like it worked perfectly. Not sure where I said that. Even if I did, there are still a few problems: 1. This is one pharmacy. Not sure on American math classes as I took them overseas, but I was not brought up to think 1 = All. 2. Letting the situation linger for a while isn’t the optimal outcome as real people are harmed in that time period. 3. I wonder how much the model failed because of not selling cigarettes and make up, rather than not providing contraception? > [@Skammer](#): > > Because by giving the filthy whore a referral, the pharmacist has removed himself from the transaction and his conscience is clear. The use of the contraception is now between the filthy whore, the godless pharmacist across the street, and the God that will condemn them to hell for it. :rolleyes: Now explain to me the relevant moral difference between handing a person a box and handing them the name and address of someone across the street who will give them the same box, preferably without resort to sophistry. Either the woman with the prescription already knows where there is a pharmacy that can fill the prescription is, or can find one without the intervention of the pharmacist, in which case there is no benefit to requiring the information, or, on the other hand, the woman cannot, in which case you are forcing the pharmacist to impart information enabling the woman to get the evil product when otherwise she would not. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/628 "2010-04-07T16:28:06Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Not sure where I said that. Even if I did, there are still a few problems: > > 1. This is one pharmacy. Not sure on American math classes as I took them overseas, but I was not brought up to think 1 = All. > > 2. Letting the situation linger for a while isn’t the optimal outcome as real people are harmed in that time period. > > 3. I wonder how much the model failed because of not selling cigarettes and make up, rather than not providing contraception? Who was harmed? People went elsewhere. > [@villa](#): > > Now explain to me the relevant moral difference between handing a person a box and handing them the name and address of someone across the street who will give them the same box, preferably without resort to sophistry. I’m taking myself out of the transaction. I’m not profiting from the sale. I’m referring you because I _don’t care if you get contraception_ as long as I’m not the one providing it to you. Is that clear? > [@villa](#): > > Either the woman with the prescription already knows where there is a pharmacy that can fill the prescription is, or can find one without the intervention of the pharmacist, in which case there is no benefit to requiring the information, or, on the other hand, the woman cannot, in which case you are forcing the pharmacist to impart information enabling the woman to get the evil product when otherwise she would not. I know I say this in every post, but I’m not trying to prevent the woman from getting contraception. I’m trying to avoid selling it to her. ---
**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 7, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/629 "2010-04-07T16:42:03Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > **YogSosoth** , if the pharmacy in question is discriminating against women, who is it discriminating in favor of? I mean, your hypothetical bus driver who wants the blacks to sit in the back of the bus is favoring the non-black riders. “Discrimination” implies that one class of people is being treated differently than another. Who is the Jesus pharmacy selling birth control to? Where’s the discrimination? I don’t think you have to show a favored class to show a disfavored class. If there was noone else on the bus because all the other white folks left town that weekend to attend the Republican National Convention, the racist busdriver would still ask the black man to sit in the back out of principle. ---
**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 7, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/630 "2010-04-07T16:45:59Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > It doesn’t matter, the arguments are the same regardless of the pejoratives that may or may not be applied:… The fact that HBC is prescribed for a variety of hormonal issues as well as contraceptive use doesn’t matter to these people. Any way you slice it, women are the only ones who have reported denial of pharmacists to fill their prescriptions for no reason other than the pharmacists’ personal religious beliefs. And if the pharmacist is breaking no laws by refusing to provide birth control pills “for no reason other than” their personal religious beliefs, can the state step in and force the pharmacist to fill those prescriptions regardless of their mere religious beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/631 "2010-04-07T16:46:19Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Who was harmed? People went elsewhere. Having to go elsewhere is a harm. You may not think of it as a major one, but it is a harm. > [@Skammer](#): > > I’m taking myself out of the transaction. I’m not profiting from the sale. I’m referring you because I _don’t care if you get contraception_ as long as I’m not the one providing it to you. Is that clear? > > I know I say this in every post, but I’m not trying to prevent the woman from getting contraception. I’m trying to avoid selling it to her. I understand what you are saying, but it isn’t clear to the extent that it is a moral sham. It is the same as finding a relevant moral difference between picking up and keeping $20 that you see a person drop, or telling the person next to you that this person dropped $20, and suggesting that they keep it. It’s a moral code based on arbitrary differences. The law draws a distinction between action and inaction (not a relevant one here because of the licensing aspect, though); to add it into your moral code is taking such an easy way out. Claiming you don’t want to sell the contraceptives as being different to not wanting the person to have them is also a shell game. There is nothing about the action of selling the contraceptives that is immoral outside of the nature of the contraceptives themselves. ---
**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 7, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/632 "2010-04-07T16:54:21Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Why should they give a referral? The handing back of the prescription is because it is the property of the whore, and even whores have property rights. But why do people such as yourself which to force pharmacists to become complicit in the sins of others by requiring them to provide information to enable the whore to carry on being a whore? > > That you would require a pharmacist to do this shows the ridiculous nature of this. It is against an infringement of a persons’ religious freedom to require them to hand a box of pills across a coutner, because that is requiring them to be complicit in something they find objectionable, but it is not an infringement to require them to tell that person where they can go to get the pills. If we tore down religious freedom because the religions were internally inconsistent or ridiculous, there wouldn’t be very many religions left to protect. If the pharmacist’s religious belief don’t allow them to fill a prescription but allows them to return the scrip or even provide a referral (or even let the other pharmacist in the pharmacy fill the scrip), then that is their religious belief. Are we now attaching a “your religion has to make sense to me” requirement before the first amendment can be invoked? There are certainly limits to religious freedom but requiring logic from the religion has not hisotircally been one of them. ---
**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 7, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/633 "2010-04-07T16:57:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perfect! You see, this proves that the forces of government regulation are absolutely necessary to stop this kind of pernicious behavior. I think you would have a better working business model if you ONLY sold contraceptives, condoms, porn, and beauty care products. I bet if you made it convenient enough (1 minute to fill your birth control prescription because thats ALL we fill), threw in a drive, some beer and a gas pump outside, you could franchise it and make millions. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/634 "2010-04-07T16:59:09Z")
Not what I am saying. What I am saying is why does a person who thinks a pharmacist doesn’t have to fill a prescription, also thinks the pharmacist should have to give a referral. The positions are inconsistent. I can understand someone saying that the pharmacist shouldn’t have to fill it, and shouldn’t have to give the referral. But if the person is calling for a legal action (protection for non-filling, requirement to provide a referral) it is incumbent on them to explain the contradiction. Saying “that’s my religious belief” isn’t enough. Why isn’t requiring a referral an impingement on that person’s First Amendment rights? Because, what you seem completely unaware of is that while religious belief is absolutely protected, there is no absolute protection for religious action. ---
**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 7, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/635 "2010-04-07T17:02:35Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Not sure where I said that. Even if I did, there are still a few problems: > > 1. This is one pharmacy. Not sure on American math classes as I took them overseas, but I was not brought up to think 1 = All. 1=all. 0.5= half .25= a quarter You must have learned math in one of those countries that use the metric system. ---
**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 7, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/636 "2010-04-07T17:08:09Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Having to go elsewhere is a harm. You may not think of it as a major one, but it is a harm. And you believe that this is enough of a harm to force the pharmacist to carry and dispense birth control pills? If I walk into a Jewish Deli, should I be able to get a ham and lobster sandwich? Or if I go into a Jewish butcher should i be able to get pork chops and chitterlings? I guess I could go to the subway across the street but going across the street is a harm isn’t it? Damn deli owners are discriminating against non-Jews. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/637 "2010-04-07T17:14:41Z")
Yes, there is sufficient harm (not least because the harm isn’t limited to this). And yes, the government should require that, if pork products were comparable to prescription medication, and if the restrictions on sale of pork products were comparable to the restrictions on sale of prescription medication. Which they aren’t, however many times you trot out ridiculous examples. ---
**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 7, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/638 "2010-04-07T17:15:04Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Not what I am saying. What I am saying is why does a person who thinks a pharmacist doesn’t have to fill a prescription, also thinks the pharmacist should have to give a referral. Maybe because there is at least a chance that the prescription is for therapeutic purposes (I am really surprised you don’t just hang your hat on the therapeutic purpose issue cuz I think it would probably be more difficult to respond to, or do you enjoy the challenge of defending your current position more?). > [@](#): > > Why isn’t requiring a referral an impingement on that person’s First Amendment rights? It very well may be considering that all you have to do is open the yellow pages to get the address of another pharmacy. > [@](#): > > Because, what you seem completely unaware of is that while religious belief is absolutely protected, there is no absolute protection for religious action. ORLY? You think anyone here has said that there is an ABSOLUTE PROTECTION for religious action? I think this is the third or fourth time someone has implied that my position is that freedom of religion is inviolate. Of course its not otherwise half the college freshmen in this country would become rastafarians. ---
**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 7, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/639 "2010-04-07T17:18:10Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Yes, there is sufficient harm (not least because the harm isn’t limited to this). > > And yes, the government should require that, if pork products were comparable to prescription medication, and if the restrictions on sale of pork products were comparable to the restrictions on sale of prescription medication. Which they aren’t, however many times you trot out ridiculous examples. In my area, you need a butcher’s license to sell meat. Its a health thing. Even the supermarket butchers have to display their butcher’s license. So if I want to buy meat, I have to buy it from a butcher. If the butcher closest to me doesn’t sell pork I have to go to the place down the street. If we are still just focusing on the contraceptive element of the pill, then I don’t see a huge difference between the pill and any other regulated product. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/640 "2010-04-07T17:23:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Maybe because there is at least a chance that the prescription is for therapeutic purposes (I am really surprised you don’t just hang your hat on the therapeutic purpose issue cuz I think it would probably be more difficult to respond to, or do you enjoy the challenge of defending your current position more?). I don’t need to hang my hat on the therapeutic purpose of the pill. The licensing aspect is good enough. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It very well may be considering that all you have to do is open the yellow pages to get the address of another pharmacy. Hence my question. The one you thought of as irrelevant because of your lack of understanding of first amendment law. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > ORLY? You think anyone here has said that there is an ABSOLUTE PROTECTION for religious action? I think this is the third or fourth time someone has implied that my position is that freedom of religion is inviolate. Of course its not otherwise half the college freshmen in this country would become rastafarians. You seem to think it is. You certainly don’t seem aware of the case law - I’ll tell you again, read _Employment Division v. Smith_. It will show you why a law requiring filling prescriptions for contraceptives isn’t considered unconstitutional, just as laws preventing rastafarians smoking weed aren’t considered unconstitutional. As for your later post about licensing for pork, you really need to work on your reading comprehension I think. I never said butchers did not need to be licensed. I said it isn’t a comparable restriction. Of course, it might be a deliberate move on your part to lie about what I have said. If it is, I have to admit I wouldn’t be surprised. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=33)