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.
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.
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.
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.
“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” (meaning the right of quackery promoters to sell garbage without annoying regulations, as championed by people like Orrin Hatch).
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.
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.
Correct. They don’t offend the constitution; they are simply unwise.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
