Why?
It is explicitly a case of the pharmacist trying to get someone else to conform to his own moral standards - don’t even try to pretend otherwise; it demonstrates extreme denial and shows your position to be built on a foundation of talcum powder.
Sure, the pharmacist’s moral standard is telling him to try to get everyone else to conform to his own moral standards - but his right to swing his fist stops at the end of other people’s noses, so he can go screw himself. In this avenue his moral standards aren’t fit for polite society.
I think that if the goverment is using its authorization to respect the pharmacist’s religion at the expense of the customers’ moral/religious choices, it matters a lot. I think it’s very arguably unconstitutional!
If it is protected by the first amendment then I would need to see compelling state interest to override that protection.
OK, I agree that abortion is different so lets limit it to birth control. Can we force doctors to prescribe birth control pills if their conscience dictates otherwise?
No, just like it is not “a bit silly” to call poll taxes and literacy tests with grandfather clauses discriminatory. Similarly, a law banning same sex marriage discriminates against homosexuals, despite the fact that it equally bans straights from marrying people of the same sex as well as homosexuals.
What if it isn’t protected by the first amendment? What if the pharmacist just doesn’t want to dispense Viagra because he finds their commercials annoying?
Yes - if we can show that he’s refraining from prescribing them for personal religious reasons. Similarly I wouldn’t want a doctor prescribing leeches because his religion eschews all other medicine.
That said, there are different kind of doctors, and persons averse to prescribing contraceptives can (and likely do) refrain from studying the strains of medicine that tend to prescribe them. We’re only asking that persons who don’t want to fill such prescriptions similarly avoid the field that distributes them - which unfortunately is the entire field of pharmacology.
Jesus. If I answer this will you promise to shut the hell up about this off topic, irrelevant argument?
Can we? Yes. Should we? Probably not. However, a doctor who has a moral objection to prescribing a medication when it is the best medication for that patient in that situation probably shouldn’t be a doctor in the first place.
Now, before you start gleefully thinking you have “won” something by getting me to say there should be different rules for doctors and pharmacists, you haven’t. I said that from the first moment. Doctors and pharmacists are different, and the determination of what medication is appropriate for the patient is primarily that of the doctor, not the pharmacist. If a doctor prescribes a particular drug, I have no issue with the pharmacist looking at it, and telling the patient that he or she cannot prescribe it because the doctor was unaware that it has a negative interraction with other medication the patient is taking. However, I do have an issue with the pharmacist taking the prescription, and switching it for another drug because the pharmacist thinks that drug is better.
You see, the doctor and the pharmacist have different roles. And that isn’t treating a pharmacist as a glorified cashier, to use your favorite phrase for them.
Aren’t you dodging the question a bit here? You might as well say that pharmacists that don’t want to dispense birth control pills don’t go into retail pharmacy. Could we force doctors to prescribe birth control pills against their deeply held convictions?
OK so lets leave aside the issue of the employee. Do we agree that the solo pharmacy owner cannot be forced to carry and dispense birth control pills?
And as I have already pointed out, the pervasiveness of the practice informs us whether or not there is a compelling state interest in this case. I assume this also means that you agree that if there is no law requiring pharmacies to carry birth control pills, then it is up the the pharmacy owner (you may have already said this I just can’t remember).
If you really believed the reasoning of the swing-and-nose quote, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The pharmacist doesn’t take any action. There is no “swing.” He chooses to go limp, to be completely passive. Your scheme would force him to take action when he doesn’t wish to; you wish to compel him to perform a task he doesn’t wish to perform. He has no wish to get involved with any noses at all; you demand he does.
So what? Maybe Bricker is more concerned about the rights people who own stuff than the rights of people who believe stuff.
Well there are some federal laws about reasonagble accomodations for religious beliefs but I agree that this is not the sort of case you would want to take on contingency.
And if you were not able to get birth control pills because that one whackadoo pharmacist didn’t want to sell it to you, you might have an argument but I have yet to see a cite for even one (let alone widespread) lack of access to birth control because of pharmacists refusal to dispense the pill.
This isn’t true.
The action the pharmacist takes is to become licensed in a profession with state oversight.
He took the action to train and get liscenced and position himself as the distributor of medicine for his area - and then refrain from doing so for religious reasons. Being completely passive would entail not becoming a pharmacist. Similarly if I become a judge and refuse to try murder cases against black people because my religion says that black people can do anything, I’m not being passive in my refusal.
Nice try, though.
Yeah, this is the part of the argument that I have the most trouble with. The state might have a state interest in compelling pharmacists to carry a drug that has therapeutic value for over 5% of the population (if previous poster’s numbers were accurate) and not therapeutic in the sense that it helps prevent acne but in the sense that it prevents significant discomfort and health risks. Then how does the pharmacist decide who really needs it and who doesn’t. While I hypothetically think that pharmacists should have the right to refuse selling the pill for moral reasons I don’t think those moral reasons can overcome legitimate medical ones (and not the sort of medical reasons that Der Trihs talks about (like when he says that getting pregnant is medical), I mean real medical ones).
So the argument is that as long as it never happens it should be legal but if it happens once then it shouldn’t be? Sounds like an argument that it shouldn’t be legal.
Just as there is no duty to rescue (you can watch a baby crawl off a pier and drown in a lake), there is no punching of the nose by NOT doing something.
Yes veeeeeery arguably. Another case I wouldn’t take on contingency. respecting someone’s religion with no identifible detriment to anyone that anyone has been able to point out (please… someone cite a case where people have been unable to access birth control pills because of pharmacist refusal to fill the prescription, because until you do that you are placing your ideals ahead of someone’s exercise of their constitutional rights).
Yes, you are. Look up the word “passive.” “Passive” is exactly what what the judge’s refusal is.
Now, there are plenty of principled arguments that condemn a failure to act when one has a duty to act. A lifeguard at the pool who does not stir from her chair as someone drowns in front of her is being passive. That doesn’t mean we endorse her inaction, but it DOES mean that she did not act; that she was passive; that the correct term is INACTION, not action.
So you’re free to condemn this kind of behavior. You cannot condemn it with the platitude about swinging and noses, because here you’re not decrying an action – you’re decrying a failure to act when (according to you) there is a duty to act.
I trust you’ll refrain from using “two wrongs don’t make a right,” here, under the same principle: it’s a true statement, but doesn’t apply to this situation.
See above posts.
Sure I can condemn it with that platitude - the spirit of the platitude is that you can do whatever you want -including inaction- as long as it doesn’t start to impact other people negatively. I see no reason to think that physical inaction is a special exception to the idea; focusing on that irrelevent aspect of the wording seems like pointless pedantry. (But then, I’m not a lawyer.)