Pharmacy and Religion

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

They don’t have a first amendment right to be a bad pharmacist.

Can we move away from the “bad pharmacist” characterization and leave it at “religious whacko”’ pharmacist, I find the characterization prejudicial.

Being protected from the consequences of the exercise of a right is usually part and parcel of the right itself isn’t it? Can I fire awoman for exercising his right to vote? She might have a constitutional right to vote but she doesn’t have a constitutional right to a job does she? Maybe thats a bad example. A defendant has the right to take the fifth, why do judges tell juries that they may not consider the fact that the defendant took the fifth in deliberations of their guilt or innocence?

I’m pretty sure this is supposed to be an ad-hominem - apparently a double-duty one, since you’re apparently insulting both me and republicans each by association with the other! That’s actually kind of commendible, in its own way.

Thank you, calling someone a Republican has been my favorite ad hominem attack since about 2003. Republicans have very high regard for their own civil liberties but they do not hold very high regard for the civil liberties of others, something you only see on the extreme fringes of the Democratic side.

They don’t have a first amendment right to use their government liscence as a platform to force other people to comply with their own religious beliefs.

For heaven’s sake, please cite just a few examples of when someone was forced to go without birth control because of these religious whacko pharmacists?

The first amendment is against them, not supporting them.

How do you figure? They don’t have duty to ignore their own first amendment rights in order to facilitate your first amendment rights.

There is only one difference between this and cops manually forcing you to go to church: the cops are fully employed by the state, and the pharmacists are merely licencsed by the state. Unless you can show that this difference is significant, then we have a textbook cut-and-dried unambiguous case of first amendment violation, as sure as if the president declared Catholicism to be the state religion.

OK so show me where pharmacists are **forcing] anyone to do anything. Heck show me where these religious whacko pharmacists are even denying access to the pill.

So you better focus on that arguement right quick, because until you can show that the pharmacists aren’t acting as agents of the state in any way, your arguments from the first amendment are laughable, ignorant, and self-sabotaging. There is literally nothing to take seriously there until you can show that the pharmacists are the victims, and not the problem.

Really? The standard of proof I have to meet is that pharmacists are not state actors in any way and your standard of proof is “because I said so”? I have asked at least a dozen times of even one example where someone has been denied access to birth control because of the religious whacko pharmacists and have received no replies. So on the one hand you have hypothetical harm that might occur if large portions of the pharmaceutical profession became religuous whackos and on the other hand you have the real and immediate harm that result from forcing someone to act contrary to their religious convictions. You may consider first amendment arguments laughable (especially if the first amendment is being used to defend beliefs you don’t agree with, which makes the first amendment even more approrpiuate here) but I take our civil rights pretty seriously regardless of whether those rights protect hippies or teabaggers.

This whiney crap asking for examples is red herring horseshit. You don’t have an argument so you’re hiding behind requests for unnecessary examples to dodge having to admit that these pharmacists don’t have the right to be allowed the opportunity to become a threat to the distribution of contraceptives.

They have every right to do what they want unless you can prove they don’t, the burden isn’t on them to prove that they the first amendment applies to expressions of religious belief, the burden is on you to prove they their the first amendment does not cover that particular exression of religious belief, its kind of how civil rights work. If I had to prove my rights every time I exercised them it would make those right fairly worthless.

The largest part of your argument seem to be calling the first amendment Just bullsh1t, and it very well may be in this but just saying so doesn’t make it sodoesn’t make it so. Unless you can prove a harm, I doubt your “well they get licensed by the state and its discrimination” argument will hold water. The only time the court has gone to this length has been with racial discrimination cases. If the whole “sexual discrimination” argument held any significant merit, then the abortion issue would have been settled a LONG time ago.

Seriously. This is complete bullshit. Here’s how it could go down if I gave you examples:

Well then give me some examples and lets see. It seems to me that the inability to produce these examples means these examples may not exist.

I’m tired of the bullshit. Pretend there are examples and move on to the actual argument you want to make, if any. Quit stalling.

Have you been reading my posts? There is a first amendment right to expression and that right covers religious exrepssion, even whacko religious expression and that right is only truncated where there is a compelling state interest or it causes ACTUAL harm to others. Hypothetical harms (and even actual emotional harm) are not enough (see westborough baptist church).

Quit stalling and show me the basis on which you would trump the pharmacist’s first amendment rights? And “because I said so” really isn’t good enough. BTW, if there was a harm I think states could act but absent such a showing of harm the first amendment must prevail.

Abortions are special cases. (Was it you who admitted that, or somebody else? I forget.) Try again.

Someone made a categorical statement saying that if you don’t want to dispense the pill then don’t become a pharmacist. Why doesn’t that argument apply to non-abortion performing obstetricians? If they don’t want to perform abortions then don’t become an obstetrician. Why can’t we force obstetricians to take abortion training in the same way that you want pharmacists to carry the pill in their stockrooms (after all there is an actual access issue with abortion that doesn’t seem to exist with the pill)?

And stop pulling this bullshit about examples. This whole discussion is hypothetical. Unless you’re a legislator or something, preparing to make an acutal law?

I thought we were having a discussion on the limits of the first amendment right. If your question is whether or not I agree with these pharmacists then, no I think they are right wing whackos. So if pharmacists actually restricted the access to the pill, then I think the state could act to require pharmacists to carry and distribute the pill but abesnt such a showing, the first amendment must prevail.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CrazyCatLady

Provided their refusal doesn’t put an undue burden on the patient, yes. Definitions of undue burden vary–it’s usually considered in terms of how far away from the next nearest provider the patient is.

Yeah, I’m OK with that. I am even OK with forcing privately owned pharmacies to keep a copy of the yellow pages handy so people can find the pharmacy down the road.

[SteveG1]

@Bricker

Absolutely.

THIS is a situation which fits the “right to swing ends at your nose” model perfectly. His right to swing ended at refusing to fill. When he confiscated the prescription, his fist impacted the nose. So to speak.

Reprehensible.

Right. I seem to be in the “get another job” camp, but really, if one pharmacist doesn’t want to fill the prescription (for whatever it is), I can go somewhere else. I may be highly annoyed, but I haven’t been harmed or anything. However if that pharmacist “commandeers” the prescription, then we have a big problem.

Yes, you can straighten your arm, but no, you can’t hit my nose - good comparison.

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Have you been reading my posts? There is a first amendment right to expression and that right covers religious exrepssion, even whacko religious expression and that right is only truncated where there is a compelling state interest or it causes ACTUAL harm to others. Hypothetical harms (and even actual emotional harm) are not enough (see westborough baptist church).

Quit stalling and show me the basis on which you would trump the pharmacist’s first amendment rights? And “because I said so” really isn’t good enough. BTW, if there was a harm I think states could act but absent such a showing of harm the first amendment must prevail.

At this point I can only conclude you haven’t been reading my posts - I have both explained repeatedly why requiring examples in a discussion of abstract rights is horseshit, and I have presented an argument for why we have to first establish whether a pharmacy liscence constitutes ‘respecting an establishment’ before we can determine whether pharmacists’ religious/lifestyle choices are constitutionally defended, or whether the pharmacists are constitutionally bound to take no steps that might interfere with the religious/lifestyle choices of others.

Because you are not the only person reading the thread, I will restate that argument once again. Agents of the state don’t get to act in ways that inflict their own religion on others. That is the whole point of the amendment - it says that government agents can’t make you go to a specific church, or adhere to a particular church’s standard - or at least, not purely for the reason of religion. (We may censure you for murdering, but not just because it’s a commandment - there are other social benefits which justify the decision.)

Are we up to speed on the basic civics? The government can’t send its agents out to enforce a catholic approach to contraception/the banning thereof - at least, not just for religious reasons. And government agents can’t decide to do this on their own initiative, either - even if their religion tells them too. So it matters whether you are a government agent on the job - persons who are agents of the government and on the job don’t have constitutional protections in how they do their job. They have constitutional restrictions instead - based on the exact same amendment.

So it’s obviously not just “I said so”. It’s ‘the constitution said so’ - if liscencing counts as the government ‘respecting the establishment’ of the pharmacy. Because if it is, the governent is constituionally required to withdraw liscences from any Jesus pharmacy. Or at least that’s my read of it. Depending, again, on whether liscencing counts as respecting the establishment.

Now, this shouldn’t be new to you; I’ve presented all this before. You’re either badly misreading it or grossly misrepresenting it; I can’t tell which from here. Regardless, it’s not even slightly comparable to your incessant demand for examples in a discussion of hypothetical rights - my argument at least is relevent, even if it happens to be incorrect. You are on the other hand are arguing that if nobody is currently being enslaved, that we can’t hold a discussion on whether the constitution bans slavery. Either that or you’re saying that if not too many people are being enslaved, with cites, that slavery is permissible regardless of the constitution; I honestly am not sure.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

I’m tired of this assumption that the pharmacists are the victims here. I want to see arguments for their separation from the state before I accept it.

OK, now I get it. While I disagree that rounding people up and forcing them to go to church is comparable to refusing to sell the pill, now I think I understand the root of your objection. You think the pharmacist is somehow a state actor because they have been licensed by the state.

I have a few licenses from my state. One of them is a license to drive. I doubt you would go so far as to say that this makes me a state actor.

In fact the only case that seems to bear on the issue of licenses and status as a state actor dealt with a liquor license and an all white moose lodge that refused to serve a black man. In Moose Lodge v. Irvis, the court declined to impose state actor status on the moose lodge based on their use of a liquor license. There was a dissenting opinion that tried to differentiate the liquor license. The basis of that dissenting opinion was that there is a difference between a liquor license and other forms of license that are distributed to all who meet non-discriminatory criteria (like a driver’s license, and I would argue a professional license). In this way, a professional license which is available to all qualifying applicants is entirely different from a liquor license (which is subject to quotas and the exercise of state discretion) and much more like a driver’s license (which is distributed to anyone who meets the relevant criteria) in that even the dissenters would have recognized that license as a sufficent hook to impose “state” actor analysis. The diseent seems to be satisfied that a private actor may use a professional license in a manner that might not be permitted of a state actor.

[Telemark]

@begbert2

Agents of the state don’t get to act in ways that inflict their own religion on others. That is the whole point of the amendment - it says that government agents can’t make you go to a specific church, or adhere to a particular church’s standard - or at least, not purely for the reason of religion.

Massachusetts Licensing boards
Here is the list of professions licensed in the state of Massachusetts. People on that list are free to work or not work for people for all sorts of reasons without clearing it with their licensing boards. Being licensed by itself doesn’t make you an agent of the government, or else my barber is a government agent.

A pharmacist not doing something, almost by definition, does not rise to the level of inflicting their religion on others. It simply doesn’t. There is no requirement in the licensing that requires that anyone do something against their own wishes unless specifically required by law. I can’t inflict my religion on you without forcing you to do something. Not dispensing birth control isn’t imposing anything on anyone, no matter how many times you insist it does.

We certainly could pass a law requiring all pharmacists to do so, but it would be an ill-conceived law IMO for all the reasons stated by others in this thread.

[begbert2]

Arguments! Finally! Thank you both.

And based on these arguments I’m prepared to concede that they’re not state agents. Now, feel free to present arguments regarding what limitations are imposed on the government by the pharmacist’s right to freedom of religion. I’ll start: I don’t think the government is restricted from requiring them to stock and sell contraceptives as part of the liscence, should the government so choose.

@Telemark

A pharmacist not doing something, almost by definition, does not rise to the level of inflicting their religion on others. It simply doesn’t. There is no requirement in the licensing that requires that anyone do something against their own wishes unless specifically required by law. I can’t inflict my religion on you without forcing you to do something. Not dispensing birth control isn’t imposing anything on anyone, no matter how many times you insist it does.

I disagree - regardless of how many times you insist otherwise. After all, you could replace “dispensing birth control” with “give back/transfer the prescription” without changing the form of your argument, and nobody seems to think the pharmacist has the right of inaction with regard to obstructing that. Which shreds the entire argument form “A pharmacist not doing something, almost by definition, does not rise to the level of inflicting their religion on others.” Unless by “almost” you mean “except in all the cases where it does.”

@Telemark

We certainly could pass a law requiring all pharmacists to do so, but it would be an ill-conceived law IMO for all the reasons stated by others in this thread.

What reasons were those again? The only ones I recall were “not enough injustice is happening to merit the effort”, “religious rights trump all!!”, and “all the pharmacists will go on strike, leading to intolerable shortages.” And I frankly admit that of these only the last seems even vaguely compelling, and even then, not very much so at all.

[Telemark]

@begbert2

What reasons were those again? The only ones I recall were “not enough injustice is happening to merit the effort”, “religious rights trump all!!”, and “all the pharmacists will go on strike, leading to intolerable shortages.” And I frankly admit that of these only the last seems even vaguely compelling, and even then, not very much so at all.

People have a right to control their own actions unless the state has an overriding need to overrule and enforce them. Discriminating on basis of race (I will serve you because you’re black, I won’t serve you because you’re white) is one of those cases where the state has the overriding need to enforce your actions. You, as a business person can decide either to follow that societal rule, or close shop.

But we use that enforcement sparingly and only when the need is great. It must be balanced against a person’s right to practice their own religion, or whim, because it is also a societal rule that unless otherwise stated the state doesn’t impose its will on individuals. This is one of those cases. It really doesn’t matter if it is a religious belief, a whim, or a perverse wish to be different, unless they are actively denying someone a right we as a society don’t interfere.

Forcing someone to provide a service that violates their personal moral system is one case where we, as a society, should not be interfering.

[CrazyCatLady]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Can we move away from the “bad pharmacist” characterization and leave it at “religious whacko”’ pharmacist, I find the characterization prejudicial.

Prejudicial or not, it’s an arguably accurate characterization. If you regard pharmacists as health-care professionals, which seems to be the view of the “you people just see them as vending machines” contingent, then they are bound by the standard ethics of other health-care professionals. Namely, the well-being of their patient is supposed to trump their own personal feelings and opinions. Allowing your personal feelings to trump the patient’s well-being, even when you carefully stay within the boundaries of what won’t get you in trouble with the law or the licensing board, is practicing bad medicine and is completely antithetical to the primary principle of professional ethics.

If a health-care professional is practicing bad medicine and acting in direct opposition to the patient’s best interest and the guiding principle of medical ethics…that person is a bad health-care professional, no matter how small or indirect a role they play in a patient’s care. In light of that, it’s unreasonable to expect people not to describe them as such.

Of course, if you wish to argue that pharmacists are NOT, in actual fact, health-care professionals, you could make a case that they are not bound by professional ethics that prioritize the patient’s welfare, in which case you could then argue that “bad” is an unfair term to use.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Der_Trihs

There IS a compelling state interest; protecting women from persecution at the hands of religious bigots.

You have yet to prove any persecution. And you have only barely proven discrimination by the loosest definition of the word and in no event have you proven a first amendment violation on the part fo the pharmacist. You have also faile dto prove that the phaermacist is NOT exercising their first amendment rights or that there is sufficient reason to ignore those rights.

The bill of rights is a tricky thing, they apply to the people you disagree with as much as they apply to you.

And just like you want to have happen with contraception, the result with abortion has been to make it very hard and more expensive for many women to get abortions. But then, they aren’t really people now, are they? Their rights don’t matter at all; only the rights of Christian bigots matter.

Why would you think I WANT anything to happen with contraception? Or abortion for that matter? I am far more interested in first amendment rights than any offense you might take in someone making a religiously based decision that has no practical effect on your ability to access contraception. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings but as anyone who has atended a funeral being picketed by the Westborough Baptist Church can tell you, your hurt feelings (and in some cases, real emotional harm) do not take precedence over first amendment rights.

Oh, please, you did, and three different people called you on it; you just studiously ignored all three of us.

Are you under the impression that Ali and I are the same person?

I addressed that senatence a few pages back. What do you call it when someone says something, you absurdly misinterpret it so then the original poster clarifies and you decide to ignore the clarification and just go with your misinterpretation because it makes the original poster sound absurd. (see posts 519 and 537). There has got to be a word for it.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s at least one case:

I think we all agree that this is not covered by the first amendment. It is a crime and the policeman should have arrested that pharmacist.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

You don’t know their intent. And I think it’s ridiculous to assume that no theistic people have a desire to control the behavior of others. That’s contrary to all evidence!

And you don’t know their intent either. By all account they are expressing genuinely held religious beliefs when they refuse to dispense birth control pills and I believe that is all that is required to invoke the first amendment.

[begbert2]

@Telemark

People have a right to control their own actions unless the state has an overriding need to overrule and enforce them. Discriminating on basis of race (I will serve you because you’re black, I won’t serve you because you’re white) is one of those cases where the state has the overriding need to enforce your actions. You, as a business person can decide either to follow that societal rule, or close shop.

But we use that enforcement sparingly and only when the need is great. It must be balanced against a person’s right to practice their own religion, or whim, because it is also a societal rule that unless otherwise stated the state doesn’t impose its will on individuals. This is one of those cases. It really doesn’t matter if it is a religious belief, a whim, or a perverse wish to be different, unless they are actively denying someone a right we as a society don’t interfere.

Forcing someone to provide a service that violates their personal moral system is one case where we, as a society, should not be interfering.

The main reason I don’t personally find this compelling is similar to why I don’t think hardware stores should refuse to sell axes. Sure, I might use them to chop up babies. Heck, I’m a liberal, so the hardware story guy might believe I’m a baby-killer. Still though, it’s not his job to be the axe police, and if I do decide to go on a killing spree, he is not an accomplice for selling me the axe.

The logic behind an individual refusing to sell contraception and whatnot is that they are an accomplice to the events that follow - which impresses me no more in this case than the case with the axe. Especially regarding cases where they’re well aware that the pills they’re blocking may have been prescribed for non-frivolous medical reasons - there you have a person potentially imperilling their customer’s health and well-being because they might be failing to act Catholic. Not cool!

Now admittedly, this is not an argument that all retail stores should be required to stock axes. However, this thread has taught me that some female contraception has a host of interactions and so shouldn’t be sold by a pimply teenager over the counter of your local 7-11. This stuff should be sold by a pharmacist - so if the pharmacists won’t sell it to you, then you’re basically up a creek without a paddle.

Does this mean that the state must mandate that pharmacies stock and fill contraception prescriptions? No. But it does make me think that it’s not a bad idea if they decide to do so.

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

And you don’t know their intent either. By all account they are expressing genuinely held religious beliefs when they refuse to dispense birth control pills and I believe that is all that is required to invoke the first amendment.

I disagree - or rather, I think that the strength of the first amendment invocation depends on a host of factors, including the degree to which they are actually being prevented from exercising their religion. In this case, having to sell prescribed contraceptives is hardly a blanket restriction upon their ability to practice their religion, and if they think it is, they always have the option to switch careers and become bus drivers.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@YogSosoth

Uh, I think I HAVE and you simply disagree with it. Don’t pretend that just because you don’t support my arguments that I haven’t made any. We can force a pharmacist to stock and sell the pill because his refusal also interferences with the buyer’s rights, it’s also discriminatory, and the government doesn’t like that. Therefore, my argument is, he should be forced to stock and sell those items. The hurdle you speak of, that you think is a problem, is an obstacle only because you ignore the woman’s rights to not be discriminated against. You may not think that’s discrimination, but I do, and I have good reason to do so.

Once again, really slowly this time.

The bill of rights gives citizens and residents certain rights that the GOVERNMENT may not violate. For example, the government may not be able to infringe the right to bear arms but a private citizen can tell you that you can’t carry weapons on his property.

Now you are claiming that an action by a pharmacist that does not reduce access is somehow a state action that is violating a woman’s right to birth control because the pharmacist has a government issued license to dispense drugs.

On the other hand you want to have the state tell pharmacists that they must carry and dispense the pill. That is undeniably state action. In order to justify state action that infringes on the first amendment right to religious expression (and I don’t care how stupid or ignorant you think that religious expression is) without any showing of a compelling state interst or any actual harm.

Your case for discrimination is pretty thin. Refusal to dispense birth control pills do not seem to be discriminatory on its face. Your argument seems to be that it only affects women so it is discriminatory. Unless you are in fact making the case that regfusal to dispense birth control pills for religious reasons is discriminatory on its face (good luck with that), you are relying on some sort of rationale like disparate impact. Disparate impact is something that (as far as I know) has only been recognized in the employment arena and has been expressly rejected in many cases outside of the employment arena.

Again, don’t say that you don’t think anyone has provided analysis. I have, many others have, you don’t agree with it and that’s fine but don’t pretend analysis hasn’t been given

I have not seen any analysis. I have seen statements of opinion and claims of discrimination but no analysis. You can’t have an analysis that entirely ignores the pharmacist’s first amendment rights and simply repeats how the religious nutjobs are discriminating against women and violating their rights without establishing that those women have any right to have private citizens sell them something they don’t want to sell.

In an employment setting, it {disparate impact} most certainly has been applied to either force a private party to do something they find morally reprehensible. The army forces you to kill sometimes and even though we have consciencious objectors, it’s not that easy to simply say you’re against killing and leave it at that. The reason we don’t have MORE examples is because most people don’t object to something they signed up for. It’s only recently that pharmacists decided to take this stance.

I think you misunderstand. I think a pharmacist could very well be fired if they refused to sell the pill if there was no reasonable way to avoid an undue burden on the employer (they still couldn’t force that pharmacist to sell the pill but they could fire her for it). We are talking about the privately owned pharmacy, your point was (I thought) that there was a disparate impact on women (not teh pharmacist).

The effect of pharmacists being able to refuse certain types of medication that is used by certain populations doesn’t hint at a slight intrusion into the realm of discrimination to you, really?

So you think that a hint of a slight intrusion into the realm of discrimination is sufficient to overcome a constitutional right? Do you at least acknowledge that this is not discriminatory on its face and could very well be the result of deeply held religious beliefs (no matter how sexist those beliefs might be)?

I know you want it to be solely about the first amendment, and I’ll agree that it’s a part of the issue, but you and I differ in that you see no discrimination and I see some.

OK so if there is discrimination, then a state might have a compelling state interest in regulating the behaviour but your analysis of what constitutes discrimiantion has never been recognized. It is simply too broad. In fact, I believe the concept was tested with the hyde amendment which prohibits the government funding of abortion and no court has ever found that to be discriminatory government action. You seem to want to find discrimination in the private sector where court cold not find it in the public sector. Its a long hard road you are travelling.

And if I agree to only limit this to first amendment, then what? All religious persons should be given special leeway in their jobs to follow whatever doctrine their religion demands? If Catholic doctors and nurses refuse to perform an abortion …some extremists who do not believe in modern medicine and instead use pray to achieve health. Many kids have died to these parents. …The first amendment doesn’t cover these idiots because they tend to keep killing until someone forces them to stop. … Turns out, they may have killed over a dozen kids. And that’s only the ones they know of.

I have said numerous times that first amendment rights are not absolute, what makes people keep acting like that is my position. I have said that a compelling state interest or an actual harm could override the first amendment. You show some demonstrable harm, perhaps someone who was aactually denied access to birth control because of these pharmacists and we will have a different conversation but you can’t just ignore the first amendment without something like that.

Fuck the pharmacists. If your religion is affecting other people at your job, then you quit, no exceptions. Don’t take the job if you don’t want to do the job.

And they very well could say, screw you too but I’m not selling you birth control pills and you can’t make me, no exceptions. Go across the street to the CVS. There is a difference between what you want then to do and what you can make them do.

I used that as an extreme example of what you would allow to happen. I’m unaware of it ever happening, only that the women were denied medication. Doesn’t mean anything to me though, if someone denied me the right to buy something because of religion, they’re wrong, plain and simple

Once again, please give a few examples of where a woman was unable to get birth control pills because of these pharmacists.

It is forcing them to change their behavior due to religious bigotry. It doesn’t matter if it’s something big like getting pregnant, or something small like having to walk across the street. It is wrong

That is your opinion. These pharmacists would tell you that selling the pill is wrong. Why are you entitled to your opinion and they not entitled to theirs? Because it in conveniences you? So they must ignore their deeply held religious beliefs because you don’t want to walk across the street? There is no balancing of interests, you get everything you want and they get to pound sand?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

Arguments! Finally! Thank you both.

I’m pretty sure that I’ve made this argument before. I may not have spoon fed it to you like that but I (and others) have explained why a license is not enough to consider the pharmacist a state actor.

I’ll start: I don’t think the government is restricted from requiring them to stock and sell contraceptives as part of the liscence, should the government so choose.

How do you overcome the first amendment rights of the pharmacist? Can we just ignore those or is there some rationale behind your statement that the state can force pahrmacists to do something against thier deeply held religious beliefs?

What reasons were those again? The only ones I recall were “not enough injustice is happening to merit the effort”

I think the argument was there is not enough harm to merit overriding the first amendment. It was never the effort of forcing pharmacists to dispense the pill that was at issue.

“religious rights trump all!!”

Please cite to where anyone said that the right to freedom of religion was inviolate?

“all the pharmacists will go on strike, leading to intolerable shortages.”

Cite plz.

And I frankly admit that of these only the last seems even vaguely compelling, and even then, not very much so at all.

If the only way you can make your argument is to mischaracterize the arguments of those you oppose, you might want to take another look at the strength of your arguments.

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m pretty sure that I’ve made this argument before. I may not have spoon fed it to you like that but I (and others) have explained why a license is not enough to consider the pharmacist a state actor.

How do you overcome the first amendment rights of the pharmacist? Can we just ignore those or is there some rationale behind your statement that the state can force pahrmacists to do something against thier deeply held religious beliefs?

I think the argument was there is not enough harm to merit overriding the first amendment. It was never the effort of forcing pharmacists to dispense the pill that was at issue.

Please cite to where anyone said that the right to freedom of religion was inviolate?

Cite plz.

If the only way you can make your argument is to mischaracterize the arguments of those you oppose, you might want to take another look at the strength of your arguments.

The earlier posts in the thread have spoon fed those cites to you.

ETA: And as I said in my prior post, I think that the pharmacist’s claim to a first amendment violation here would be pretty weak. If not entirely nonexistent.

[otternell]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Once again, really slowly this time.

Once again, please give a few examples of where a woman was unable to get birth control pills because of these pharmacists.

I am not able to participate in the thread as actively as I would like, but I am a bit confused as to why this statement seems to continue to crop up. I believe I have seen several examples provided in this thread (such as the OP) that answers this statement, so that leaves me unsure as to what examples you are seeking. Could you please explain what examples would satisfy your requirement?

Was the example of the pharmacist who confiscated the prescription not enough? You responded to that example up thread and seemed to be in agreement with the prevailing sentiment that the actions taken by that pharmacist were inappropriate. So how is that not an example?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CrazyCatLady

Prejudicial or not, it’s an arguably accurate characterization. …Allowing your personal feelings to trump … is completely antithetical to the primary principle of professional ethics.

Are you talking about codes of professional ethics? Because I am pretty sure that the code of ethics for pharmacists in several states allows pharmacists to allow their deeplty held religious beliefs affect their professional actions. iIn fact, The American Pharmacists Association has reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way.

Professional codes of ethics generally leave a lot of discretion in the hands of the professional. They rarely force you to act contraary to your conscience.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@begbert2

The main reason I don’t personally find this compelling is similar to why I don’t think hardware stores should refuse to sell axes. Sure, I might use them to chop up babies. Heck, I’m a liberal, so the hardware story guy might believe I’m a baby-killer. Still though, it’s not his job to be the axe police, and if I do decide to go on a killing spree, he is not an accomplice for selling me the axe.

So, now Mike’s Hardware Store has to sell everything too?
I know it’s an example, but why can’t Mike decide he doesn’t want to sell axes because he doesn’t lke the letter “x”? or to prevent baby-killing?