That’s not the key question. That’s not even a relevant question.
And even if it was the “key question,” is it better to have a pharmacy that only serves white people or no pharmacy at all?
None at all. A person who is willing to put their religion above the needs of the customer is not someone who should be dispensing drugs. It’s a small step from refusing care for religious reason, to sabotaging that care in other ways. I wouldn’t trust such a person not to replace medicine with placebos because God told them.
As I said; they should not only not be permitted to run a pharmacy, they should be banned from any aspect of medical care.
That’s a false argument. We have laws regarding who can be served, not what.
It’s not a false argument. Pretend laws regarding who can be served don’t exist.
And we could just as easily (and constitutionally) have laws regarding what. Can you explain to me why someone’s religious beliefs that they should not provide African Americans with contraception should not be respected, but that their religious beliefs that they should not provide anyone with contraception should be?
“or no pharmacy at all”
That, while it is not the question under discussion, only seems to strengthen MY position, in that people who may not be able to go to the next town or next county, are effectively being “held hostage”. What if that other pharmacy is the same? Then what? That is wrong.
and
and even
Because it puts that person in the position of imposing his/her religious “values” on me. If it is the only pharmacy in town, that only compounds the problem and makes it worse.
No pharmacy at all.
Why? Because that’s not a condition that is likely to persist for too long. Market pressure is a pressure - it compels a reaction. And a complete dearth of medical care, or even of being able to get those heart pills your doc went to all the trouble to prescribe, is going to cause somebody to rethink their morals pretty frikking quick. One of two things will inevitably happen - the community will grudingly allow the contraceptives on the shelves, or they’re go black market. And once you go black, you never go back - until the feds roll in.
This breathtakingly ignorant viewpoint continues to ignore state interest in essential services that are highly regulated to ensure protection of and adequate service to the public.
You may not open any kind of pharmacy and expect to avoid compliance with a long list of rules and regulations about what drugs you sell and how you sell them. That’s because there is a substantial public interest in having well-run pharmacies as part of a safe and accessible health system. You can stamp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue, but that’s the way it is. Particular rules may differ from state to state, but a state’s right to regulate pharmacies is accepted everywhere.
Fortunately for consumers in California, Nevada, Washington state, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maine, the laws in those states do not agree with you and “devout” pharmacists who think they should be able to deny patients certain prescriptions written by their physicians.
A private individual putting a Nativity scene in his yard has not impeded personal exercise of religious freedom, and certainly not my access to health care. A private individual running a pharmacy who selectively denies filling prescriptions is impeding access to health care and is certainly not “acting alone”.
Capisce?
Before going to duelling statistics, you might consider that they are not incompatible.
Many drugs are sold in this country through outlets other than pharmacies. For instance - those dispensed through hospitals, government clinics, nursing homes etc.
Therefore, 10% of pharmacy sales (i.e. contraceptive medications) is not equivalent to 10% of total drug sales.
Or better yet, we could get your little clinic closed down to create a more viable market for people who will run a proper, fully-functioning pharmacy, that serves the full needs of all the public.
Sure, that would make you a casualty of progress and the public good. I’m sure that progress and the public good would weep a solitary tear for your fate.
Lucky for the people who wish to inflict their religion on others, and those who enjoy seeing religion trump everything to the detriment of others, you mean. Literally nobody else benefits from a selective refusal by pharmacists to sell contraception. Literally. Nobody else.
Highly comparable is the poor sap who can’t cut his aspirin with poison to save money. Poor man! Can’t sell what he wants for reasons of purely personal benefit! The free market is collapsing!
In both articles linked by the OP, the persons involved were not the owners, they were employees.
So, since these people were employees and not the owners or controlling corporation, yes they should look at going into another field. One of the links clearly stated that the items were in stock. I would think then that the owners had no problem with selling them.
As to your Brickers 24 Hour Pharmacy and Legal Clinic, that could work. Out here, we have a place called Law Dogs. The owner, a reitred attorney, sells hot dogs and gives free legal advice on Wednesdays. He’s been there for a long long time, so who’s to say your shop can’t do just as well? 
Ok, my key question. Thanks for answering although I’m surprised that you (and many others) would prefer no service to incomplete service.
It is wholly relevant. If a person if forced by law to comply to certain regulation he doesn’t want to accept (and the city/state/governement should regulate as they please) he has the choice of closing so that someone else’s morality is forced on him.
No, it’s completely irrelevent, because nobody gives a crap if Carl Catholic runs a pharmacy. They only care that somebody is running one - and somebody will, even if it comes down to some mail-order internet service or a government-run office, because the demand that prescriptions be filled is considerably higher than you apparently think it is, if you think that whole communities would shrug and say, “Well, if Carl’s not running the shop, I guess we don’t get our heart pills then.”
What you have here is a red herring, a hollow threat - “If you don’t let Carl Catholic run pharmacies his way, you ain’t gonna get no pills!” Yeah, like the conservatives are going to let that happen. :rolleyes:
The job is a pharmacy. If the employer wants to open up a Drugs N’ Religion shop that specifically caters to a certain population, then I’m fine with that. But they should not be able to call themselves a pharmacy because one item that’s always available at a pharmacy is contraceptives.
To remove an essential part of what a pharmacy sells and still pretend it’s just like all the others is a lie. It would be like a restaurant that doesn’t serve anything edible, or a music store that sells only books. Luckily, those things are not life and death. Medicine is
If you want to open up a specialized store, fine, but you cannot call yourself a pharmacy. Nor shall anyone entering expect that you would have trained pharmacists behind the counter. What you want to do is get all of the benefits of a pharmacy while not really running one. Call yourself a drug store sans contraceptives, but not a pharmacy
Try “prefers no service to potentially dangerous service”. Medicine requires trust; if I take medicine from some stranger, I insist that he be the sort who won’t let his fantasies dictate what he hands out. I don’t want to accept medicine that I have no way of testing from someone who regards his job as a tool to punish sinners. I wouldn’t want someone like that to be involved in anything that requires that I trust him.
You keep stating these things if they’re established fact. We don’t agree that the definition of a pharmacy includes selling contraceptives to everyone, I have no problem with the legality of a pharmacy choosing this although I wouldn’t patronize them myself. Yes, this could lead to problems in rural communities with few pharmacies, but I think the cure you propose is worse than the disease.
One freedom does not cancel out another. There is no freedom to force a store owner what to stock. We license and regulate food but we don’t dictate that Jewish or Islamic markets carry pork.
Then what would you call a pharmacy in a hospital, or a Long term care facility, or any of the other places that do not dispense birth control pills? There are many pharmacies that do not regularly dispense birth control pills, not because the pharmacist refuses to, but because there is no demand.
If you try making a law to force pharmacies to stock contraceptives, what do you do about these types of pharmacies? This would cause a lot of money to be wasted in inventory that will just go out of date.
Yes, it is a fact. People expect all normal pharmacies to carry standard items like contraceptives. If there was a pharmacy that didn’t carry cold medication, for example, there would have to be some good reason why
There is a difference between an item not being carried because of demand and a carried item denied sale by the pharmacist. It comes down to reason, if there is a legitimate reason such as no demand for an item, then by all means, don’t carry or sell it. But to have the item signals an intent to sell, and if the pharmacist refuses, then it calls that reason into question. Your example is a tangent unrelated to the issue at hand, which is if an employee should be able, on the basis of his religious beliefs, deny service to specific people.
We do dictate that they offer wheelchair access and disabled parking, however.