Replies

You have completely contradicted your post 21

I haven't contradicted myself at all. What I described would work perfectly well. Customers are free to order RU-486 from elsewhere if the local pharmacy wouldn't sell it. I would hope that the local pharmacist could divorce his job from his personal life, but if not, go out of town, or online and order what he won't sell from elsewhere. I have a feeling many wouldn't be happy with that as it wouldn't impede anyone else from getting they personally object to.

However, if the government is licensing these guys, they *do* have a hand in their employment as the body that determines what employment entails. I would hope that the government would license people who perform that job as expected. I do have a problem with the government licensing people who don't perform the job as described. Being licensed is part of the job. The job is selling what the government determines is legal, for legal purposes.

But are broadcasters free to set stricter parameters?

Should cops be free to set stricter parameters delineating under what conditions they do their job catching bad guys?

It seems to me your problem is not with any law deciding who has freedom to sell or not sell RU-486, but with the law that makes RU-486 legal. I completely respect that if that is how you feel. But so long as current law says that it is legal, it shouldn't be unnecessarily difficult to obtain for legal purposes. This is the law as it currently stands, and while not everyone agrees with the law, those licensed and employed to enforce the law and facilitate freedoms should do just that. Their freedom doesn't extend to denying mine.

Should cops be free to set stricter parameters delineating under what conditions they do their job catching bad guys? It seems to me your problem is not with any law deciding who has freedom to sell or not sell RU-486, but with the law that makes RU-486 legal.

A cop is a gov't employee. A pharmacist is not. Besides, that's a very poor comparison on many levels. My CBN comparison was more accurate. Just because a product is legal doesn't mean it should be illegal to not provide it. A pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription in no way violates the right of the individual to get the product. It simply forces him to go elsewhere for it. That way, as you said earlier, both persons freedom is respected.

You are playing with the fact that a pharmacist must be licensed to insert the idea that the government is the employer and has total control over everything. That's just false. What a heavy handed government you envision. Under your theory, all obstetric doctors should be forced to perform abortions or quit. Some freedom.