Posted on 08/04/2007 7:33:41 PM PDT by monomaniac
agree.
these people do not know what they’re creating:
down the road some moslem pharmacist will deny christians and jews of medications.
Wrong.
It's illegal to discriminate against a citizen on the basis of race or creed in places of public accommodation.
Otoh, a medication is not a citizen. A medication does not have a race or creed. A medication does not have civil rights. You may legally discriminate against it.
Pharmacists are middle men. Get another job. Enough of this. Keep your religious beliefs at church, not in medicine.Many pharmacists think too much of themselves, think we're still in the 1900s... there are few compounding pharmacists left, all a modern pharmacy needs are men and women who can count to a hundred :)
This is the same logic as the Muslims use when they don’t want to handle pork at a cash register due to “moral and/or religious” prohibitions. Pork is not covered by the law.Some insulin is derived from pork products. Can a Muslim pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for insulin? Can a Scientologist refuse to disburse any and all psychiatric drugs?`
“.....Can a Scientologist refuse to disburse any and all psychiatric drugs?”
I’ll admit, Tom Cruise and his rant against Brooke Shields’ use of certain drugs for her post partum depression came to mind. But of course, he’s not a pharmacist and I’m not sure if that is the thinking of all Scientologists.
Wow, thanks for the enlightenment. I was unaware that when we entered the 20th and 21st century that it became OK to kill babies. Morality and God are so 1900's....
A pathetic decision which further muddies the waters of freedom of religion and employment in this country. If you don’t want to distribute the drug, either open your own pharmacy or work for an employer that doesn’t sell it.
Refusing to dispense a substance intended to kill a child is not in the same category as refusing to serve pork. You would have a point if the pharmacist refused to dispense to a customer who didn’t conform to his/her beliefs, for example, if he refused to dispense medicine to those whom he didn’t approve of, who didn’t dress the right way, who didn’t act in ways he approved, etc.
The pharmacist in question wasn’t demanding that the customer become pro-life or even change in any way, just that the pharmacist was not going to participate in the killing of the customer’s child.
The Pharmacist is protected by the law as the court said. The problem is Wal-Mart is trying to respond to the governor’s executive order, which in my opinion is an illegal usurpation of power and will be struck down if challenged.
I hope your pharmacists overlooks that remark when your doctors prescribe drugs that, when taken in combination, will kill you.
Usurpation is right. The lawmakers, who represent the people, pass a law. And the King—I mean the Governor—issues an edict commanding the opposite of the law.
I don't know anything about Nancy and have never seen her picture, but if she looks and behaves anything like most of the pro-abort orgs' leadership hags she doesn't need to keep her legs crossed to avoid pregnancy. Just be yourself Nancy and you won't have to be concerned about any of that giving birth stuff.
My thoughts exactly. Walmart has the right to set work rules and the employees have the right to quit their job if it requires them to violate their conscience. But the state has NO legitimate power to mandate what a business MUST sell. It can legitimately say what a business CAN'T sell, but not what it MUST sell.
I think you need to refine your thinking on the matter a bit ~ all we have in this deal so far are the "management team" and they are not "the owner" ~ just the custodian or agent of the property.
The President of the company is just another employee.
Absent the owner(s) even addressing this issue Wal-Mart's corporate management team must be required to adhere to the law. The judge has just told them what the law is.
I doubt the management team can get a "defy the law" motion passed by the stockholders.
I think some people believe prescribing a medicine is more important than making sure the patient doesn't die from it though.
Bwahahahaha, the kitties got it.
Very true.
I also think some people believe that substituting the states "superior" judgement over that of an individual, even if one disagrees with that individuals judgement call, is something to be desired.
I don't see how even the most tortured reading of the commerce clause can support that so I'm guessing the right to always get some medication is covered in the penumbra of the Constitution. Or maybe it's rooted in Scottish law.
I might be wrong, but this executive order did not allow private pharmacists with a moral objection to refuse the sale of this abortifacient. It forced all pharmacists to sell it. This was just one of many of Blagoidiot's bad ideas.
I believe you’re correct. The executive order is a terrible idea, but so is the idea that a pharmacist can tell his employer he refuses to do his job.
“Illinois residents should thank Gov. Blagojevich for standing up for women’s health and privacy. Gov. Blagojevich’s actions reflect the values of freedom and personal responsibility—and that means timely access to birth control that could prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion,” Keenan said. “The governor’s latest proactive step to guarantee that pharmacies fill valid birth-control prescriptions makes Illinois a clear leader among the states.
Should my doctor be forced to preform an abortion on the baby of any woman, or child, that ask for the procedure. I sure hope the answer is NO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.