Posted on 10/15/2007 7:41:49 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
The story is on top and the poll is on the bottom
That article was about the state forcing businesses and their pharmacists to sell abortifacients(morning after pill). It wasn’t about a corporation forcing a pharmacist to do so on its own. I read that WallyMart has opposed being forced to sell these drugs through its drug stores only to have several states vote to force them to do it. Not all Wal marts in all states sell the drugs for example.
This is about unbridled state power trying to coerce the will and co-opt the consciences of its care givers and pharmacists!
You do not have "religious freedom" in the sense that you mean it.
Jesus Christ promised us persecution and hatred.
He did not promise us a job as a pharmacist.
Funny that many who claim to be motivated by their conscience are not any modern-day Henry David Thoreau's. The primed-for-a-fight-to-the-death tax-evaders from New Hampshire readily come to mind.
No one forced the pharmacists to accept employment that they find offensive. The customer shouldn't have to ask the religion of his pharmacist before deciding which pharmacist to use. We don't allow churches to distribute prescription drugs in this country.
A pharmacist job has a lot more to do than just working retail. Doctors call them to ask about drugs.
I think you can argue a point without insulting so many.
In the case here in WA State....the PHARMACIST OWNS THE BUSINESS!!!!
What if the Pharmacist OWNS THE STORE?????
It’s not up to the pharmacists, but it should be up to the owners of the pharmacy.
Should Muslim cabdrivers be able to refuse passengers transporting alcohol?
If a pharmacist cannot, in good conscience, do that part of his job, he should be required to refer the customer to someone who can and will. It is not the pharmacist’s job to determine what medicines are necessary or legitimate.
Change the question to “Should sporting goods store owners have the right to not sell guns if they morally object?” or “Should bookstore owners have the right to not sell the Bible if they morally object?” and see how many liberals suddenly discover individual rights. :)
And the answer to all three questions is “yes.” Your store. Your property. Your rules.
Then he can do whatever he wants.
Yeah...well...here in commie land these pharmacist/business owners are now FORCED by the gov’t to sell the morning after pill.....
2) Your arguement is flimsy and I already answered it at post #70.
I’m not saying stores should be forced to stock it, but many pro-choice persons would make that argument. My argument is about the right to purchase an item from a store. If an employee of that store has an issue with selling the product, they need to be fired.
If this was about guns, ammo, liquor, or even a Bible, you would be outraged if a clerk refused to sell you the item you intended to buy.
As to the second part of your comment, it has already been addressed by me in post 70 and more specifically and eloquently by Getready in post 77.
I’m not saying stores should be forced to stock it, but many pro-choice persons would make that argument. My argument is about the right to purchase an item from a store. If an employee of that store has an issue with selling the product, they need to be fired.
If this was about guns, ammo, liquor, or even a Bible, you would be outraged if a clerk refused to sell you the item you intended to buy.
If you would like, I can direct you to a site where they teach you how to set font size. Shouting even "louder" will add to the quality of your argument.
You really need to slow down and read not only what others have written, but what you have written. You said that if a drug is legal you should have the RIGHT to buy it (I used caps because italics don't seem to register with you). You don't. You then said you should be able to buy a legal product. I agree; never said you couldn't. But even so it is not a RIGHT. Words have meaning, that is why that Webster guy keeps making that fat book of yours, the one w/ the thick dusty layer.
And now you have said a person "should be fired if they have an issue with selling a the product"? Ladies and gentlemen - it is precisely because of people like chaos_5 here that we need legal protection for pharmacists who object to selling abortafacient drugs. We have "progressed" to the point where not liking the practice should get one fired.
Lastly, just to fill you in on facts that you seem not to have: there are bookstores that do not sell bibles. If a gun store owner has reason to believe a gun or ammunition will be used to kill someone they have a moral and legal obligation not to sell them . If a bartender sells to a person who is drunk they can be held legally accountable if that person gets behind the wheel and does damage, injures or kills.
Lastly, please do not tell me what you have decided "I would be" based on your poor conclusions and warped thinking. It only adds to the list of things where you don't know what you are talking about.
But, there is no need to digress to name calling. I'll take your point about "a right to buy", but you seem to be intentionally missing my point.
An employee does not have a right to be employed. If they are refusing to sell the wears of a store, for moral objections, then they ought to find a different store to work at.
Inject all the moral observations and values judgments you like for justifying why you feel it is wrong to buy or sell the "morning after" pill, if doses not change the underlying argument about weather or not an employee at a store can refuse to sell a product.
When you get right down to it, yes, they have a right to do so. But, exercising that right should lead to termination of employment.
Yes, there are stores that do not sell Bibles, and they have a right not to sell them. But, if I was trying to buy a Bible at the book store and some atheist, with a face full of metal, was refusing to ring me up, I dam guarantee you I would raise hell for it.
Should the government compel businesses to allow employees to have a particular portion of the week off of work based on their sincerely held religious beliefs?
Well, you can still answer the question, but the government has already addressed this issue.
Or how about another situation; anyone ever hear of contentious objectors? A soldiers’ function is to kill people and break things. But the military will allow someone to opt out under certain circumstances.
Yes, yes – I know. There are loopholes aplenty. Size restrictions w/ the first one based on undue burden. With the second example there is the draft vs volunteer issue. And I am sure there are others I haven’t thought of. That doesn’t change the fact that there is precedent aplenty that provides latitude for the free exercise of religion superceding the interest of the “employing” organization.
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.