Pharmacy owners cannot cite religion to deny medicine: U.S. appeals court

Reuters ^ | Jul 23, 2015 | Dan Levine

[Coronal]

The state of Washington can require a pharmacy to deliver medicine even if the pharmacy's owner has a religious objection, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, the latest in a series of judgments on whether religious believers can opt out of providing services.

[MeshugeMikey]

Tyranny Marches On!

[Dr. Sivana]

Abortifacients are not medicine.

[OSHA]

The can make you sell it if you have it but can they make you stock it?

IOW We would be glad to sell it to you but we are fresh out.

[SkyDancer]

Don't like the rules, don't go into the profession. One denomination would say don't dispense pain meds because since Yeshua suffered you should too.

[relictele]

“Sorry we’ve run out. Try Rite Aid next door.”

[Political Junkie Too]

But Obama just said that new citizens can cite religion to deline taking the oath to take up arms to defend the country.

-PJ

[G Larry]

Just refuse to carry the drug.

Then you can’t dispense.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Bullfallacy. What denomination?

[SkyDancer]

I was just proposing an idea ... There have been pharmacists who’ve denied giving out birth control meds even when prescribed by a doctor because of their religious conviction. I was just making a could-be situation. You know, a what-if?

[Vigilanteman]

Stupid analogy. Rules are constantly changing and getting more tyrannical.

Is there any point where you will say enough? Or will you just be a compliant dhimmi?

[KrisKrinkle]

“Don’t like the rules, don’t go into the profession.”

On the other hand: Don’t change the rules after I’m in the profession.

On the gripping hand: If you don’t want people in a profession, establish rules that will keep them out of their own accord.

[TYVets]

Pharmacy owners can not own their pharmacy.

[DoughtyOne]

Does this mean that if I show up at a Ford parts department, they have to sell me KIA parts?

[MrB]

Of course not!

And if they were honest, the courts would say you cannot cite your

CHRISTIAN

religion to deny “medicine” (abortifacients).

[SkyDancer]

What I said was there were instances where a pharmacist wouldn’t dispense a prescription medicine because it was against his religion. I then went on to say what’s to prevent any pharmacist from dispensing any medication they thought were against their religion - and in one case it was one of those day after pills.

[SkyDancer]

What I said was there were instances where a pharmacist wouldn’t dispense a prescription medicine because it was against his religion. I then went on to say what’s to prevent any pharmacist from dispensing any medication they thought were against their religion - and in one case it was one of those day after pills.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I you don't find the product you want in my pharmacy, please feel free to go someplace else."

~or~

"If you wanna buy something, go to a store that sells it."

Or is common sense too much to ask?

It's nuts to say people have to stock and sell everything the government demands.

The original question on this thread was about morning after pills, but ---- you're right --- it could be about as simple as a contraceptive. And I support the right to decline to sell contraceptives, too.

Contraceptives both accessible and cheap. Heck, they’re at the level of total market saturation. You can get the jellies and jams, foams and sprays — woo hoo, you can get a condom at any grocery store, any truck stop, any Bubba's Beer and Bait.

Wal-Mart has the Ortho Tricyclen (oral contraceptive) for $9 amonth. Target has the Trojan 12-pack for $4.00. That’s 33 cents apiece.

They could hardly be more available if they were in every bag of M&M’s in America.

This isn't about freely chosen practices, it's about coerced services.

Anyone who wants to freely choose a personal contraceptive, a personal Quran, a personal assault rifle, or personal access to pornography: go ahead and choose it. That’s your choice.

I don't believe in any of that crap, and I shouldn't have to sell it. That’s my choice.

[Amendment10]

Patriots with religious convictions need to get themselves up to speed on the following wording (emphasized below) in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) in order to protect themselves from low-information, anti-religious expression activist government officials.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Regarding the “privileges or immunities” term, John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clarified in the congressional record that this term is a reference to our constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these rights listed in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly [emphasis added] defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe

[MrB]

Remember, getting the product isn’t the point.
Punishing Christian beliefs is the point.

So it doesn’t matter if fifteen thousand stores within convenient distance sell the thing they want,
if there exists ONE “Christian owned” business that refuses it,
they’ll target it.