Wisconsin Appeals Court Upholds Sanctions Against Fired Pro-Life Pharmacist

[peregrinus_WA]

True, but the poster is comparing the denial of contraceptives by the pharmacist to actual honor killings.

Exactly why I made that statement.

It is our duty to obey God’s law above all other laws. That is why I consider myself Catholic first and American second.

 

[Nohome]

This was a good and just call by the courts. The issue isn’t that he refused to fill the prescription, it is that he chose to stand in the way of this woman’s right to the said prescription. Even the board of pharmacy and the APhA say the same thing. A pharmacist can step aside, not in the way.

If this pharmacist wished to exercise his right not to fill the script on religious grounds, he should have referred the woman to another pharmacist. He didn’t and that was wrong, now he must suffer the consequences.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

And secular laws can’t unreasonably infringe on a person’s right to freely worship.

The prohibition of honor killings and requiring medical treatment for children aren’t unreasonable restrictions. So the comparison is not a valid comparison.

Just as requiring an objecting pharmacist to refer a patient to another pharmacist to fill the prescription isn’t an unreasonable restriction.

This pharmacist decided to impose his morals on a woman who had a legal script. He wouldn’t fill it, refer her elsewhere or transfer the script somewhere else.

Nohome

 

[peregrinus_WA]

This pharmacist decided to impose his morals on a woman who had a legal script. He wouldn’t fill it, refer her elsewhere or transfer the script somewhere else.

And it is alright for this woman and the Courts to force their immorality on this pharmacist?

Sorry, but you argument does not hold water.

 

[Nohome]

Sorry, but you argument does not hold water.

Actually, it does. It was just upheld in Wisconsin Appeals Court. Read the story.

Nohome

 

[LRThunder]

Actually, it does. It was just upheld in Wisconsin Appeals Court. Read the story.

Nohome

Just because a court upholds something doesn’t make it right. The Supreme Court used to uphold segregation.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Actually, it does. It was just upheld in Wisconsin Appeals Court. Read the story.

Nohome

So, what you are saying is that infanticide (that is what abortion is) is OK because the courts say it is?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

The issue isn’t that he refused to fill the prescription, it is that he chose to stand in the way of this woman’s right to the said prescription. Even the board of pharmacy and the APhA say the same thing. A pharmacist can step aside, not in the way.

That’s true, if I’m reading the article correctly. Which brings up another question, what does the Church teach about that? I mean, refusing to fill the prescription but instead referring them to someone who will? Is that sinful?

 

[TomPiltoff]

And it is alright for this woman and the Courts to force their immorality on this pharmacist?

You’re in the minority there. The rest of the civilized world has accepted birth control.

 

[Brendan]

You’re in the minority there. The rest of the civilized world has accepted birth control.

At one point, the majority of civilized society accepted slavery. Does that mean it was wrong for people to oppose it?

Even if they were in the minority?

 

[TomPiltoff]

At one point, the majority of civilized society accepted slavery. Does that mean it was wrong for people to oppose it?

Even if they were in the minority?

You rightly point out that popularity says nothing of morality, but my original point stands.

 

[Brendan]

You rightly point out that popularity says nothing of morality, but my original point stands.

OK, we agree that a large amount of people have accepted birth control.

But since you recognize that morality is not determined by majority opinion on the matter, what bearing would stating the majority opinion then offer?

 

[TomPiltoff]

OK, we agree that a large amount of people have accepted birth control.

But since you recognize that morality is not determined by majority opinion on the matter, what bearing would stating the majority opinion then offer?

I was responding to

And it is alright for this woman and the Courts to force their immorality on this pharmacist

My point is that yes, the woman and the courts can say to a pharmacist that he does not determine who deserves their product and who doesn’t.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

My point is that yes, the woman and the courts can say to a pharmacist that he does not determine who deserves their product and who doesn’t.

And that court opinion is wrong. When courts and governments protect the guilty and murder the innocent (i.e. contraception, abortion, and, euthanasia) that it is our duty to oppose such courts and governments.

 

[Strummer]

And that court opinion is wrong. When courts and governments protect the guilty and murder the innocent (i.e. contraception, abortion, and, euthanasia) that it is our duty to oppose such courts and governments.

When that opposition takes the form of demonstrations and petitioning of one’s legislative representatives, you absolutely have a duty to “oppose” the government. God bless America as a place where we can do so. HOWEVER, when your “opposition” takes the form of an illegal act, the government must impose sanctions upon such individuals lest all our laws mean nothing.

This pharmacist’s religious freedom allowed him the right to refuse to fill the woman’s Rx. It did NOT allow him to deny her seeking it to be filled elsewhere. That act is tantamount to standing in the doorway to a sex ed class to prevent all the children from entering or patrolling the supermarket and pulling the bacon, ham, and pork chops from people’s shopping carts lest they eat of the unclean animal.

In short, you can practice your religion but you canNOT impose it upon others unless you want to open up a new branch of the Taliban.

 

[TomPiltoff]

And that court opinion is wrong. When courts and governments protect the guilty and murder the innocent (i.e. contraception, abortion, and, euthanasia) that it is our duty to oppose such courts and governments.

The idea that contraception is murder is not only immoral but, thankfully, believed by a minority.

When that opposition takes the form of demonstrations and petitioning of one’s legislative representatives, you absolutely have a duty to “oppose” the government. God bless America as a place where we can do so. HOWEVER, when your “opposition” takes the form of an illegal act, the government must impose sanctions upon such individuals lest all our laws mean nothing.

This pharmacist’s religious freedom allowed him the right to refuse to fill the woman’s Rx. It did NOT allow him to deny her seeking it to be filled elsewhere. That act is tantamount to standing in the doorway to a sex ed class to prevent all the children from entering or patrolling the supermarket and pulling the bacon, ham, and pork chops from people’s shopping carts lest they eat of the unclean animal.

In short, you can practice your religion but you canNOT impose it upon others unless you want to open up a new branch of the Taliban.

Although I disagree that religious freedom was an excuse for not filling the prescription, everything else is spot on.

 

[embertx3]

As I see it the pharmacist stood his ground and belief and now he bares the consequence. The question I’m thinking is how I as a person/voice can help change this laws. I know for a fact I can’t do it all by myself. I feel bad that he or others like him in other profession has probably lost their jobs over their belief/religion. Hats off to them for having guts. Once it goes to the court system then the ball is on their court and have to go by the law. So change the law and we as the people are the only ones that can do that as we all know. We all know that bickering back and forth for most part won’t help. Just my two cents. I would think that with a lincse that there are rules and regulations that need to be followed. I know in some other profession that they can speak their belief/religion to avoid incidence.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

To the last two posts, I say: It’s their job.

That doesn’t answer my question. You said that the pharmacists were violating federal law and I asked which federal law it was that requires the filling of contraceptives.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[TomPiltoff]

That doesn’t answer my question. You said that the pharmacists were violating federal law and I asked which federal law it was that requires the filling of contraceptives.

The words federal law are yours, not mine, but from the source article:

In addressing his appeal of a judge’s decision upholding the sanctions, the appeals court panel said Noesen had the right to refuse to dispense the objectionable drugs but should have referred the customers to another pharmacist.

Legally the man cannot impose his morality on others in that manner.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Legally the man cannot impose his morality on others in that manner.

Yet the courts are imposing their immorality on the Pharmacist. I guess that is OK by your relativistic standards. It is not by the truth of God’s law.