They are imposing nothing more upon the pharmacist than preventing an orthodox Jew or Muslim check-out clerk from removing the bacon and ham from your shopping cart before letting you leave the grocery store. The courts are not forcing the pharmacist to fill the prescription himself. But he cannot impose his beliefs upon the woman and steal her script thereby preventing her from taking it elsewhere.
It is your opinion that contraception is immoral.
I said no such thing. You are speaking nonsense. If you wish to debate this issue, please stick to facts and points of law. I don’t care what you think, I care what you know, which in this case, is precious little.
The majority doesn’t determine truth.
People used to help slaves escape via the Underground Railroad. According to the laws at the time, those were illegal acts. I guess they should’ve been locked in jail with no hope for parole.
Ah, so when I, however carefully, compare honor killings and refusal to dispense pharmaceuticals as examples of religion that cannot be accepted by the state I’m criticized.People used to help slaves escape via the Underground Railroad. According to the laws at the time, those were illegal acts. I guess they should’ve been locked in jail with no hope for parole.
They’re the same because they both involve moral acts…exercise of religion (those who free the slaves believing that slavery is immoral; pharmacist exercising his own religious beliefs).
They give up some of them, absolutely they do.
The problem with that example is if he believes that, why would he want to become a driver.
No one is doubting that the courts CAN say that. They obviously did say it. It’s a matter of historical record.
You are confusing morality with religion. To the extent possible, the State tries to codify morality up to the point of religiosity but not beyond. To go further would violate the First Amendment. Conversely, neither can the State allow anyone to exercise their religious freedom to the point that it imposes a religious belief upon another. To do so would constitute State supported religion which is to start a stroll down the path to the Taliban.
They do not give up THEIR rights to THEIR religious beliefs. However, neither do they acquire the right to impose their beliefs upon others. That is the issue here.
Being “just” in the context of the court system is matter of adhering to codified and case law. It would seem that many here would add a religious component to this adjudication. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution proscribes against this.
And they are not doing the same thing? Sorry, but the argument you are presenting shows the complete lack of logic that is so prevalent in the Secular Relativist. The government and courts are trying to force the pharmacist to be an accessory to murder. This immoral perverted act alone negates the authority of the court.
In what way? The pharmacist is NOT forced to fill the order. But neither is he allowed to steal the script from the patient and not allow her to take it to another pharmacy. That is a direct violation of one of Big Ten.
That is a slippery slope you really do not want to go down. You are saying that the upholding of one law that you do not like means we need not obey any law adjuducated by the courts. You may not have meant to say that but that is the conclusion to be drawn from such silly, sweeping statements.
It is quite apparent from reading your posts that you would prefer a theocracy, that is a government that is subject to the laws of the Church. Very few share your views, including the founding fathers of this country.
I just had to say something about this particular post. At my company, you can simply say, “I don’t want to do this because it’s against my religion.” And if accommodation is not given, then the individuals responsible face serious consequences, including a complaint of harrassment, termination, a lawsuit, etc.
That isn’t a problem, it’s precisely the point. If this man is not willing to fill the prescriptions of every customer then he has no place working as a pharmacist.
And do any of those passes given to the religious at your work harmful to others? Does a woman miss an important pill that she took the time and effort to have prescribed to her because one of your coworkers doesn’t believe in it?
Yes, you are correct. This country does not owe anyone a livelihood.I guess some fields in America are open to pasture and some are gated. Obviously the world of pharmaceuticals is closed.
By any chance is “your company” a retail pharmacy? If not, what exactly is your point?