Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Guees that means if you own a pharmacy you must sell what the government tells you too.
1 posted on 04/01/2005 4:38:31 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: traderrob6

So moral people are not allowed to be pharmacists, says this hideous troll tyrant?


2 posted on 04/01/2005 4:40:08 PM PST by FormerACLUmember (Honoring Saint Jude's assistance every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

They needed an emergency law for this? The woman couldn't just find another pharmacist?


3 posted on 04/01/2005 4:40:49 PM PST by GenXFreedomFighter (We smirked our way back to a second term!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Basically they want us all to follow orders. If oyu have a conscience you need not apply. If a pharmacy wants to have a policy where they don't hire these phamacists it is different from the state mandating this. Should all OB/GYN's be required to perform abortions too?


4 posted on 04/01/2005 4:41:00 PM PST by briant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

A pharmacist isn't simply a merchant, but is also a medical professional. His profession is licensed and regulated by the government. Therefore, the government does have certain control over him, as it does over doctors. I think pharmacists should be obligated to fill prescriptions given by licensed doctors. If they don't want to maybe they shouldn't be in that profession. If you disagree with doctor-prescribed birth control pills than fight for their illegalization.


9 posted on 04/01/2005 4:45:09 PM PST by marsh_of_mists
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6
"No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Sounds like a 1st Amendment violation to me. Wonder where I could find a link to the text of this legislation.

10 posted on 04/01/2005 4:45:12 PM PST by GenXFreedomFighter (We smirked our way back to a second term!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

The United Soviet States of America.
And this time it wasn't the scumbag courts - - it was the scumbag legislature and the scumbag governor.


11 posted on 04/01/2005 4:46:29 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Walter's article seems to fit this case perfectly.

Walter E. Williams
September 4, 2002

Freedom of association

Do Americans really cherish freedom of association? Are there any justifiable restrictions on freedom of association? In my book, any restriction on one's right to associate freely with anyone he pleases, on mutually agreeable terms, is both offensive and a gross violation of human rights. Let's think about it, starting with a couple of examples from the past.

In 1958, two Virginia residents -- Mr. Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman -- traveled to Washington, D.C., to marry. Upon return to Virginia, they were charged with and found guilty of violation of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving vs. Virginia, held that laws banning interracial marriages violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's conviction was reversed. Aside from Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws having violated the Constitution, it also violated the basic human right of freedom of association.

Let's now ask whether Virginia's laws would have been more acceptable if instead of banning interracial marriages, it mandated interracial marriages? I'd find such a law just as offensive, and for the same reason: It would violate freedom of association.

There's another case we might look at. H.L. Mencken, writing in the Nov. 9, 1948, Baltimore Evening Sun, brought to light that the City's Park Board had a regulation forbidding white and black citizens from playing tennis with each other in public parks. Today, most Americans, I suspect would find such a regulation an offensive attack on freedom of association. I imagine that most would find it just as offensive if the regulation had required blacks and whites to play tennis with one another. It would also violate freedom of association.

While Americans would agree there should be freedom of association in the specific cases of marriage and tennis, what about freedom of association as a general principle? Suppose men formed a club, a professional association or any other private association, and women wanted to be members. Is there any case for forcing them to admit women? Or, what if it were white men who formed a private association -- is there any case for forcing them to admit blacks to membership? The same question can be asked in reverse: What if it were women or blacks who formed an association. Should they be forced to admit men or whites? Wouldn't forced membership in any of these cases violate freedom of association?

What if you wanted to deal with me, but I didn't want to deal with you?

You say: "I'm stuck with that one, Williams. What do you mean?"

Suppose I'm looking to hire an employee. You show up for the job, but I don't want to deal with you. My reasons might be that you're white, you're a Catholic, you're ugly, you're a woman or anything else about you that I find objectionable. Should I be forced to hire you?

You say, "Williams, that's illegal employment discrimination." You're right, but it still has to do with freedom of association -- and either you're for or against freedom of association as a general principle.

You might argue that I should hire or deal with the first qualified person who comes along. In terms of freedom of association, that's nonsense. After all, would you say I should marry the first qualified women who comes along or play tennis with the first qualified person, or should I be free to marry or play tennis with people I like?

The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association.


13 posted on 04/01/2005 4:51:01 PM PST by Tai_Chung
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Guees that means if you own a pharmacy you must sell what the government tells you too.
__________________________________________________________

Of course, that is what the pharmacy business is all about. The government restrict the sale of certain products. A pharmcy is given government leave to sell SOME of those products if a government licensed MD says so. Other of these products are restricted further and can not be sold EVEN NO MATTER WHAT THE VOTERS SAY sometimes. The government also has public accomidations laws that say if you sell to one person, you must sell to all which would mean in the pharmacy business would mean all with a prescription.

If one does not want government mucking in their business, pharmacy is the wrong business to be in. It is all about making money on government intervention.


22 posted on 04/01/2005 4:55:00 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Correct, and that whole 'right to privacy' thing was a hoax all along.


27 posted on 04/01/2005 5:00:15 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

I wonder if the state will assume liability for any lawsuits that arise from this dictate?


33 posted on 04/01/2005 5:05:37 PM PST by politicalwit (Import Poverty...Hire an Illegal Alien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

There is no conscience clause in Illinois?


35 posted on 04/01/2005 5:07:16 PM PST by ViLaLuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

The "just follow orders" crowd is in full effect. If you have a job with some responsibility or some government regulation (every job), then you'd better check your humanity and beliefs at the door. It's beyond people that they could go elsewhere.

BTW, this article refers to the government mandating that pharmacist do this. We are not talking about a pharmacist being fired by a private employer.


37 posted on 04/01/2005 5:08:02 PM PST by briant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

So it would seem. :(


44 posted on 04/01/2005 5:09:29 PM PST by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Of course, a pharmacist could just not have the babykiller drug in stock (sorry, miss, you'll have to wait a few days till I get my shipment in).


56 posted on 04/01/2005 5:19:05 PM PST by ArtyFO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Next step: Forcing pharmacists to give out medicines to kill grandmom...

I was failed in my medical school OB rotation for not doing abortions...and when I worked in the Indian Health service, I was reprimanded for not getting up at 3 am to give a careless lady the morning after pill (not a rape case...she was drunk, but old enough to know better).

In both cases, I threatened lawsuit and got away with it, because I was known to be a Christian. My girlfriend, a Hindu, will not take animal life but was forced to do abortions...

So what else is new?


75 posted on 04/01/2005 5:44:08 PM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

You want drug xyz. We don't stock it. Its real expensive. We could order it. Please pay in advance. We don't want to be stuck with it if you change your mind. It'll be a week or so. Go try Walmart.


94 posted on 04/01/2005 6:13:33 PM PST by dr huer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

I think I would just forget to order that Rx. "Sorry we're out."


96 posted on 04/01/2005 6:14:02 PM PST by SampleMan ("Yes I am drunk, very drunk. But you madam are ugly, and tomorrow morning I shall be sober." WSC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Guees that means if you own a pharmacy you must sell what the government tells you too.

Well, at least you gotta' sell what the doctor prescribed. Otherwise, you'd have a bunch of environazi pharmacists trying to make political statements by refusing to sell pills on the grounds that the pills were tested on animals.

98 posted on 04/01/2005 6:16:30 PM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

A good time to see if freedom-lovers will, for once, tell Big Stupid Government to blow it out its a$$.


101 posted on 04/01/2005 6:18:20 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

I'll bet they are leaving out a vital fact. This sounds like it is about RU486 to me. I would highly question if that is birth control in the minds of many moral people. It more in line with Abortion. If anyone has the means to further research what appears to be a biased and misleading article without the facts then that would be helpful.


103 posted on 04/01/2005 6:20:07 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson