"First, the vast majority of pharmacists got into the field before this issue came up, and now people like you want to come along and say, "My way or find a new career." That sure doesn't seem American to me; more like the stuff in Germany where they can send you to get a job as a prostitute if your real career is overmanned."
That is also a false comparison. The government in the Target case is not requiring people to work as pharmacists against their will.
"Second, we're not talking about mere job arrangements. Take the case of Illinois, where the Governor has forced pharmacists to fill these scrips and has promised to pull their licenses if they resist. Here's a guy telling private businesspeople what they will stock, who they will serve and how they will serve them, all in violation of the establishment and free exercise clauses. There's a lot at stake here."
In other words, he's trying to force his belief system on the pharmacists who are trying to force their belief systems on individual customers.
"A closer analogy would be a Hindu who buys a chicken farm, and five years later the state comes in and tells him he's going to raise 50 head of beef steers for slaughter a year and like it, or they'll close his chicken farm. Would you just say, "Well, he has to find a new career," or would you stand up for his rights?"
Close, but no cigar. The difference here is that the pharmacists took an oath to dispense legally prescribed drugs. They did not take an oath to dispense the ones they feel like dispensing. I doubt the Hindu took an oath to slaughter whatever came his way.
"That's what Rod Blagojevich here in Illinois did when he started forcing pharmacists to do this, and you're on his side of this issue."
As a matter of fact, I'm not. I don't think he has any standing.
"Government intrusion wasn't at stake with Target,"
Which is why I didn't address that particular subject.
"Planned Parenthood would love to have the State forcing Target to do their will."
You're right. And I'd be against them in that case bcse then they'd be doing the same thing as the pharmacists I take issue with: forcing their belief system on others.
PS - I smell a quandary for some people re Target this shopping season. Do they boycott them bcse they've removed Christmas from their stores or do they shop they're bcse they're supporting pro-life pharmacists?
These folks went into pharmacology to be healers and you are now demanding that they do something that they believe is the killing of a child. Your attitude is similar to that of the German government in that you believe the outcome you think is best trumps the fundamental rights of the individual.
In other words, he's trying to force his belief system on the pharmacists who are trying to force their belief systems on individual customers.
Wow, that is a great argument, except for one flaw: It's a pile of crap.
First, the pharmacists are not forcing their belief system on anyone. To do that, they would have to force their customers to be the same religion as them. Of course, what you mean is that they will not fill the scrips. Well, that's not forcing anything on anyone. They can get the scrip filled elsewhere. Imagine how silly you'd sound if you said, "that Hindu who owns the vegetarian grocery store is forcing his belief system on me because he doesn't sell hamburger!" Actually, you do sound that silly, because that's precisely the argument you're making. And even better, you're saying that he should be forced out of his profession because you don't want to go down the block to another grocer for hamburger.
Second, as I stated, the governor's action results in the government telling a private busineessperson what to stock, who to serve, how to serve them, and does so while forcing people to something they believe is murderous. If forcing someone to commit what their religion believes is a mortal sin merely to save the customer from going to a different store is not a violation of freedom of religion, what in the world would be? If it would help the public interest by increasing tax revenue or making life more convenient for hog farmers, could the governor force Jews to eat porkchops? If he said, "All Jewish state employees have to start eating porkchops," would you say, "Well, nobody's forcing them to work for the State?"
Close, but no cigar. The difference here is that the pharmacists took an oath to dispense legally prescribed drugs. They did not take an oath to dispense the ones they feel like dispensing. I doubt the Hindu took an oath to slaughter whatever came his way.
Show me that oath. I am looking at one version in another window right now and I also checked this more modern version from Rutgers. Neither states such an obligation, and each contains several phrases that would conflict directly with dispensing a medication that you believe to be deadly to a human life. Show me the oath you're talking about or show me why the ones I've provided require someone to commit a murderous act.
As a matter of fact, I'm not. I don't think he has any standing.
Why? He has advanced all the same arguments you're using. The only difference between you and him that I can see is that he has the power to exert his will and you don't.
And I'd be against them in that case bcse then they'd be doing the same thing as the pharmacists I take issue with: forcing their belief system on others.
Then you'd be a hypocrite, and already are because you think Blagojevich is out of line. Who is forcing a belief system, a pharmacist who says "I'm opting out of this treatment but you can obtain it elsewhere and I won't stand in your way" or somebody like you who says "These people should do what I think they should do or they should give up their profession?"
You are for forcing people to do something they believe is evil, simply because you think it's right. You can play semantics games about how they aren't being forced, but I'll bet if I told you to do something morally wrong or I'd have you fired you wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, at least he's not forcing me."