Posted on 11/09/2004 8:23:53 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
Edited on 11/09/2004 8:39:31 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
When it comes to outing DU trolls, I have have no peer.
LOL
Keyester. : )
You said a dirty word!!!
We are talking murder. Hitler is an appropriate analogy.
The person selling the morning after pill to kill an unborn child because the mother was going to kill him/her anyway, is no different than the guard throwing the Jew into the gas chamber.
Just following orders / Just doing my job.
Yeah, 'cause I'm eeeeeeeeevil!!! : )
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil is all around!!
"And his employer has the right to fire him"
Hmmmm...
I'm not so sure about that. I do not believe that employers have carte blanche when it comes to firing employees. I do believe that employers are specifically prohibited from firing employees because of their religious beliefs -- and the exercise of those beliefs. I do understand that employees may not exercise their religious beliefs in such a manner as to disrupt an employer's workplace, but I'm not convinced that that is what has happened in this particular case. All I see is an employee refusing to do one part of his job for what he legitimately considers to be deeply held religious views.
"and the state licensing board has the right to take his license away"
" This is even more troubling than the suggestion that the employer ought to have the right to fire the employee because of his religious views.
It would seem that you are suggesting that the government ought to be able to deny a person his or her right to earn a living based solely upon the government's view of what it feels are either "legitimate" religious views for people in certain occupations to hold or "legitimate" exercises of deeply-held religious views.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I certainly do not want the government telling ME how I must exercise my religious views when I am at work.
None. Is my figure incorrect?
Uh, yeah!!
WHERE? [Looks around frantically.]
Would this be you, Miss?
Perhaps. However, if any state medical licensing board considers birth control pills to be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, it's news to me.
"Birth control pills, in fact, ARE abortifacients...they do kill a living unborn baby, albeit in a very early stage of the process. "
Only if they don't succeed at contraception, which isn't the case 99% of the time. And it's not a 'baby' at that point, but a blastocyst - there's not a heart beating yet.
Hopefully, this pharmacist will be fired and can go work in a church office, where he'd be better suited to impose his morality on others.
OK.
But, in my view, giving the pharmacist in question an "ass-kicking" is doing more than simply retrieving that which has been stolen.
I'm not sure what the legal term for that would be.
Do you know?
I think that depends on whether the steak was cut from a cow or a person. Don't you?
I was pointing out that this is a life and death issue. I don't pretent to know what to do about the potential ramifications from the abuse of the involved principle, but I am smart enough to recognise when it is happening, thank you.
From the pharmacist's POV, the script was to be used to commit an immoral act.
If this were her gun instead of her script, he would have no right to keep it if he knew she intended to commit an immoral act with it? That would be stealing?
So true. Seems like a lot of people believe in freedom for their point of view, and not any others.
True...
Do I get a prize if I say yes? Yeah, that's me.
It's all around. You can't see it but it's there!! Eeeeeevil, I tell you!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.