Posted on 06/29/2016 10:31:17 AM PDT by DeweyCA
Have any of the presidential candidates weighed in?
I go along with Edit 3.
If the patient is taking this after sex (say the next morning) the egg is still not fertilized.
For goodness sake, they give Plan B at Catholic Hospitals. After ensuring the patient is not already pregnant. I would suggest that the Sisters have done their homework.
There’s a lot of careers that are questionable to our morals. This is one of many.
And feckless pubbies are playing "go along to get along".
where is our sanctuary state from all this liberal bs?
The purpose is to force people to choose between their faith and their paycheck. Most will choose paycheck.
They don’t do this for muslems.
This one is tough. It is a job that works with the public. In jobs like that, you can’t pick and choose who you sell to or what you sell. It is prescribed by a medical practitioner.
I can see how this could certainly cause problems for Christians. Unless they find a private pharmacy that prescribes to a very certain clientele, they are going to run into these such issues.
An airline pilot can’t refuse passengers based on his or their religion, looks, smell, etc. (they can run it into the ground it turns out, but that is a whole other problem).
When you deal with the public, you are bound by what your job title states you must do. Otherwise, it is time to find a different place that fits your religious outlook or find a different job all together.
"The US Supreme Court today denied to hear a case involving pharmacists in Washington state who, for religious reasons, declined to dispense RU-486Plan B, the “morning-after pill,” which causes abortion. Effectively this means that Christian pharmacists who refuse to sell drugs that intend to exterminate life in the womb cannot work in the new society."
Patriots need to ask their pharmacists what the 14th Amendment says and report the blank looks that they get back to this thread.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What’s worse? Low-information federal and state government officials who ignore constitutionally enumerated protections and harrass citizens, or low-information citizens who probably don’t know their constitutional protections well enough to protect themselves from such officials?
His dissent reminded me of the letter I wrote concerning the ruling on gay marriage.
From: Retain Mike
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:13 AM
To: WSJ Letters (wsj.ltrs@wsj.com)
Subject: The First Amendment and Gay Marriage
The 2015 gay marriage ruling completes a rewrite of our Constitution. The First Amendment says and used to mean, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” In contrast the ruling on gay marriage helps illustrates how far the country has departed from first principles.
We are familiar with the term “speech or expression’, which seems an innocuous expansion of the above amendment. However, “expression” enables a nearly unbounded multi-billion dollar pornography industry.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”. Such language severely restricts religious freedom by happening to exclude “free exercise thereof”. Therefore believers pursue a hazardous course to exercise religious beliefs in business and personal lives.
Now we have country in which a woman can express herself in the adult film industry, but cannot start a bakery and exercise her religious convictions by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Plan B is just a big dose of birth control pills. I favor aerial spraying of it in some areas. I will provide a map upon request.
Forgive me for perhaps being slow, but are you saying that forcing the Pharmacist to dispense the drug is violating the 14th Amendment, or that dispensing the drug that takes life is violating it?
Read Justice Alito’s dissent and you will understand why that premise should not be under consideration in this case.
An airline is free to refuse service for a variety of reasons.
The family owned the pharmacy they were not employees. They were forced by Washington law to carry drugs they objected to on moral grounds. However pharmacies are free to decline to carry certain drugs for a variety of reasons. It was only refusal because of moral and religious beliefs that the state prohibited.
This will force the pharmacy to close. Which was the aim of the law to begin with. SCOTUS has 3 murderous harpies in its ranks. Expect more of the same.
“Russell Moore’s powerful sermon on Friday night.”
Link please.
People are naive to think the constitution will protect Christians from persecution. Even the Communist constitution in Russia mentioned freedom of religion. Didn’t matter. Hard times are coming.
When the states ratified the 14th Amendment, the states prohibited themselves from abridging any personal freedoms of citizens that the states have expressly protected in the Constitution as evidenced by the language of Section 1 of that amendment.
So when a state forces citizens to do anything that forces them to deny their religious convictions for example, such convictions expressly protected by 1st Amendment-protected free speech and religious expression, forcing pharmacists to deny their religious convictions by dispensing abortion drugs in this example, the states are in clear violation of the 1st Amendment as applied to the states by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment imo.
Please let me know if I didn’t address your concern.
Except that there will eventually be no way to be a practicing Christian and make a living at all. But that will suit the Communists quite well.
Thanks. That answered it.
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.