Senate The US Politics discussion

Exactly the point. That's how it should be. You support the businesses that meet your needs as a consumer. But would you support a law that mandates that vegetarian places sell meat to those who want it? Or is the moral objection that an owner may have against meat good enough to allow them to only sell non-animal products? Based on the comments here, you shouldn't have to walk past anything, as the law should require the closest business to you to carry what you want.

I'm just trying to understand the rationale.

 

Trio of psychopaths.

 

I agree Guy. It's if people don't understand by now, they never will.

 

who the **** is ed schultz?

 

MSNBC pundit.

 

oh. they write books now?

 

One of the more/most successful liberal talk radio pundits, who made a pretty lurching, terrible transition into television. He styles himself as a "blue collar" liberal than many other high profile media voices. Concordantly, he gives relatively more focus to union issues and the like.

 

the america's most wanted dad democrat guy dropped out of the montana senate race so he can devote time to finding his son or plagiarising papers or w/e

 

All right, I admit it; I made a mistake as to its location. However, my point of that was to say that there is a way for anyone to refuse doing something if he/she thinks it is wrong. The clause itself exists, just not where I presumed it to be.

 

ed schultz is also a fat pig that makes a feast of his own excrement.

 

Name the portion of my post where I am "emotional" or "screaming". You are the one who posted "ROTFLMAO" and a laughing emoticon.

My intention was not to make it "personal". I just wanted to know where exactly you were coming from.

Also, if "Hindu McDonalds owner" is not a strawman, then it is a slippery-slope fallacy.

 

Where does it exist that applies to federal law?

 

This is silly. Pharmacies are fundamentally different than other businesses because they provide products that are necessary. Even in comparison to products like food or water, these broad categories might be necessary in abstract, but any particular way to fulfill that need is an arbitrary question that is mostly about personal choice. No one "needs" a Golden Delicious apple over a Granny Smith. By contrast, a prescription is a legal document by a state-licensed, practicing medical professional certifying that the customer/patient needs the particular compound in question at the dose and frequency in question for the sake of their health. Period. It is a discrete, specific, indisputable need. A need which pharmacies, despite being part of the healthcare system, and having an obligation to provide care for their patients, are then arbitrarily choosing not to fill. It's more akin to denying someone life-saving surgery that one is capable of providing and they are fit to receive simply because one does not "feel like it." Or for fire departments to watch someone's house burn down. That's not really acceptable. If you are going to be in a profession where you help other people in urgent situations, you have an obligation to act in those times of urgency/emergency.

Your Hobby Lobby thing is more different still. Corporations of sufficient size have a legal obligation to provide their employees healthcare that covers all commonly used services. By unanimous medical opinion, birth control is a commonly used medical service. People are holding it against Hobby Lobby because, save the recent Supreme Court decision, their actions would otherwise represent an abrogation of their legally mandated responsibilities to their employees. There's no legal obligation for stores to sell cigarettes or pornography.

 

I pointed out the existence of mail-order pharmacies. Multiple ones. Some even deliver. So, quite frankly, just because a small-town pharmacy might not have Plan B or Ella, there are other outlets. The big chain stores - some of which are publicly traded - are also factors.

Your scenario is, for all intents and purposes, a red herring. It's not seriously addressing the issue. It's conjuring up an excuse for a needlessly expansive mandate that people have sincere moral objections to.

By continuing to use the red herring, it leads me to question what the real objective is - for good reasons.

 

Please, get the facts straight.

Even the Washington Post said that the claim Hobby Lobby didn't cover contraception involved:

Hobby Lobby provided coverage for 16 forms of contraception - they only refused to cover Plan B and Ella and two IUDs.

 

My facts are straight. The law doesn't have any exceptions, and no one would've reasonable expected Hobby Lobby to either. Again, until the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, it was literally illegal for them to do so.

 

Wocky, you're missing my point. People here are saying that the personal feelings and/or any moral code of anyone who opens up their own business is irrelevant. But then, offer up all sorts of examples of how this only applies to birth control and pharmacies. Why?

All of us could come up with such extreme examples that they become meaningless. Yeah, what if there was an area where ALL the pharmacies collectively refused to sell birth control? I don't know, what happens? What if there was a dangerously anemic elderly person driving by who needed the amino acids found in beef, but the only place open was a vegetarian cafe who refused to carry any meat? Who knows? But these type of extreme "what ifs" are meaningless.

A restaurant owner opens up a vegetarian restaurant and refuses to sell meat because they believe meat is murder. Isn't that their right?
A pharmacy owner opens up a pharmacy, and while they want to help people with life saving medicine, they don't believe in birth control, so they don't stock that single category. Isn't that their right?
A pacifist opens up a new age book store and won't stock any books about war. Isn't that their right?

What is the difference among these examples? So far, all I've seen are answers which revolve around "business owners should only refuse to sell things based on sales, not personal morality," which doesn't make sense, especially since the exact same justifications are used to support why someone would choose not to engage in other behaviors. According to your view, the vegetarian doesn't really have a sincere moral code against meat, they "just don't feel like selling it." Isn't that up to the individual?

I would also question your analogy of how a single drug store choosing to stock birth control pills is the same as "denying someone life-saving surgery that one is capable of providing." (your words) No one I have ever known who went to get a birth control prescription filled would ever compare it to being near death or requiring life saving surgery. Let's see, someone who was just in a motorcycle crash and needs a tourniquet or they will bleed to death in a matter of minutes.....vs someone picking up their prescription for July-September's birth control pills, but having to drive to the next pharmacy because the drug store doesn't carry them.... In your mind, those situations are both the same? If any analogy is silly, then that one is. I think more than anything brought up in this thread, that mindset is what muddles the issues.

What do you think about http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/red_black_cafe_shows_portland.html]THIS[/url] STORY

Basically, a liberal coffee shop owner asked a police officer not to come back to his shop because of the shop's anti-police views. Or as the owner said "I never expected a police officer to come into the space," he said. "If it happened again, I wouldn't serve him." While kind of a d-baggy thing to do, can a owner of a coffee shop refuse to sell to those he disagrees with, or should the owner be required to sell coffee to every single police officer who comes into his shop?

 

Of course he needs to serve anyone who comes into his store, provided they meet minimum standards (i.e. "no shoes, no shirt, no service").

 

No it is not. It is their role to help provide the medicines that other professionals determine are necessary or life-saving. Their expertise allows them to suggest slight modifications like a more effective dose, or avoiding drug interactions, or maybe a cheaper alternative. It doesn't allow them to over-rule the judgment of other professionals and claim that something is not necessary when the determination has been made that it is. One of the single most fundamental principles in healthcare, since time immemorial, is that you help everyone, according to the help they need, regardless of what you think of them or their life situation.

If you find death to dire a comparison, consider pain control. It is not the place of any pharmacist to tell someone that they ought to suffer excruciating debility for hours on end, with all the attendant consequences in missed work and life activities, simply because the pharmacist disapproves of the medicine their physician thinks would be best to treat them with. I say again, if you work in a field where you provide emergency services for others well-being, you leave your beliefs at the door. Your duty is to provide the services you promised you would. Always.

There is nothing else to say on this issue. This is the way it is radically unlike any other job or business. People rely on the fact that providers will be available to help them, without exception. Providers promise that they will help people, without exception. All that's being asked here is that they live up to the mutual understanding of the profession.

 

Well said. Quoted because I can't like it twice!

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

Except Wocky, none of your examples in your second post matched up to what you said in your first post. Again, this is what you said:

"It's more akin to denying someone life-saving surgery that one is capable of providing and they are fit to receive simply because one does not "feel like it."

Maybe it's me. How are birth control pills akin to life saving surgery in your mind? In fact, while I'm not a pharmacist, I can't think of any emergency-level trauma care that would be filled by an outside prescription. All the hospitals that I know of have pharmacies within their own facility, and ER personnel directly administer life saving treatments while the patient needs them. It's not like an ER doctor is going to write out a prescription for 2 units of type A blood, but the person has to drive to the local Walgreens to fill it or they will die. That's why your analogy is overblown within the context of a pharmacist not choosing to stock birth control pills and it doesn't fit within the discussion here.

I'm just looking for a consistent answer. One that doesn't rely on assumptions about anyone's personal motivations that none of us know, and which fits in the same context that is being used to justify other examples. So far, I think CoD's answer was the most consistent. Just don't patronize an establishment that you disagree with. Vivec said he wouldn't work for a company that makes weapons. I agree with his mindset. AF1983 supports an organization that advocates for the least amount of government intervention in her field. OK, I agree there as well.

But then for some reason, all pharmacists have to stock all birth control for whichever customer wants them, and the reasons for doing so don't matter. It seems inconsistent to everything that has come before it.