10-22-08: Pharmacies across country refusing to sell any contraceptives

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: RichardE


Your own arguments can be used against you.

Not successfully.

Public interest to have a bunch of welfar moms being a drain on the system because she could not obtain contraceptives?

Go to the next pharmacy or go to a hospital. You CAN obtain contraceptives.

Since blacks have on average a higher chance to commit a crime I think its public interest to not serve them alchohol

Nice job of a) treating the symptom and not the problem, and b) being racist.

What if there is no other pharmacy that you have the time to get to?

Or what if your in a hospital that refuses to fill that subscription and your not able to leave to get it?

I don't think this is as simple as you seem to think it is. If they have an objection to selling their customers a legal product then they are in the wrong business.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I wouldn't support yanking their license, but I could see forcing them to label their business more accurately, eg.

Bob's PRO-LIFE Pharmacy

Anyone looking for contraceptive supplies would know to keep driving.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: RichardE

If it was the only pharmacy in the town, would you still support them not allowed contraceptives?

What if the hospital decided to give out contraceptives? Would that be alright?

Yes, there are plenty of other avenues available. For example, if the town believes contraceptives SHOULD be available but the pharmacy does not provide them, they are free to speak with their wallets and buy their medications elsewhere and put the pharmacy in question out of business.

What do you mean by 'give out'? If you mean 'dispense', then sure. Public hospitals should benefit the welfare of society by helping to prevent unintended pregnancy. Private hospitals should be free to make their own decisions in non-life threatening situations. If you mean 'give away for free', then it becomes a matter of public policy (which is related to, but not the same as, public interest). Free provender of contraceptives could legitimately be viewed as promoting sexual health or as promoting sexual promiscuity. I'm sure a lively debate would ensue from both sides of the issue on public health facilities providing free contraceptives (actually, I think that debate has been ongoing for a while). Should private hospitals 'give out' free contraceptives? Only if they choose to. Forcing them just circles the debate back to where we started (should private entities be FORCED to carry specific products for non-emergent care).

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Have you not read a thing I or others have stated? The product of an electrical company is ELECTRICITY so yes, they must sell to everyone(who pays their bills) - which others have pointed out is due to their monopolistic nature. However if a company does not sell a product, who are you to force them to sell said product?

Now back to your stupid and twisted claim - I happen to support a more free energy market - you know...one where you have a choice of providers.

But again, your BS has nothing to do with the topic at hand because the situations aren't even close to be similar.

You seem not to be disputing my claim. You are for some types of market regulation but not others. That's all I was saying.

Who am I to force them to sell said product? Who are you to tell the electrical company they have to sell to everyone? You are okay with some forms of regulation but not others. I'm just pointing out that forcing pharmacies to carry a common class of drugs is a form of market regulation as is forcing the electrical company to sell to everyone.

The argument in this thread that it's a free market in which Joe should be able to sell whatever he wants to whoever he wants is not valid.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: RichardE
What you see here is the same as Taxi cabs who are muslim not willing to trasport individuals who have alchohol, would you support that?

There's a difference. Taxicab medallions are in limited supply. They are auctioned off by the local transit authority. If bad ol' Mr. Muslim somehow buys ALL of them, there are no more. If bad ol' Mr. Religious Guy buys ALL the pharmacies in town, you can go out and build a new one.

The public, by way of the government, has an interest in the broadcast spectrum. You can't just say "Hey, Google owns everything from 0Hz to 1,000,000MHz so I'll just go create a 1,000,001 MHz device." But, if Google bought every active domain name in existence, you'd be free to go register a new one.

The public has an interest in the allocation of "limited-supply" goods. The public does not (typically) have an interest in the allocation of "unlimited-supply" goods.

So what you are saying is your religious views at a place of employment should only be protected in certain circumstances?

Just like freedom of speech, discriminatory classes, etc are only protected in certain circumstances.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Have you not read a thing I or others have stated? The product of an electrical company is ELECTRICITY so yes, they must sell to everyone(who pays their bills) - which others have pointed out is due to their monopolistic nature. However if a company does not sell a product, who are you to force them to sell said product?

Now back to your stupid and twisted claim - I happen to support a more free energy market - you know...one where you have a choice of providers.

But again, your BS has nothing to do with the topic at hand because the situations aren't even close to be similar.

You seem not to be disputing my claim. You are for some types of market regulation but not others. That's all I was saying.

Who am I to force them to sell said product? Who are you to tell the electrical company they have to sell to everyone? You are okay with some forms of regulation but not others. I'm just pointing out that forcing pharmacies to carry a common class of drugs is a form of market regulation as is forcing the electrical company to sell to everyone.

The argument in this thread that it's a free market in which Joe should be able to sell whatever he wants to whoever he wants is not valid.

No, you are wrong. Explaining to you WHY your claim is wrong is not the same as me supporting it. You are ASSuming while not actually reading. Try again.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I wouldn't support yanking their license, but I could see forcing them to label their business more accurately, eg.

Bob's PRO-LIFE Pharmacy

Anyone looking for contraceptive supplies would know to keep driving.

Exactly, that's a start

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

What if there is no other pharmacy that you have the time to get to?

Or what if your in a hospital that refuses to fill that subscription and your not able to leave to get it?

I don't think this is as simple as you seem to think it is. If they have an objection to selling their customers a legal product then they are in the wrong business.

It is that simple. Medical providers cannot refuse service in emergency situations. If you are bedridden in a hospital and refusal to fill your prescription will kill you, the hospital MUST provide it. If it won't kill you (or make you considerably worse), then there's no reason you can't wait until you're discharged to have it filled.

If you're in the pharmacy and you need your medication RIGHT NOW, you shouldn't be in the pharmacy, you should be in the hospital or, at worst, an ambulance on the way to the hospital.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Fern
This whole analogoy to bigosty/racism/anti-gaism stuff is completely misplaced.

If they refused to sell only to certain groups you'd have a point. But that's not what they are doing. They are treating EVERBODY equally.

Fern

What about the groups who believe in contraceptives and the groups who do not? If you are the only pharmacy in the town in the bible belt should you be allowed to impose your will on everyone due to the fact there is no other choice?

They are not treating everyone equally, they are ensuring a segment of society cannot obtain a item that will make there life healthier safer and more productive. You can discriminate on something besides skin color and which holy book you read and who you take to bed.

Oh ffs... Not carrying a product is not imposing your religion or anything else on people. They are treating everyone equally - THEY DON'T SELL THE PRODUCT SO NO ONE CAN PURCHASE IT THERE. Sheesh.

My local liquore store doesn't carry pale ales - WHY OH WHY ARE THEY IMPOSING THEIR PILSNER BELIEFS ON ME!!!! :roll: WHY OH WHY WON'T THEY TREAT US ALE DRINKERS EQUALLY!!! :roll:

Major difference between alchohol, and a medical device that can be used to be able to obtain a predictable, calm life. Sorry you can't see that. Again, they are imposing there own religious views on people by not making these products available.

Ah, so a pharmacy has to carry every "medical device that can be used to be able to obtain a predictable, calm life"?
Again, they are not imposing their religious views on anyone. They are a business who does not carry certain products.

My local convenience store doesn't carry hustler. How dare they not sell hustler magazine! They are imposing their religion on me.... :roll:

Get it yet or are you going to continue on with your nonsense?

Oh yes, because a magazine used for self pleasure and a device used to prevent a life changing event are two of the same :roll:

Keep comming out with these left field analogies, I'm sure it makes you feel better :roll:

Every Pharmacist takes an oath of "the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns". Are they suppose to be allowed to decide what is for the best "welfare" on humanity? They got into the wrong profession if they wish to mix religion and work, they should go preach at a church.

:laugh: The analogy is about "regulated" items for sale... but I don't expect the likes of you to be able to understand it as you've repeatedly shown you don't know how this all works.
Again, they are not providing a product - it is not against the law to not sell a product. Just because YOU don't like the supposed reason WHY they as a private business don't sell that product has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Have you not read a thing I or others have stated? The product of an electrical company is ELECTRICITY so yes, they must sell to everyone(who pays their bills) - which others have pointed out is due to their monopolistic nature. However if a company does not sell a product, who are you to force them to sell said product?

Now back to your stupid and twisted claim - I happen to support a more free energy market - you know...one where you have a choice of providers.

But again, your BS has nothing to do with the topic at hand because the situations aren't even close to be similar.

You seem not to be disputing my claim. You are for some types of market regulation but not others. That's all I was saying.

Who am I to force them to sell said product? Who are you to tell the electrical company they have to sell to everyone? You are okay with some forms of regulation but not others. I'm just pointing out that forcing pharmacies to carry a common class of drugs is a form of market regulation as is forcing the electrical company to sell to everyone.

The argument in this thread that it's a free market in which Joe should be able to sell whatever he wants to whoever he wants is not valid.

To extend that let's have all colleges and universites provide all commonly taught subjects. Provide medical schools etc.

While we're at it, let's make physicians carry all the latest gadgets. I don't want to have to go to a medical center for my CAT scan.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
OMG!!! a private business refusing to sell certain things?


So dave(et al.) - should every pharmacy be force to carry and sell every drug/treatment?

We should be allowed to turn away blacks and homosexuals at the door too, my business, my rules.

Uhh we are talking about not carrying products here - not about refusing service to people. Nice try though... you libs can always find an angle to play the race/gay card can't you....

its the same argument

No it isn't. It's not even close. How do you equate not selling products(which is the choice of any business owner) with bigotry? You libs can keep trying to use that same old BS but it doesn't make it any more true.

All you are doing is choosing how you operate your business as a business owner. Rather bigotry or religious discriminaton. You can't cherry pick how an owner can operate his business to his beliefs, be they christian, muslims, or racist.

engrish?

Sure I will bread it down for you, I understand it must have went over your head.

As a business owner you should be allowed to decide how to run your business and who you serve, or what you serve. Whether it be to not allowed contraceptives at a pharmacy, not serve alchohol at a bar, or not allow blacks, gays and jews to shop there. You can't cheery pick which rights you want because you feel certain discrimination is wrong, when other discrimination is right.


Hmm, that didn't really break it down. Hopefully you can get your parents to explain it to you.

Uh...again we are talking about PRODUCTS here, not preventing people based on xyz. But since you still don't seem to understand the issue, is a liquor store not selling my flavor of beer tantamount to them being bigots? That's what you seem to be suggesting with your line of "thinking".

Last time I checked beer was not used as a safeguard against an event which can have life changing consequences.

What you see here is the same as Taxi cabs who are muslim not willing to trasport individuals who have alchohol, would you support that?

That has nothing to do with the topic. My analogy stands and your argument doesn't hold water.

It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
OMG!!! a private business refusing to sell certain things?


So dave(et al.) - should every pharmacy be force to carry and sell every drug/treatment?

Yeah lets let the "market" turn whole swaths of the country into backwaters because of an ancient dogma.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
OMG!!! a private business refusing to sell certain things?


So dave(et al.) - should every pharmacy be force to carry and sell every drug/treatment?

Yeah lets let the "market" turn whole swaths of the country into backwaters because of an ancient dogma.

So you are one of the people who think a pharmacy should sell every single drug/prescription/medication/treatment via gov't force?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
OMG!!! a private business refusing to sell certain things?


So dave(et al.) - should every pharmacy be force to carry and sell every drug/treatment?

We should be allowed to turn away blacks and homosexuals at the door too, my business, my rules.

Uhh we are talking about not carrying products here - not about refusing service to people. Nice try though... you libs can always find an angle to play the race/gay card can't you....

its the same argument

No it isn't. It's not even close. How do you equate not selling products(which is the choice of any business owner) with bigotry? You libs can keep trying to use that same old BS but it doesn't make it any more true.

All you are doing is choosing how you operate your business as a business owner. Rather bigotry or religious discriminaton. You can't cherry pick how an owner can operate his business to his beliefs, be they christian, muslims, or racist.

engrish?

Sure I will bread it down for you, I understand it must have went over your head.

As a business owner you should be allowed to decide how to run your business and who you serve, or what you serve. Whether it be to not allowed contraceptives at a pharmacy, not serve alchohol at a bar, or not allow blacks, gays and jews to shop there. You can't cheery pick which rights you want because you feel certain discrimination is wrong, when other discrimination is right.


Hmm, that didn't really break it down. Hopefully you can get your parents to explain it to you.

Uh...again we are talking about PRODUCTS here, not preventing people based on xyz. But since you still don't seem to understand the issue, is a liquor store not selling my flavor of beer tantamount to them being bigots? That's what you seem to be suggesting with your line of "thinking".

Last time I checked beer was not used as a safeguard against an event which can have life changing consequences.

What you see here is the same as Taxi cabs who are muslim not willing to trasport individuals who have alchohol, would you support that?

That has nothing to do with the topic. My analogy stands and your argument doesn't hold water.

It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

If a pharmacy does not sell a product than what do they do excatly? Seems to me that selling condoms would be selling a product...

You are confusing your own arguments because they are illogical.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

What if there is no other pharmacy that you have the time to get to?

Or what if your in a hospital that refuses to fill that subscription and your not able to leave to get it?

I don't think this is as simple as you seem to think it is. If they have an objection to selling their customers a legal product then they are in the wrong business.

It is that simple. Medical providers cannot refuse service in emergency situations. If you are bedridden in a hospital and refusal to fill your prescription will kill you, the hospital MUST provide it. If it won't kill you (or make you considerably worse), then there's no reason you can't wait until you're discharged to have it filled.

If you're in the pharmacy and you need your medication RIGHT NOW, you shouldn't be in the pharmacy, you should be in the hospital or, at worst, an ambulance on the way to the hospital.

We're talking about birth control, not a life saving prescription.

To say that a licensed pharmacy can refuse to sell a legal product to someone with a legal prescription for that product is just silly. They need to save their moral judgments for Sunday.

If they're such moral people then they should also refuse to sell drugs from any company that produces and/or markets birth control. Of course then they would go out of business. Phoney phucks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE



It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

If a pharmacy does not sell a product than what do they do excatly? Seems to me that selling condoms would be selling a product...

You are confusing your own arguments because they are illogical.

They sell all sorts of medicines and prescriptions. They are choosing to not sell a product. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean they have to sell every drug/product to be a pharmacy.

I am not confused...except as to how people can be so f'd in the head to not understand this issue.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

If they're such moral people then they should also refuse to sell drugs from any company that produces and/or markets birth control. Of course then they would go out of business. Phoney phucks.

Who says they don't?

And if you can't find another pharmacy in 48 hours, I have to wonder where you're living.

And what happens if they're sold out? Should they be fined?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

If they're such moral people then they should also refuse to sell drugs from any company that produces and/or markets birth control. Of course then they would go out of business. Phoney phucks.

Who says they don't?

And if you can't find another pharmacy in 48 hours, I have to wonder where you're living.

And what happens if they're sold out? Should they be fined?

I don't know how many of the major drug companies make birth control pills, but I bet it's most of them.

I would also be willing to bet that the company that is supplying this supposed "pharmacy" with their drugs also handles and makes money from dealing in birth control pills.

As far as going someplace else, where I live it's not uncommon to get snowed in for 3 days during major blizzards. It's tough to get downtown to get basic groceries let alone have to leave town. People die from doing stupid things like that.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE



It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

If a pharmacy does not sell a product than what do they do excatly? Seems to me that selling condoms would be selling a product...

You are confusing your own arguments because they are illogical.

They sell all sorts of medicines and prescriptions. They are choosing to not sell a product. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean they have to sell every drug/product to be a pharmacy.

I am not confused...except as to how people can be so f'd in the head to not understand this issue.

They have to sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath of;

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering
my primary concerns"

Are you saying contraceptives do not aid in the welfare of humanity? As well, the argument regarding the taxi drivers is precisely the same, if people had alchohol they could find a taxi thats accomodating to them correct?

 

[halik]

So are pharmacies by law required to keep stock of any meds? So if you have prescription, they have to fill it?


If not then it's a non-issue; the owner can decide whichever meds to stock. It's no different than if they are out of stock - they're not obligated to have in stock what you need.

I do take an issue with holy roller refusing to give out meds at CVS... that's your fucking job.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Let me try to combine a couple of the arguments made here to see if the resultant set of answers is still applicable in everyone's eyes.

Arnold's Pharmacy Emporium (APE) refuses to sell any form or contraceptive because of their religious and/or moral objections. Charlie's Humongous Independent Monopoly Powerco (CHIMP) doesn't like the fact that he feels that APE is discriminating based on idiotic, outdated, archaic religious doctrine. CHIMP decides that they no longer are willing to provide APE with the power to run their business.

APE goes batty because they feel that CHIMP should be legally required to provide what they feel is a basic service clearly defined under their operating scope. CHIMP tells APE to fuck off and if they want power, they can just call Clyde's Electric Business Utilizing Solar (CEBUS) who is hundreds of miles away and will take weeks just to get the panels set up and energy creation begins. The delay will have a life-altering effect on APE's business until they can get power.

APE still has other options to get the product that they require and are legally entitled to. CHIMP's objections to what they believe are morally unjustifiable beliefs gives them the free market right to refuse to sell to this customer.

Still think that CHIMP should be forced to provide a product (electricity) when the clientele has a viable alternatives (solar, wind, etc).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE



It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

If a pharmacy does not sell a product than what do they do excatly? Seems to me that selling condoms would be selling a product...

You are confusing your own arguments because they are illogical.

They sell all sorts of medicines and prescriptions. They are choosing to not sell a product. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean they have to sell every drug/product to be a pharmacy.

I am not confused...except as to how people can be so f'd in the head to not understand this issue.

They have to sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath of;

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering
my primary concerns"

Are you saying contraceptives do not aid in the welfare of humanity? As well, the argument regarding the taxi drivers is precisely the same, if people had alchohol they could find a taxi thats accomodating to them correct?

They do "sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath"

Next stupid question/assertion?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: halik
So are pharmacies by law required to keep stock of any meds? So if you have prescription, they have to fill it?


If not then it's a non-issue; the owner can decide whichever meds to stock. It's no different than if they are out of stock - they're not obligated to have in stock what you need.

I do take an issue with holy roller refusing to give out meds at CVS... that's your fucking job.

Exactly. If you work for a place that sells something offensive to you - get a different job. However, if you own the business, you do not have to stock any product you don't want to sell.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE



It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

If a pharmacy does not sell a product than what do they do excatly? Seems to me that selling condoms would be selling a product...

You are confusing your own arguments because they are illogical.

They sell all sorts of medicines and prescriptions. They are choosing to not sell a product. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean they have to sell every drug/product to be a pharmacy.

I am not confused...except as to how people can be so f'd in the head to not understand this issue.

They have to sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath of;

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering
my primary concerns"

Are you saying contraceptives do not aid in the welfare of humanity? As well, the argument regarding the taxi drivers is precisely the same, if people had alchohol they could find a taxi thats accomodating to them correct?

They do "sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath"

Next stupid question/assertion?

No, the conscious decision to not sell contraceptives is a violation of there oath.

Next pointless nonsense rebuke?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE



It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

If a pharmacy does not sell a product than what do they do excatly? Seems to me that selling condoms would be selling a product...

You are confusing your own arguments because they are illogical.

They sell all sorts of medicines and prescriptions. They are choosing to not sell a product. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean they have to sell every drug/product to be a pharmacy.

I am not confused...except as to how people can be so f'd in the head to not understand this issue.

They have to sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath of;

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering
my primary concerns"

Are you saying contraceptives do not aid in the welfare of humanity? As well, the argument regarding the taxi drivers is precisely the same, if people had alchohol they could find a taxi thats accomodating to them correct?

They do "sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath"

Next stupid question/assertion?

No, the conscious decision to not sell contraceptives is a violation of there oath.

Next pointless nonsense rebuke?

No, the oath doesn't say you have to sell everything.

Next lame attempt...