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

[PELarson]

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?

No, this is a state licensed Pharmacist making a medical decision which overrides a state licensed Physician which is not allowed except in cases of negligance by the Physician!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

phar·ma·cy /'f?rm?si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fahr-muh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun, plural -cies.
1. Also called pharmaceutics. the art and science of preparing and dispensing drugs and medicines.
2. a drugstore.

I do not see where the definition of Pharmacy says must carry and dispense all drugs, medicines or treatments.

I for one do not condone the practice of not supplying BC to a prescribed user, however,

I'm SO SICK AND TIRED of you Nazis running around telling private business owners what they must do, by laws and regulations, to make you happy.

No smoking in bars, must serve every stinky scum button who comes in your establishment, must sell people items, drugs, what the hell ever makes you happy or we'll pass laws to make you do it. Well, I for one say if all Pharmacies must carry BC by law then they must also carry firearms, pornography, and 70s disco CDs as well.

You people disgust me.

Don't like American laws and regulations, you are free to leave the country, please do immediately, Thank You

Why do you keep telling people you disagree with to leave the country? You cant be more than 12 years old.

 

[Jschmuck2]

He's picked up on your tactics.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PELarson

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?

No, this is a state licensed Pharmacist making a medical decision which overrides a state licensed Physician which is not allowed except in cases of negligance by the Physician!

Nope, the pharmacy is not making a medical decision. This is a private business that doesn't sell what the customer wants to buy.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

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?

Absolutely, otherwise it is not a "Pharmacy: IMO.

:thumbsup:

If not carry it at least order it.

Here's another moron

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PELarson

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?

No, this is a state licensed Pharmacist making a medical decision which overrides a state licensed Physician which is not allowed except in cases of negligance by the Physician!

Nope, the pharmacy is not making a medical decision. This is a private business that doesn't sell what the customer wants to buy.

By refusing the prescription they are overriding the doctor.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PELarson

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?

No, this is a state licensed Pharmacist making a medical decision which overrides a state licensed Physician which is not allowed except in cases of negligance by the Physician!

Nope, the pharmacy is not making a medical decision. This is a private business that doesn't sell what the customer wants to buy.

By refusing the prescription they are overriding the doctor.

:roll:


Why is this even an issue to get passionate about? Did you knock someone up because they couldnt get birth control?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

:laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre
Dell refuses to sell me computers. Should I be able to sue them? Should they be forced to sell computers to me?

Is the computer a legally prescribed drug to you?

Legally prescribed? No. But that is irrelevant.

What is a prescription in the legal sense? It gives someone the right to purchase medicine. It does not force someone to sell said medicine. A contraceptive isn't a dire need anyway. Economically speaking however, a pharmacy that chooses not to sell contraceptives loses out on sales, and causes an increase in sales to other pharmacies who would sell contraceptives. In the long run, due to a kind of "Darwinian economic effect," pharmacies who who are more efficient and productive will win, and those who aren't will lose.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Wait, who cares? Go to a different pharmacy.

Why are people trying to give money to businesses that dont want it?

That's easy when a different pharmacy is only 2-3 minutes away.. What about when its 45 minutes away, or 2 hours away, or the next state away? where would you draw the line that this is an unreasonable burden to be placed on someone with limited resources?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave.

Your solution is to close the pharmacy down and force the other 99% of patients to make that 45 minute hike?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

uhhh... you seem to be confused.

Dave et al. are talking about FORCING a private business(via the gov't) to carry products they don't want to sell.

 

[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.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Dell refuses to sell me computers. Should I be able to sue them? Should they be forced to sell computers to me?

You need to correct this to a product they don't sell. Dell doesn't sell you cheeseburgers, clearly the government should come in and force them shut down.

 

[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....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
Dell refuses to sell me computers. Should I be able to sue them? Should they be forced to sell computers to me?

You need to correct this to a product they don't sell. Dell doesn't sell you cheeseburgers, clearly the government should come in and force them shut down.

Actually that doesn't really work. A better analogy would be forcing DELL to sell a computer part/item they don't want to sell. Like graphic tablets(I dont' think they sell them).

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

That is different from a product they do not sell.

I'm impressed that you managed to cross breed hyperbole with a strawman. Hitler had the jews as the boogieman, and you have your own as described here.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

uhhh... you seem to be confused.

Dave et al. are talking about FORCING a private business(via the gov't) to carry products they don't want to sell.

I am not at all confused. Either way is some group acting in a reactionary and/or dictatorial fashion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

uhhh... you seem to be confused.

Dave et al. are talking about FORCING a private business(via the gov't) to carry products they don't want to sell.

I am not at all confused. Either way is some group acting in a reactionary and/or dictatorial fashion.

Nope.

A business owner makes a decision on what products they carry. Dave et al. wants to force said business owner to sell certain things. yeah... they are so similar...:roll:

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

uhhh... you seem to be confused.

Dave et al. are talking about FORCING a private business(via the gov't) to carry products they don't want to sell.

I am not at all confused. Either way is some group acting in a reactionary and/or dictatorial fashion.

Nope.

A business owner makes a decision on what products they carry. Dave et al. wants to force said business owner to sell certain things. yeah... they are so similar...:roll:

So only a government is capable of acting in a fascist manner, not an individual?
The business owner wants to deny these products in order to comply with their beliefs and force others to comply with their beliefs. Both fascist. Find another, more appropriate word

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Wait, who cares? Go to a different pharmacy.

Why are people trying to give money to businesses that dont want it?

That's easy when a different pharmacy is only 2-3 minutes away.. What about when its 45 minutes away, or 2 hours away, or the next state away? where would you draw the line that this is an unreasonable burden to be placed on someone with limited resources?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave.

Your solution is to close the pharmacy down and force the other 99% of patients to make that 45 minute hike?

No, my solution is for every pharmacist to carry everything, within reason. Like skoorb said, if that means making a special order to keep from having to stock costly items with low demand, that's okay with me.

Seems that makes me a Nazi, I guess..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

uhhh... you seem to be confused.

Dave et al. are talking about FORCING a private business(via the gov't) to carry products they don't want to sell.

I am not at all confused. Either way is some group acting in a reactionary and/or dictatorial fashion.

Nope.

A business owner makes a decision on what products they carry. Dave et al. wants to force said business owner to sell certain things. yeah... they are so similar...:roll:

So only a government is capable of acting in a fascist manner, not an individual?
The business owner wants to deny these products in order to comply with their beliefs and force others to comply with their beliefs. Both fascist. Find another, more appropriate word

eh? Explain how it's facism for a business owner to decide what products they carry?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Wait, who cares? Go to a different pharmacy.

Why are people trying to give money to businesses that dont want it?

That's easy when a different pharmacy is only 2-3 minutes away.. What about when its 45 minutes away, or 2 hours away, or the next state away? where would you draw the line that this is an unreasonable burden to be placed on someone with limited resources?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave.

Your solution is to close the pharmacy down and force the other 99% of patients to make that 45 minute hike?

No, my solution is for every pharmacist to carry everything, within reason. Like skoorb said, if that means making a special order to keep from having to stock costly items with low demand, that's okay with me.

Seems that makes me a Nazi, I guess..

And if they refuse, what is your recourse?

 

[DealMonkey]

I have a little advice for pharmacists like this: put the pills in the little bottle, hand them over and STFU. Nobody cares what your stupid personal beliefs are. Do your job or get the F out.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Except this is not forcing anything on anyone. This is a business that doesn't sell a product that some people think they should carry. And judging by the poll, many here would extend their facist hand to slap these businesses who don't do what they think they should.

So you do not approve of the "fascism" of forcing them to sell, but you do approve of the "fascism" of them refusing to sell. Interesting.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

uhhh... you seem to be confused.

Dave et al. are talking about FORCING a private business(via the gov't) to carry products they don't want to sell.

I am not at all confused. Either way is some group acting in a reactionary and/or dictatorial fashion.

Nope.

A business owner makes a decision on what products they carry. Dave et al. wants to force said business owner to sell certain things. yeah... they are so similar...:roll:

So only a government is capable of acting in a fascist manner, not an individual?
The business owner wants to deny these products in order to comply with their beliefs and force others to comply with their beliefs. Both fascist. Find another, more appropriate word

eh? Explain how it's facism for a business owner to decide what products they carry?

Fascism, as it appears you're trying to use it here, is oppressive, dictatorial control.
There you go, further explanation should not be necessary. That's why I'm telling you to find a more appropriate word.