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

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111
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?

Fines. Lots and lots of fines until the unwanted behavior is corrected.

Thus either driving them out of business, or forcing them to drop contraceptions altogether.....

Well I'd suggest positive incentives for carrying the pill, but it sounds like our pious pharmacist would go through great lengths, including shutting down his business, rather than sell BC.. If that's the way it has to be then fine.. I guess you... win?

Originally posted by: Fern

Just buy some condom, for heaven's sake. Plus, BC can be purchased on-line. You make out like it's some kind of life or death product like insulin etc.een being able to buy a notebook computer versus not being able to get the kind of medical treatment you require?
It's not "medical treatment" either.

See bolded

Fern[/quote]

Morning after pill is time sensitive. having to wait 2-3 days for delivery kind of defeats the purposes.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the issuance of a license from the legal obligations that come with operating a business.

A prescription is an affidavit from a licensed professional to a business regulated by the DEA that the holder/person named has a legitimate medical use for the controlled substance. The prescription itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substance.

The license afforded to pharmacies by the DEA authorize them to purchase, handle, and dispense controlled substances to those people that another licensed agent (the doctor) has authorized. The license itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substances.

Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment of any kind if they receive public funding. It's in the public interest. Private hospitals CAN refuse treatment, but they CANNOT refuse emergency care. The public interest overrides their private right to refuse.

Pharmacies HAVE NO public interest in emergent care. If you are standing in line at CVS or Wal-Mart, chances are you won't keel over and die if you don't get your prescription-strength Tagamet in the next 2 minutes. Since they have no emergent care responsibility, there is NO public interest that overrides their private right to refuse service or not carry a product. Pharmacies do, however, have a responsibility to check drug interactions, as that can kill almost instantly and is definitely in the public interest.

Now, this facet of law is in flux and changes state-to-state and year-to-year, but overall a pharmacy has NO obligation to the DEA through its licensure and NO obligation to the public since it does not provide emergency care.

As crude as it sounds, the 1 pharmacy in town that refuses to carry Ortho Evra is legally no different than the 1 grocery store in town refusing to carry Tia Rosa Brand Ultra-Thin Tortilla Chips instead of Tostitos.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

"Legal obligations" of a license?

You guys are making stuff up.

As I said above (as a license holder myself), licenses exist for the protection of the consumer/client by establishing some level of competence. They allow you as a license holder to do something, they do not require that you do it.

I could better see peoples' argument if pharmacy license were limited based on population etc, but they are not.

Fern

Someone better tell the Virginia Board of Pharmacy real quick that they are not allowed to dictate rules to pharmacies!!!

They sure have issued a shitload of requirements that the pharmacies can start ignoring whenever they want.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uh... water and electric is totally different. The electric company provides electricity as their product. This sort of whining by Dave et al. is like whining to the electric company that they don't sell electric stoves.(not very good but it's as close as an electric company fits into this discussion). Same with water.

Again, the pharmacy isn't dictating anything, it's merely not offering a product for sale. For your water or electric example to be remotely close to relevant - they would not sell electricity/water to anyone.

Oh, so regulation on who you can sell to is okay, but not what you can sell?

eh? where did I say "regulation on who you can sell to is ok" nor did I say regulation was not ok on what you can sell.
This is about forcing you to sell something, not about regulations on what you sell. Like smokes, beer, etc - those are regulated due to our existing laws(not that I necessarily agree with all that). However, just because a store has a liquor license does not mean they have to sell every kind of alcohol.

You seem to be in favour of forcing the electric company to sell to everyone who comes knocking. That's regulation on who they must sell to.

In a perfectly free capitalist society, the electric company would be able to tell whoever they wanted to go fuck themselves in the dark. Thus without regulation, they could tell this pharmacy to sell birth control or to deal with their lights being off.

In plainer language: You are okay with forcing a company to sell their product to someone, but not okay with forcing them to have a specific product to sell.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the issuance of a license from the legal obligations that come with operating a business.

A prescription is an affidavit from a licensed professional to a business regulated by the DEA that the holder/person named has a legitimate medical use for the controlled substance. The prescription itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substance.

The license afforded to pharmacies by the DEA authorize them to purchase, handle, and dispense controlled substances to those people that another licensed agent (the doctor) has authorized. The license itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substances.

Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment of any kind if they receive public funding. It's in the public interest. Private hospitals CAN refuse treatment, but they CANNOT refuse emergency care. The public interest overrides their private right to refuse.

Pharmacies HAVE NO public interest in emergent care. If you are standing in line at CVS or Wal-Mart, chances are you won't keel over and die if you don't get your prescription-strength Tagamet in the next 2 minutes. Since they have no emergent care responsibility, there is NO public interest that overrides their private right to refuse service or not carry a product. Pharmacies do, however, have a responsibility to check drug interactions, as that can kill almost instantly and is definitely in the public interest.

Now, this facet of law is in flux and changes state-to-state and year-to-year, but overall a pharmacy has NO obligation to the DEA through its licensure and NO obligation to the public since it does not provide emergency care.

As crude as it sounds, the 1 pharmacy in town that refuses to carry Ortho Evra is legally no different than the 1 grocery store in town refusing to carry Tia Rosa Brand Ultra-Thin Tortilla Chips instead of Tostitos.

That's fine, chage the name to Divine Mercy Grocery and I have no issue with them.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the issuance of a license from the legal obligations that come with operating a business.

A prescription is an affidavit from a licensed professional to a business regulated by the DEA that the holder/person named has a legitimate medical use for the controlled substance. The prescription itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substance.

The license afforded to pharmacies by the DEA authorize them to purchase, handle, and dispense controlled substances to those people that another licensed agent (the doctor) has authorized. The license itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substances.

Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment of any kind if they receive public funding. It's in the public interest. Private hospitals CAN refuse treatment, but they CANNOT refuse emergency care. The public interest overrides their private right to refuse.

Pharmacies HAVE NO public interest in emergent care. If you are standing in line at CVS or Wal-Mart, chances are you won't keel over and die if you don't get your prescription-strength Tagamet in the next 2 minutes. Since they have no emergent care responsibility, there is NO public interest that overrides their private right to refuse service or not carry a product. Pharmacies do, however, have a responsibility to check drug interactions, as that can kill almost instantly and is definitely in the public interest.

Now, this facet of law is in flux and changes state-to-state and year-to-year, but overall a pharmacy has NO obligation to the DEA through its licensure and NO obligation to the public since it does not provide emergency care.

As crude as it sounds, the 1 pharmacy in town that refuses to carry Ortho Evra is legally no different than the 1 grocery store in town refusing to carry Tia Rosa Brand Ultra-Thin Tortilla Chips instead of Tostitos.

That's fine, chage the name to Divine Mercy Grocery and I have no issue with them.

Dave, he explained it in relatively small words. You're just being obtuse.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the issuance of a license from the legal obligations that come with operating a business.

A prescription is an affidavit from a licensed professional to a business regulated by the DEA that the holder/person named has a legitimate medical use for the controlled substance. The prescription itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substance.

The license afforded to pharmacies by the DEA authorize them to purchase, handle, and dispense controlled substances to those people that another licensed agent (the doctor) has authorized. The license itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substances.

Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment of any kind if they receive public funding. It's in the public interest. Private hospitals CAN refuse treatment, but they CANNOT refuse emergency care. The public interest overrides their private right to refuse.

Pharmacies HAVE NO public interest in emergent care. If you are standing in line at CVS or Wal-Mart, chances are you won't keel over and die if you don't get your prescription-strength Tagamet in the next 2 minutes. Since they have no emergent care responsibility, there is NO public interest that overrides their private right to refuse service or not carry a product. Pharmacies do, however, have a responsibility to check drug interactions, as that can kill almost instantly and is definitely in the public interest.

Now, this facet of law is in flux and changes state-to-state and year-to-year, but overall a pharmacy has NO obligation to the DEA through its licensure and NO obligation to the public since it does not provide emergency care.

As crude as it sounds, the 1 pharmacy in town that refuses to carry Ortho Evra is legally no different than the 1 grocery store in town refusing to carry Tia Rosa Brand Ultra-Thin Tortilla Chips instead of Tostitos.

That's fine, chage the name to Divine Mercy Grocery and I have no issue with them.

Dave, he explained it in relatively small words. You're just being obtuse.

and you're just being Anti-American.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the issuance of a license from the legal obligations that come with operating a business.

A prescription is an affidavit from a licensed professional to a business regulated by the DEA that the holder/person named has a legitimate medical use for the controlled substance. The prescription itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substance.

The license afforded to pharmacies by the DEA authorize them to purchase, handle, and dispense controlled substances to those people that another licensed agent (the doctor) has authorized. The license itself is NOT a contract between ANYONE that obligates the dispensation of said controlled substances.

Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment of any kind if they receive public funding. It's in the public interest. Private hospitals CAN refuse treatment, but they CANNOT refuse emergency care. The public interest overrides their private right to refuse.

Pharmacies HAVE NO public interest in emergent care. If you are standing in line at CVS or Wal-Mart, chances are you won't keel over and die if you don't get your prescription-strength Tagamet in the next 2 minutes. Since they have no emergent care responsibility, there is NO public interest that overrides their private right to refuse service or not carry a product. Pharmacies do, however, have a responsibility to check drug interactions, as that can kill almost instantly and is definitely in the public interest.

Now, this facet of law is in flux and changes state-to-state and year-to-year, but overall a pharmacy has NO obligation to the DEA through its licensure and NO obligation to the public since it does not provide emergency care.

As crude as it sounds, the 1 pharmacy in town that refuses to carry Ortho Evra is legally no different than the 1 grocery store in town refusing to carry Tia Rosa Brand Ultra-Thin Tortilla Chips instead of Tostitos.

That's fine, chage the name to Divine Mercy Grocery and I have no issue with them.

Dave, he explained it in relatively small words. You're just being obtuse.

and you're just being Anti-American.

Sorry if you think that freedom is anti-American.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Dave, he explained it in relatively small words. You're just being obtuse.

and you're just being Anti-American.

Sorry if you think that freedom is anti-American. [/quote]

You're right, you're free to leave please do so. Thank You

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Fines. Lots and lots of fines until the unwanted behavior is corrected.

Thus either driving them out of business, or forcing them to drop contraceptions altogether.....

Well I'd suggest positive incentives for carrying the pill, but it sounds like our pious pharmacist would go through great lengths, including shutting down his business, rather than sell BC.. If that's the way it has to be then fine.. I guess you... win?

I'm not sure what I'm winning by pointing out that obviously irrational people won't respond to rational incentives, but thanks.

This is precisely why this entire line of discussion is rather silly.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You're right, you're free to leave please do so. Thank You

That's a good one, Dave. Not entirely sure how it relates to this topic.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Someone better tell the Virginia Board of Pharmacy real quick that they are not allowed to dictate rules to pharmacies!!!

They sure have issued a shitload of requirements that the pharmacies can start ignoring whenever they want.

Of course there are rules. No one said there weren't.

In my case, the name I can use for my business is even regulated etc. We have a huge number of rules.

Most professional rules limit who you may serve, not the other way around (force you to serve someone). It seems many of you think that they should, but until they do, that's wishful thinking. And, IMO, implementing such rules would be a freahin nightmare for too many reasons to list here. Nor do I see how they would be needed as long as licenses aren't limited based on population ot geography.

Fern

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

And allow smoking.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

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.

And allow smoking.

No.

Public Interest.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

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.

And allow smoking.

No.

Public Interest.

Refusing to fullfill legally prescribed doctor orders is in the public interest?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I think the most valid comparison here would be a Christian Scientist pharmacist (if such a thing even exists) refusing to sell antibiotics or insulin.

And how long would he/she stay in business?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I think the most valid comparison here would be a Christian Scientist pharmacist (if such a thing even exists) refusing to sell antibiotics or insulin.

And how long would he/she stay in business?

As long as God allowed

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
I think when you're talking about a normal product - a pen, a type of notebook computer, whatever - that's one thing, but we're talking about medical treatment here. I think when you venture into a type of product or service that has a serious consequence when you are unable to obtain it, then we're really talking about something else entirely.
Just buy some condom, for heaven's sake. Plus, BC can be purchased on-line. You make out like it's some kind of life or death product like insulin etc.

Someone just brought up the electric company denying this pharmacy power. Or how about the water company denying them water? Seriously, if I owned the power company, I'd be a private business. I should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever I wish. What if I denied this pharmacy because I object to their ideology? Would that be OK? If they don't like it, they can always relocate to the neighboring county assuming they don't adopt the same stance.
Elect/water companies are a bad analogy. They have to serve you because they are granted a monopoly. Pharmacies don't have monopolys,.

Seriously, can you guys not differentiate between being able to buy a notebook computer versus not being able to get the kind of medical treatment you require?
It's not "medical treatment" either.

See bolded

Fern

Birth control pills can't be used for medical treatment such as hormon regulation? Tell that to the doctor that prescribes them to my wife for that very reason.

Of course they can. Nevertheless, one cannot force a pharmacy to carry any particular medication. Has anyone any idea what it would cost to carry every conceivable medication so someone won't get offended or be inconvenienced?

There is an enormous difference between refusing to dispense and carrying a med. Even if one disagrees, Dave's full of shit. The pharmacy can't have it's license yanked in that state because of refusal to fill. It's the law in Virginia.

Frankly, compelling a pharmacist to dispense is dangerous. I'd kill a few people every week if I was compelled to be a mindless dispensing robot.

 

[manowar821]

Some of you fuckers get pissed off when an islamic man/woman refuses to sell a product at a grocery store, but then turn around and defend this?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uh... water and electric is totally different. The electric company provides electricity as their product. This sort of whining by Dave et al. is like whining to the electric company that they don't sell electric stoves.(not very good but it's as close as an electric company fits into this discussion). Same with water.

Again, the pharmacy isn't dictating anything, it's merely not offering a product for sale. For your water or electric example to be remotely close to relevant - they would not sell electricity/water to anyone.

Oh, so regulation on who you can sell to is okay, but not what you can sell?

eh? where did I say "regulation on who you can sell to is ok" nor did I say regulation was not ok on what you can sell.
This is about forcing you to sell something, not about regulations on what you sell. Like smokes, beer, etc - those are regulated due to our existing laws(not that I necessarily agree with all that). However, just because a store has a liquor license does not mean they have to sell every kind of alcohol.

You seem to be in favour of forcing the electric company to sell to everyone who comes knocking. That's regulation on who they must sell to.

In a perfectly free capitalist society, the electric company would be able to tell whoever they wanted to go fuck themselves in the dark. Thus without regulation, they could tell this pharmacy to sell birth control or to deal with their lights being off.

In plainer language: You are okay with forcing a company to sell their product to someone, but not okay with forcing them to have a specific product to sell.

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.

 

[Zstream]

A business rather it be regulated or private should in no way be forced to carry a product. Free market system is about just that... a free system to sell certain goods as you please.

If said business is not selling a product and demand is high then another business will pop up and shutdown the one not selling the goods. Simple as that folks.

Oh, to say that Birth Control pills is categorized as medical treatment is a false and rather despicable statement. If the doctor wanted to treat your hormones a specific medication is for that purpose.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Oh, to say that Birth Control pills is categorized as medical treatment is a false and rather despicable statement. If the doctor wanted to treat your hormones a specific medication is for that purpose.

You can say it's false if you want. All I know is that is what was prescibed and it worked. Take it how you will.

Oh, and I never stated that they should be force to sell anything (see my previous post). They'll lose money from this, IMO.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Some of you fuckers get pissed off when an islamic man/woman refuses to sell a product at a grocery store, but then turn around and defend this?

No, I've never seen that here.

Who here has complained about a Muslim grocery store not selling pork or alchohol?

Just as no one complains about Muslims' not selling some products in their stores, no one should complain about these people.

(BTW: If it's the taxicab thing you're referring to, those licenses are limited based on population to ensure that taxicabs' are profitable. But pharmacy licenses are not limited in that way)

Fern

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
[And allow smoking.

No.

Public Interest.

Refusing to fullfill legally prescribed doctor orders is in the public interest?

Noooooooooooo................

There is no public interest in forcing a private business to carry a product and/or administer a service in a NON-EMERGENCY situation unless that refusal is based on a reason that the proper governmental authority has declared a protected class.

Or, think of it this way: You go to your Primary Care Physician (PCP) complaining of vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration. Your doctor prescribes for you an IV. Your doctor does not carry IVs in his office (he's a General Practitioner). His staff calls around to various hospitals, surgery centers, and cancer centers. They almost all refuse to see you for your IV (the hospital doesn't refuse, but tells you you'd have to wait 4 hours to be seen). Eventually, you find one cancer center on the other end of town that 1) has the IV, 2) has the personnel to treat you, and 3) consents to treat you.

Should the surgery and cancer centers be FORCED to treat you? They're privately owned, just like the pharmacy. You're not in any danger of dying, it's just an IV for dehydration. Maybe they don't want you getting surgery or cancer patients sick. Maybe they don't contract with your insurer. Maybe they just don't want new patients and the paperwork involved.

Is it in the public interest to FORCE them to see you? No, it's not. You found a place that would see you. Worst case, you could have gone to the hospital and waited 4 hours. It would have been uncomfortable, but you would not have been in any imminent danger.

 

[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.