Wow, you don't have a Walgreens every three blocks? That is a small town...

Don't make fun of my cow town! :p


We do have some modern amenities. Like the one Subway store and the brand new Dunkin Donuts. lol

I come from an area where you drove for an hour to get to the doctor or the pharmacy. Should that pharmacist have a moral problem with giving me medication which is my right to obtain then I could drive the hour back and then another hour in the other direction to see if the other pharmacist had a problem with my physician doing their job. Funny enough, by the time I got home everyone in MY town would have already heard about my problem from the moral pharmacist.

Lilith,

!. Pharmacies which offer services not available at other pharmacies often advertise to that effect. "Open 24 hrs", etc. This is referred to as a competitive advantage.

2. Use the telephone. You will save a lot of money on gas.

3. You do not have a "right" to purchase drugs of this nature. The prescription entitles you to purchase them.

JSeal,

1. Duh.

2. Kiss my grits:D

3. You missed the ! you used as a one when you edited your post.

The coercion model of social interaction does have its proponents. :(

I can imagine a state where every service will be allowed to be given a person's "moral" consideration first. Some would have the right to discriminate in the apartments they have to rent,taxis could bypass a fare because the couple looks too "faggy." And God forbid,even lilith could decide who she wants to have languishing in her dungeons. I say,if it bothers someone to fill a priscription for the morning after pill,get out of the business.You are hired to serve patrons,not to choose what you will or will not do by considering your own feelings. Make about as much sence as a waiter who would refuse to serve a customer pork chops because it is against his religion.

Take the time to read the posts.

The essential question is whether the personal or corporate morality of a service provider should be allowed to dictate the supply of legal goods and services.

The issue is clouded with such questions as whether a 17 year old refused fuel because the vendor did not want to contribute to his statistically more probable death has been badly done by.

Refusal of a health product or service which has direct impact on the wellbeing of a person is unforgivable. Australia faced this recently when the sole pharmacist in a small town refused to supply unmarried girls with the contraceptive pill, forcing them to make a humilating trip to the next town . The dust is still settling.

Oldfart,

No sir. I believe that is not true in this instance. At question is whether the Sate should be allowed to dictate this behavior of its citizens. It is to challenge this that the pharmacists filed suit.

Interesting! Perhaps this is where people are misinformed. If you return to the initial post, you may see that the what the pharmacists are attempting to do is to limit what the licensing board can enforce. I may be misreading this, but this suit does not attempt to do anything to anyone. The suit was filed to prevent one group from compelling another to begin doing something they wish to not do.

I expect the licensing board to win this one, but it appears to be a case of the citizens trying to limit the power of the State, not some bizzare imposition of their POV on anyone else.

For me motive matters.

JSeal,

You are aware that not every post in this thread is addressed to you, right? I find it difficult to have a conversation when you feel the need to post a rebuttal to every single person who expresses their views.

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 56
User Name Posts
jseal 22
Lilith 7
Oldfart 6
WildIrish 6
gekkogecko 3
Scarecrow 3
Aqua 2
scotzoidman 2
Wicked Wanda 2
lakritze 1
PantyFanatic 1
wyndhy 1

Lilith,

I trust you will not be offended if I repond to a requset that WildIrish made.

WildIrish,

I am commenting on the morals you refer to in your post. Morals address the question of how an individual should live in society. The principles directing right or appropriate conduct, if you will. We all have morals, and the lives we lead are the visible representation of those morals. Our day to day behavior displays or morals to everyone we meet, talk to, or work with. We observe the morals of others interact with them.

Interestingly, this daily exposition of our morals flatly contradicts the claim that morals cannot, or even worse should not be taught. We teach others about what we believe to be good – our morals – all the time, every day.

I assume that you believe that you live a morally acceptable life. I know no one who does not believe that – no matter that their behavior may differ from what I believe to be morally “best”. Whenever someone discovers that one or another of the moral principles which guide their behavior does not work well with the others, either the odd one out or the others get changed. People whose behavior falls within one standard deviation of the norm, the “average”, “normal”, or “regular old” folk, try to have a consistent set of morals. Having contradictory guidelines in one’s personal goal setting apparatus can lead to behavioral problems.

You asked the question “If you're allowed to express your beliefs by not serving me...are you not denying me my morals and beliefs?”. If you believe that to be a valid assertion, it would follow that your belief system – your morals – would be denied if someone did not do as you demanded. This is another way of saying that your morals found compelling and coercing others was acceptable behavior.

So, putting it all together. You asked me to explain the parenthetical aside in a prior post. I have tried to capture the post above. The part in question is “which are, after all, quite OK, otherwise you would have already corrected them”. The subject are the morals, which I believe you judge to be “quite OK”, or acceptable, because whenever you have thought them needing adjustment, you have adjusted them.

The Bitch returns...
 

Yes, jseal, I started off addressing the post to you.
I deliberately segued to a wide attack on all those refusing to serve their patients, their customers, and those who supported them.

"Legal Standing" is a very inexact thing.
I can sue anyone for almost anything. I might not win, like the FEDERAL JUDGE who sued for 4 million plus because he was unhappy with his dry cleaners. Someone, somewhere though he had "legal standing" to file his suit.

I must quote you and myself AND the original article here a couple of times.

I wrote:

3. The rule violates their religious and moral beliefs.
If I accept your arguement, ..."

You responded:

"I did not make that argument."

Funny, earlier YOU said:

"the notion that deeply held religious and moral opinions entitles individuals to special – even exceptional – handling has been recognized for many years."

oops?

let's quote the article

"In a lawsuit filed in federal court here, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday coerces them into "choosing between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

And

"saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral."

"The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion can't stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs."


You quoted me:
"4. Causes death of a fertilized egg, thus ends a life.
BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!"

You responded:

"This is where you weirded me out. As I said the exact opposite, I must assume that here you have redirected your rant from me to the pharmacists in Washington State. Permit me to post the relevant portion of post #11."

Yes, this was in regards to an unscientific statement made by the pharmacists, another thing I attacked.


Let's quote the article again.

"Pharmacists are also forbidden to destroy prescriptions or harass patients, rules that were prompted by complaints from Washingtonians, chairwoman Rebecca Hille said."

So it is OK for these pharmacists to impose their beliefs on patients?

That behavior goes 'way past "That is what the State has passed a law COMPELLING them to do."

Or what not to do?

THIS behavior is not resisisting "State control", this is literally "holier than thou" fanatics imposing their personal will on patients. This law in part is protecting patients from these fanatics.

"It is not the State’s fucking job to compel its citizens to perform actions which they do not wish to do."

(WTF!!!!!)

"Keep the State the fuck out of the private lives of its citizens."

Your'e mixxed up here hon.

A professional whose profession is licensed by the state IS compelled to follw State regulations. That is NOT the same as their private lives. This is their state licensed PUBLIC PROFESSIONAL life, NOT about what they do in bed, what they read, or what church they go to.

The State can COMPEL state licensed professionals to do a lot. Why are you unaware of this?
As an RN I am COMPELLED to work while straight and sober, keep my license in good order, fully document my encounters with patients, maintain adequate profciency in my manual skills, (IV, ACLS, CPR, etc.) and attend several score hours yearly of classes to keep my license. This applies to Pharmacists, as well as Doctors, Chiropractors, PA's and so on.
Even lawyers MUST pass the bar exam and have a license to practice law.
An Bug Exterminator is COMPELLED to keep proper records obtain proper training, and uses his chemicals in an safe acceptable manner.

Right or wrong, in medicine, we are considered "public servants" in varing degrees. ER Docs take care of EVERYONE who comes in.

Small town with five pharmacies owned by different companies is not the same as five towns with only one pharmacy in the area that all residents go to, which is a more accurate picture.
I am also now licensed to drive a car in Texas. I am a good driver.
I can drive safely over the posted speed limit. I am sure the State Patrol will understand your argument that the State should not be able to COMPEL me to drive a certain way to keep my LICENSE to drive.

A personal note. Some of you already know this about me.

I despise drunk drivers with a hatred you can not understand. I have performed more acts of contrition over this hatred than you would believe.
(one reason I quit the Catholic Chruch, but that's another story)
I almost loss my right to work as a nurse early in my career because I slapped a drunk driver. (he was rude and called me a nasty name, but still)

Last week I was working MEDSURG, and two, yes two of my patients were in the hospital for injuries incurred while driving drunk. Serious injuries. Others were hurt too, but no one was killed.

I can't refuse to care for them to the ABSOLUTE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND SKILL because of my hatred of them.
1. It would be LEGALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY unethical. The STATE COMPELS me to take care of everyone to the best of my ability.
2. I made up my mind a long time ago that to not always do the best job I can would be PERSONALLY immoral and unethical.

I would even take car of you, jseal

(((HUGS)))

Enough for this little girl, I's going to bed.
Alone.

WW