Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
karfar, one poster here tried to look up stuff on the Internet and found out my real identity through a different website...needless to say that has been changed and all. I never raped any woman, I won't get into that again.
A tip for you Tom...Never, never use your real name on a forum if you want to protect your identity and have used that name anywhere on line. It is there for all to see.
Corporations get into litigations all the time for the actions of their employees. Customers sue because they feel degraded, humiliated and discriminated against, it's obviously a big deal to many women to show up at local pharmacies only to be denied something that's been around for decades and what pharmacy has in stock.
Ahh yes, the self esteem movement. Someone makes you feel bad, so you are entitled to millions. The cost gets passed on to the consumer anyway. You don't think these corporations actually pay for these frivilous lawsuits? You and I do.
A tip for you Tom...Never, never use your real name on a forum if you want to protect your identity and have used that name anywhere on line. It is there for all to see.
The store has every right to allow bad customer service, which is essentially what this all boils down to. A smart business owner would stock the pills in question and fire those who refuse to sell it.
Show me a law that requires good customer service, and I'll retract everything I've said on this thread about this issue.
There is a big difference between 'customer service' and downright discrimination and refusal to distribute legal prescribed medication. Of course, I have no right to expect good customer service, I just happen to expect it because this is WHAT i AM PAYING FOR. and if I get bad customer service, I will not patronize the place and in fact request my money back in some situations. I suppose that the pharmacies aren't giving out the drugs for free, right? They are also not non-profit organizations.
Frankly, this thread is starting to get convoluted and I am getting tired of it. The argument is: should the employees who fail to do their jobs and cost businesses money be legally protected by law/government because of their religious beliefs? I say: No. We ARE talking about the interference of government into the affairs of the business in this situation, expecting the business to guarantee the employment to those to hurt the bottom line, because of what they choose to believe in.
Even the OP, that pharmacist in the article is a "nutcase"??? But crazy environmentalists who set fire to SUVS in car dealerships aren't nutcases? Those who attack cops every time the World Bank or the G8 meets, they're not nutcases? What about those people who wear Mumia and Che on their shirts? Would a Muslim taxi driver who refuses to transport passengers with alcohol (a true story in Minnesota) also be a nutcase or just someone true to his culture and religions? They can you answer that last one? Hold on, if your a liberal Obama type I know your answer already.
Every woman you’ve spoken of is a **** or *****. You don’t find that offensive? Apparently a lot of people do. Don’t try to backstep now, we’ve got your number. Moving the conversation elsewhere is not a diversionary tactic that will work here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70
Your experiences have really been different from mine. A lot of people here on the East Coast are very elitist and are ignorant about the rest of the country. I've heard many comments about "inbreds" in West Virginia and Kentucky, about "hicks" in Iowa and "hillbillies" in West Virginia and "trailer trash" in South Carolina. Mention West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, or Kansas to the elite East Coast crowd and see how they react toward these places? I've met MANY people who say country music is for "hicks" and "white trash". It almost seems most people from the Northeast, especially in NY, NJ, CT, and MA believe these things.
You complain about people refuting your statements and start crying about it and then you start slamming people again. What is your problem? Apparently you are the one with the problem and can’t leave others alone with your stereotyping. How do you expect people to interact with you?
What right in the constitution grants a woman the right to secure birth control pills at any pharmacy against the personal conviction of the man/woman running that store?
You don't have to like the pharmacists decision, but you should defend his right to do as he pleases in regards to what products he makes available. This is called liberty folks. Something democrats and republicans seem to hate so much.
I think that you agree, though, that this issue is about the balance between individual's rights and the public welfare. Certainly the pharmacist should have the right to stock items as he see fits, but the pharmacist is not just a shopkeeper. His profession is part of the medical healthcare system, and the courts have deemed that reasonable access to that healthcare system is the right of American citizens as provided for in the Constitution (provide for the General Welfare). If a customer can get the medication elsewhere, fine, though I think the pharmacist has an obligation to the local medical professionals and to his customers to inform them of his policies. If the customer cannot obtain the medications elsewhere, whatever those medications may be, then it becomes an issue, because the exercising of the pharmacist's rights should not outweigh the rights of other Americans. And almost every medicine has secondary applications, which may or may not have anything to do with the pharmacist's moral convictions.
I think that you agree, though, that this issue is about the balance between individual's rights and the public welfare. Certainly the pharmacist should have the right to stock items as he see fits, but the pharmacist is not just a shopkeeper. His profession is part of the medical healthcare system, and the courts have deemed that reasonable access to that healthcare system is the right of American citizens as provided for in the Constitution (provide for the General Welfare). If a customer can get the medication elsewhere, fine, though I think the pharmacist has an obligation to the local medical professionals and to his customers to inform them of his policies. If the customer cannot obtain the medications elsewhere, whatever those medications may be, then it becomes an issue, because the exercising of the pharmacist's rights should not outweigh the rights of other Americans. And almost every medicine has secondary applications, which may or may not have anything to do with the pharmacist's moral convictions.
The public welfare is served by protecting the right of the individual. Can't anyone see this basic truth?
If a private employer doesn't want to hire you because you are black, or christian, or non christian, or mexican, or gay, or trans sexual, ect, why do we let the government tell them they can't? The right to discriminate is what liberty is all about.
Actually, you don't have a right to openly discriminate against someone and deny them employment solely on the basis of race, religion, sexual preference, gender, age, etc. Try to do it openly and quickly get in trouble. If you really don't want to hire someone of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation you have to find other explanations of why you refuse them employment, such as merit, or skills, or experience or something that has nothing to do with their outward characteristics that they have no control over. The reason why race, gender, age is protected is because you have no control over it and shouldn't be discriminated against it. But if you have bad behavior, choose certain beliefs, choose to abuse drugs, etc these are the things you have control over, these are your choices and these choices interfere with your ability to do your job, you will be fired.
*cough PATRIOT Act cough wiretapping cough habeas corpus cough cough*
Whew, had to clear my throat there.
I hate those measures as much as anyone, but the OP wasn't asking about that... why do liberals hate freedom so much because that is what the OP was intending to present?
I think that you agree, though, that this issue is about the balance between individual's rights and the public welfare. Certainly the pharmacist should have the right to stock items as he see fits, but the pharmacist is not just a shopkeeper. His profession is part of the medical healthcare system, and the courts have deemed that reasonable access to that healthcare system is the right of American citizens as provided for in the Constitution (provide for the General Welfare). If a customer can get the medication elsewhere, fine, though I think the pharmacist has an obligation to the local medical professionals and to his customers to inform them of his policies. If the customer cannot obtain the medications elsewhere, whatever those medications may be, then it becomes an issue, because the exercising of the pharmacist's rights should not outweigh the rights of other Americans. And almost every medicine has secondary applications, which may or may not have anything to do with the pharmacist's moral convictions.
Well said, too bad I can't give you enough rep points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
