Slog Comments

 

Comments (36) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Let me guess how our "moderate" Attorney General and would-be Governor will rule on this one. Let's see, requiring pharmacists to do their jobs. vs. allowing the religious busybodies to slut-shame their customers: tough call.
Posted by maddogm13 on February 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM · Report this
2
Next up: Jehovahs Witness emergency room supervisors who refuse to permit blood transfusions because of conscience, and Christian Science EMTs who demand a religious right to use prayer rather than science when responding to an emergency.
Posted by TechBear on February 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 3

I don't see how a Pharmacist who is licensed by the state, and hence guaranteed a high income, can then suddenly claim to be independent and make his own rules.

If you want the license, then you have to fulfill requirements. Otherwise, quit and find another place to live or job category!
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on February 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM · Report this
4
Motherfucker!
Posted by sahara29 on February 22, 2012 at 2:02 PM · Report this
Rotten666 5
Don't you just hate those activist judges?
Posted by Rotten666 on February 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM · Report this
Westlake, son! 6
@5 zing!

Are they also not required to fill the prescriptions of an interracial couple because the bible?
Posted by Westlake, son! on February 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM · Report this
Jaymz 7
If the rules are reinstated for all pharmacies other than the named parties, does that mean the rest of the pharmacies in the state will be required to stock marijuana - a lawfully prescribed medication for which there is a community demand? Sounds like a good suit.....
Posted by Jaymz on February 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM · Report this
Collin 8
Not only does the drug need to be taken in the first 72 hours, taking it in the first 24 hours greatly increases the effectiveness of the drug.
Posted by Collin on February 22, 2012 at 2:15 PM · Report this
rob! 9
I think to be even-handed, we need a rule that exempts grocers from providing food and drink to pharmacists who refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions if, in good conscience, they believe such pharmacists should know what deprivation feels like.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on February 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM · Report this
10
Leighton was a Dubya appointee, confirmed by Senate consisting of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent.
Posted by PCM on February 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM · Report this
sloegin 11
So if pharmacists aren't obligated to provide the drugs proscribed by a doctor to a patient, then Washington state isn't obligated to license said pharmacists?
Posted by sloegin on February 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM · Report this
sloegin 12
*Prescribed, not proscribed, dammit...
Posted by sloegin on February 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM · Report this
13
Can pharmacists refuse to fill ED drugs for unmarried men?
Posted by Sir Vic on February 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM · Report this
smade 14
Thanks for the map. It's good to know which pharmacies to avoid.
Posted by smade on February 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM · Report this
seatackled 15
Is there any way one could challenge a pharmacy's right to sell a certain product on moral/religious grounds? Make this same pharmacy unable to sell some of their stock. Sauce for the goose, you know.
Posted by seatackled on February 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM · Report this
Daddy Love 16
There was a time in this country when "religious freedom" meant that it was OK to defend slavery by claiming that it was God's plan. There was a time in this country when "religious freedom" meant that it was OK to discriminate against Jews. There was a time in this country when "religious freedom" meant that God didn't intend for women to have the vote. There was a time in this country when "religious freedom" meant that interracial marriage was the work of Satan. And this time, in which "religious freedom" means that it's OK to defend bullies for beating up gay kids and force women to give birth against their will, too will pass.
Posted by Daddy Love on February 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
17
15 comments in this thread without any Xtians or economic libertarians celebrating the victory for Jesus/freedom? Seattleblues, you're falling down on the job again.
Posted by maddogm13 on February 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
18
Sweet -- by this logic, if a business makes any service decisions for pure business reasons, they can make them for religious reasons.

For instance, if a restaurant can refuse service to people not wearing shirts or shoes, they can clearly refuse service to Mormons, or Jews, or Muslims, or whoever they happen to object to.
Posted by also on February 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM · Report this
Jessica 19
http://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2010/11/co…

Annie is more eloquent than me.
Posted by Jessica on February 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 20
This is one of the reasons why I'm an active, anti-theist rather than a passive atheist.

I would be more than happy to let religious people and religion go along on its merry way, if only they'd keep their beliefs to themselves. But they don't. Since they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves, then I refuse to stop denying them their fantasies.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 21
http://www.yelp.com/biz/ralphs-thriftway…

Hrm, at least a few reviewers are aware of this.
Posted by undead ayn rand on February 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM · Report this
rob! 22
[From the map]—"Pharmacies that Stock but Refuse Emergency Contraception"—wtf?!
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on February 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 23
#18 They would have to determine the person is a Jew let's say and then state, "I will not serve you because MY faith won't allow me to serve YOU." No reason be stated (ie you are a Jew, that WOULD be clear discrimination). At some point in time, Lots of people need to, must, should not shy away from declining anything, any service, any product, to a person they don't like because of their "faith" and religious belief system. When enough of these events take place, the system will be forced to change.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on February 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM · Report this
24
@22: I think that means "pharmacies where some but not all pharmacists refuse" -- so they have it, but if you go when it's the wrong person's shift they'll give you a sermon instead.
Posted by also on February 22, 2012 at 3:19 PM · Report this
25
I live in a very small town (pop 4500) on the Mississippi River in Illinois. We have one pharmacy and it's the only one for 15 miles. Our local pharmacist took the state of Illinois to court and now no one without a car can get Plan B in my town, because one man in town in Catholic. The thing is, he has employees, other pharmacists, who are willing to dispense the drug, but it would violate his rights to even have it in his store.
Most times these guys aren't trying to get out of handing the drug out, no matter what they claim. They are trying to keep women from taking it. They are attempting to force women to live according to their own religious beliefs. And they don't have to do that. My first gynecologist was a very devout Catholic. He wouldn't write a prescription for birth control to anyone. He would politely excuse himself, leave the room, and in would walk his protestant colleague. He was a NALT, in his 70s, 20 years ago. We need more NALTs.
Posted by charlie on February 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM · Report this
Luisa 26
This crap has absolutely nothing to do with religious liberty. What a lame fucking excuse for a judge.

These pharmacists should have their licenses taken away, and all pharmacists in the state who refuse to DO THEIR JOBS, who think they know better than patients and doctors, should also have their licenses taken away. Find another kind of job if you refuse to do the one you have.

Again. Nothing to do with religious liberty. It's completely twisted and ahistorical to pretend that it does.
Posted by Luisa on February 22, 2012 at 4:10 PM · Report this
27
So sick of people who chose this perverted alternative lifestyle demanding they be granted special rights and privileges. A pharmacist who refuses to do their job, to not provide the duty of care owed to their patient/customer, because they have religious or ethical objections to it, should be sued for malpractice.
Posted by ignatz ratzkywatzky on February 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM · Report this
rob! 28
Thanks, @24.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on February 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM · Report this
29
As others have said, this is not about religious freedom.

This is about restricting another person's choices because YOU don't agree with them having that choice.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 22, 2012 at 6:47 PM · Report this
30
Item number #1 on Ralph's parent company Stormans mission statement:

1. Fulfill our customers needs, and exceed their expectations.

NO, rly.
Posted by K on February 23, 2012 at 12:29 AM · Report this
watchout5 31
If your religious liberty impedes on my freedom it's not valid in my eyes. It's something you made up in order to destroy the freedoms of others, and shouldn't be protected under any constitution if you actually read it. I just made up a religious objection to blood pressure medication, should the law protect me if I become a pharmacist? This case seems to suggest it. No line out of the constitution infers you have the religious freedom to take away the civil liberties of others. You sign up for a job distributing medication to people and you have religious beliefs that stop you from giving the customer what they came to you for. Do we really have to call them pharmacies? Are they itching for some kind of government sanction in order to do this? Why not have religious "pharmacies" where it's understood they won't sell anything related to sex, and then all the normal people can keep going to pharmacies where it's expected that the employees sell the medication someone asks for and all these religious nuts can spend their money with an organization that respects their beliefs. We're really talking about some jackoff sitting behind a counter with what the customer wants behind them saying, sorry, my moral prevent me from moving 3 feet to fill your request. If the people on staff have a problem selling stock to customers, they should be able to practice their craft independently. Stay the fuck away from us normal people please.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on February 23, 2012 at 4:52 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 32
@31: "Do we really have to call them pharmacies?"

Right, they should lose their license to distribute medicine for this.
Posted by undead ayn rand on February 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM · Report this
33
I fully support this judge's decision. As a member of the Amish faith it's unconstitutional for my boss to fire me from my IT sales position. It infringes on my first amendment rights to make me use and sell computers in my IT sales position. I have been working here for years now and have whittled many fine monitors and I carved a beautiful wooden PC just last week. God Bless.
Posted by Root on February 23, 2012 at 2:58 PM · Report this
34
Seems to me the missing piece of the compliance puzzle is for women to visit "red-pin" pharmacies, ask for Plan B, and when denied, report. Hidden camera and/or mic couldn't hurt could it?
Posted by K on February 24, 2012 at 1:08 AM · Report this
35
@33, Now I want to see a carved-wood PC. Thanks for nothing, pal.
Posted by clashfan on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM · Report this
The Mad Mayoress 36
I agree with the decision. Like the saying goes, "Lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on [anyone else's] part. Nor does it dictate that someone else has to do something against their fundamental beliefs to appease your fundamental beliefs. Some people have lost all objectivity as far as this is concerned.

But underlying all of this is a disturbing notion that the default should be that "accidental" children are unwanted, and unnecessary. Also ignored are the long-term health effects of all these methods on women. It is far from the simplistic question many make of it.
Posted by The Mad Mayoress on February 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.