Virginia pharmacy follows faith, won't sell birth control pills and such...

B

BlueBalls

Dead
This is a disgrace, they shouldnt even be called a Pharmacy, your job it to give medicine to people who need it. What next? Stopping peoples Cancer medicine because its "Gods will" who lives and who dies!

Ridiculous pure and simple.
 
Facial_King

Facial_King

don_equis said:
How about if you own a business you have the right to decide what to sell and what not to. If you don't like to buy in there or their beliefs then don't shop there.

Would I go to a religious store to buy porn? and then be upset when I find out that they don't sell it there?

Would I go to a porn store and be upset when I don't find religious items in there and complain about it?

What about nightclubs that don't let you in if you have running shoes or your shirt not tucked in?

Or that you can't shop at Sams Club or Costco if you don't pay for a membership card? Or once in there you can't pay with credit card is has to be with debit/ATM transaction, where's the complaint?

I guess we are getting used to goverment intervention in the business that we want them to control business in particular if they are faith based.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're using some very faulty comparisons there. Unlike your "porn in a religious store" (btw, how can a store be religious?) and "religious items in a porn store" comparisons, it is actually ENTIRELY reasonable to go to a pharmacy and expect to be able to purchase any kind of legal pharmaceutical. Pharmacists are licensed by the state and drugs are regulated by state and federal governments, and as far as I know The Pill is legal in all 50 states. Part of having a pharmacist license is being qualified by the state to do the job of dispensing pharmaceuticals. When a doctor writes a prescription for a patient, the pharmacist's job is to fill the prescription as written (which requires certain types of knowledge), not to take on the role of someone's moral guardian. It is not the job of the pharmacist to try to go over the heads of the doctor and the patient. If this place of business (businesses are licensed by the state) wishes to have a pharmacy license, then it should dispense legal drugs per doctor's prescriptions. If it doesn't want to honor valid prescriptions then it doesn't want to be in the pharmacy business, it wants to be in the church business. If a church or devout and particularly pious member of a church can't convince a person not to use The Pill then they shouldn't try to end-run around them (and their doctor) by pretending to be a pharmacy and not filling prescriptions it deems to be immoral. If a religious person doesn't want people to be able to use The Pill they should propose legislation to ban it. Otherwise, they should stay out of the way of a patient and a doctor who writes a prescription. Pharmacies provide government-sanctioned health services to the public at large (who can afford to pay for their pharmaceuticals), and that public includes those whose religious and moral views differ from some pharmacists. Another thing that should be considered here is the FACT that many women get prescriptions for the pill for non-sex-related reasons: to regulate their periods, to minimize some of the nasty symptoms that come with menstruation. My sister did this at least a couple years BEFORE she was sexually active (Yes, my sister shares such things with me honestly and openly). My aunt worked for an ob-gyn doctor, and advised my sister to see the doc for this purpose. In that case they would be denying medicine to someone who wasn't even getting it for the contraceptive aspect. This brings up my earlier question again. I wonder if this phaux-pharmacy refuses prescriptions for Viagra and Cialis and such, too. Or do they require any prescription-holder to show proof of marriage or something stupid like that?

Your other examples are also silly and irrelevant. Nightclubs - aside from space, fire, and alcohol restrictions aren't licensed by the state for maintaining standards of beauty and coolness or whatever standards those clubs pretend to have. It's not like there's some standard by which anyone can decide if the bouncer is violating the terms of his licensure if he doesn't lift the velvet rope for you or whoever. There MIGHT be, in some cases, legal cases to be made if such a business denies someone based on their gender, their ethnicity, religion, etc., but I don't know. Does anyone care enough about not getting into such a club to really investigate the legal and moral boundaries of such things? I don't

As for Sam's Club, their policy is no different than that of a library's for checking out books. You gotta have a card, that's their policy. If they deny you a card because of your gender, race, ethnicity or religion, that's another matter, though.

One actually comparable situation is that of the cab drivers in Minnesota a couple of years back who refused to take passengers who carried alcohol or pork products (and also dogs, but I'm not sure about that one). The cab drivers were Muslim. I'm guessing - but again, I'm only guessing - that those who SUPPORT this religious-oriented drug business pretending to be a pharmacy would OPPOSE the cab drivers for their refusal of service. Am I wrong? (For the record, I'm also opposed to such religion-based cab services). I think there should be more consistency.

Rattrap said:
As...misdirected as I might think this pharmacy's policy is, it is their business. If folks like ourselves don't agree, we certainly don't have to go there - the fact of the matter being, though, is that they'll likely have more than enough people totally gung-ho about their policy to make themselves successful. It's simply good business, at that point.

Now, if such a policy becomes legislation, then we'll have something to shout about.
Click to expand...

Again, it is a business licensed by the state to perform tasks relating to people's health (fill prescriptions written by medical doctors in consultation with the patients). If they want to keep their license to perform the task, they should fill the legal prescriptions.
 
calpoon

calpoon

I'm cool with it, as long as it means that I get to go to my religious pharmacy. you know what I'm talking about.;)
 
bombardier52

bombardier52

I think that a business owner should have the right to sell what they want. The consumer has the right not to shop there don't you think? Let the market take care of bad business models.
 
Becks...poamr

Becks...poamr

Some people have to realize that the Pill is also good for lightening women's periods and whatnot.

Jerks.
 
don_equis

don_equis

Facial_King said:
Sorry, you're using some very faulty comparisons there. Unlike your "porn in a religious store" (btw, how can a store be religious?) and "religious items in a porn store" comparisons, it is actually ENTIRELY reasonable to go to a pharmacy and expect to be able to purchase any kind of legal pharmaceutical. Pharmacists are licensed by the state and drugs are regulated by state and federal governments, and as far as I know The Pill is legal in all 50 states. Part of having a pharmacist license is being qualified by the state to do the job of dispensing pharmaceuticals. When a doctor writes a prescription for a patient, the pharmacist's job is to fill the prescription as written (which requires certain types of knowledge), not to take on the role of someone's moral guardian. It is not the job of the pharmacist to try to go over the heads of the doctor and the patient. If this place of business (businesses are licensed by the state) wishes to have a pharmacy license, then it should dispense legal drugs per doctor's prescriptions. If it doesn't want to honor valid prescriptions then it doesn't want to be in the pharmacy business, it wants to be in the church business. If a church or devout and particularly pious member of a church can't convince a person not to use The Pill then they shouldn't try to end-run around them (and their doctor) by pretending to be a pharmacy and not filling prescriptions it deems to be immoral. If a religious person doesn't want people to be able to use The Pill they should propose legislation to ban it. Otherwise, they should stay out of the way of a patient and a doctor who writes a prescription. Pharmacies provide government-sanctioned health services to the public at large (who can afford to pay for their pharmaceuticals), and that public includes those whose religious and moral views differ from some pharmacists. Another thing that should be considered here is the FACT that many women get prescriptions for the pill for non-sex-related reasons: to regulate their periods, to minimize some of the nasty symptoms that come with menstruation. My sister did this at least a couple years BEFORE she was sexually active (Yes, my sister shares such things with me honestly and openly). My aunt worked for an ob-gyn doctor, and advised my sister to see the doc for this purpose. In that case they would be denying medicine to someone who wasn't even getting it for the contraceptive aspect. This brings up my earlier question again. I wonder if this phaux-pharmacy refuses prescriptions for Viagra and Cialis and such, too. Or do they require any prescription-holder to show proof of marriage or something stupid like that?

Your other examples are also silly and irrelevant. Nightclubs - aside from space, fire, and alcohol restrictions aren't licensed by the state for maintaining standards of beauty and coolness or whatever standards those clubs pretend to have. It's not like there's some standard by which anyone can decide if the bouncer is violating the terms of his licensure if he doesn't lift the velvet rope for you or whoever. There MIGHT be, in some cases, legal cases to be made if such a business denies someone based on their gender, their ethnicity, religion, etc., but I don't know. Does anyone care enough about not getting into such a club to really investigate the legal and moral boundaries of such things? I don't

As for Sam's Club, their policy is no different than that of a library's for checking out books. You gotta have a card, that's their policy. If they deny you a card because of your gender, race, ethnicity or religion, that's another matter, though.

One actually comparable situation is that of the cab drivers in Minnesota a couple of years back who refused to take passengers who carried alcohol or pork products (and also dogs, but I'm not sure about that one). The cab drivers were Muslim. I'm guessing - but again, I'm only guessing - that those who SUPPORT this religious-oriented drug business pretending to be a pharmacy would OPPOSE the cab drivers for their refusal of service. Am I wrong? (For the record, I'm also opposed to such religion-based cab services). I think there should be more consistency.



Again, it is a business licensed by the state to perform tasks relating to people's health (fill prescriptions written by medical doctors in consultation with the patients). If they want to keep their license to perform the task, they should fill the legal prescriptions.
Click to expand...

They are some simple perfect examples. But just to put it on plain english:

People need to stop their whining and complaining because not all stores are Walmarts or Burger King where you can have it your way.

Walk, drive, ride a bike,fly or teleport to your favorite Walgreens, Eckerds or whatever alternative drug store and buy yer damn anti baby pills.
 
No_Man

No_Man

ChefChiTown said:
I was just thinking about this for some reason, but how is this business getting away with this? Is this just one of those things that is slipping through the cracks, or is it, once again, showing the hypocrisy of our legal system in the United States? :dunno:

In the article, it says...



Now, with that being said, the LAW says...



http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles//article13363.html

But, according to VA. PHARMACY BD. v. VA. CONSUMER COUNCIL, 425 U.S. 748 (1976), the LAW also says (in not so legal terms)...



:wtf: Doesn't that completely contradict the Federal laws that have been put into place, which prohibit the refusal of service (from any business) on the basis of race, color or RELIGION?

I know that they're not sitting at the front door asking people what religion they practice, but they are forcing their religious beliefs onto the public by refusing to fill prescriptions based on reasons of faith.

I do agree...go to another pharmacy. But, this is getting ridiculous. We let almost anything that is based on "religious grounds" to happen and legal action is hardly ever taken. I'm not saying that this individual case is a big deal, but it's the principal of the matter that is total hypocritical bullshit. It won't be long until killing people for reasons "based on faith" will become a completely legal act in this country.
Click to expand...

Federal law does prohibit discrimination of "goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations" on religious grounds, but only for products that the store chooses to carry. If, for example, this pharmacy chose to say, "We're going to carry birth control pills, but we're only going to sell them to Catholics," that would be illegal. But to simply say, "We're not going to carry birth control pills at all," is not illegal. No store has to justify why it does or does not carry a product.

Another example of this would be hair salons. They have to serve all customers, regardless of race. But they don't have to stock hair products designed for African American hair, even though failing to do so effectively makes it impossible for them to serve African Americans.
 
ChefChiTown

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
No_Man said:
Federal law does prohibit discrimination of "goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations" on religious grounds, but only for products that the store chooses to carry. If, for example, this pharmacy chose to say, "We're going to carry birth control pills, but we're only going to sell them to Catholics," that would be illegal. But to simply say, "We're not going to carry birth control pills at all," is not illegal. No store has to justify why it does or does not carry a product.

Another example of this would be hair salons. They have to serve all customers, regardless of race. But they don't have to stock hair products designed for African American hair, even though failing to do so effectively makes it impossible for them to serve African Americans.
Click to expand...

That's not really what I was saying though. You're right...they can carry (or not carry) whatever products they want to. But, when you go into that pharmacy and have a prescription for Herpes medication and they tell you that they won't fill your prescription, based on religious grounds...how is that any different than saying "you're a Jew, go somewhere else"...:dunno:

I know that you can deny a prescription for any reason you want to in the state of Virginia, but...I don't know. It's just very stupid for our legal system to allow that.
 
senob44

senob44

I went into a "religious pharmacy" once to buy condoms and the pharmacist instead gave me a 15 minute lecture on the "joys of abstinence"....

So, I turned his wrinkled ass around and plowed him something good. Now that pious bastard has left his wife and won't stop calling me. Talk about a hypocrite!
 
Facial_King

Facial_King

senob44 said:
I went into a "religious pharmacy" once to buy condoms and the pharmacist instead gave me a 15 minute lecture on the "joys of abstinence"....

So, I turned his wrinkled ass around and plowed him something good. Now that pious bastard has left his wife and won't stop calling me. Talk about a hypocrite!
Click to expand...

Is that story even half true? (the 1st half) ??
 
Facial_King

Facial_King

assholebythedoor

assholebythedoor

right, but he doesn't have the right to manipulate. Which that is what it will eventually come to. A world of small time terrorist trying to make a quick buck. The tables don't always turn but the way they are placed sure would make a difference.
 
Rattrap

Rattrap

Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Facial_King said:
This might renew the debate a bit - it appears that Pres. Bush is pushing through a new rule that would expand health workers' ability to refuse to do certain jobs that they find objectionable. This post's example about Christian Scientists is certainly worth mulling over:
Click to expand...

Which would be acceptable to me, so long as said health workers are not receiving any state funding (i.e., working in a place that does). I have no problem with folks operating their practices, businesses, or own work ethics how they'd like. I do have a problem with being forced to pay them to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top