They may not charge you for the tax, They shouldn't but they probably will most certainly anyway. no matter if you have a cricket fence or not. The point is socialism is becoming more of a threat now then ever and they will get away with it because it doesn't effect those who don't have to worry about it.
Virginia pharmacy follows faith, won't sell birth control pills and such...
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
I would hope that people would think this kind of intrusion of so called religious objections and being unwilling to provide medical services or prescriptions is as wrong as most thought the muslim was who sued his work place for being forced to handle alcohol.Keep your religious objections to the church and the home don't bring them to work should apply to all religions.
What in the world are you rambling on about? I've seen only like 4 or so of your comments, but they all seem quite odd and incomprehensible.
In an above post Facial King used the an example of a cab driver, but since then we've had a new situation involving a guy who for religious reasons did not want to handle meat or alcohol at the store he worked in. Most people felt that he was in the wrong.
So that brings about an interesting question. Do you think that it's Ok for a store to refuse to provide a service based on religious grounds (seems to be about split in opinion) but that it is not Ok for an employee to refuse performing a service of their job for religious reasons (most think it's not)?
Or is there any or no correlation between the two factors? I'm asking what would be acceptable.
Do you believe any and all religious ideas should be permitted, or only certain people in certain positions get to make that choice. Or should all business be entirely secular.
Personally I think all business should be secular in operation and individual service taken into consideration. Stores should sell the pill and meat and booze, but if you don't like it you shouldn't have to work with it and of course you don't have any obligation to buy it if you shop there.
as some of you may know I'm a vegetarian, I don't want to fucking work in the meat department. I don't think that is unreasonable, but I think it would be for me to expect the store not to sell it just because I don't like it.
So that brings about an interesting question. Do you think that it's Ok for a store to refuse to provide a service based on religious grounds (seems to be about split in opinion) but that it is not Ok for an employee to refuse performing a service of their job for religious reasons (most think it's not)?
Or is there any or no correlation between the two factors? I'm asking what would be acceptable.
Do you believe any and all religious ideas should be permitted, or only certain people in certain positions get to make that choice. Or should all business be entirely secular.
Personally I think all business should be secular in operation and individual service taken into consideration. Stores should sell the pill and meat and booze, but if you don't like it you shouldn't have to work with it and of course you don't have any obligation to buy it if you shop there.
as some of you may know I'm a vegetarian, I don't want to fucking work in the meat department. I don't think that is unreasonable, but I think it would be for me to expect the store not to sell it just because I don't like it.
Excellent questions and thoughts there calpoon
I'm not sure of my own opinion regarding that in Canada so i'm even less sure regarding USA...
Food for thoughts regardless. :thumbsup:
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Ok ok......some people go overboard with the CHRISTIAN religion.
They are called extremists.
This is an example.
But at least their not decapitating, stoning, or blowing up the non believers.
Facials posts are always either anti US or anti religion.
See religion is like a gun. Its use is up to the user.
It can be used for good things, and mostly is.
But there are extremists who people like facial use as examples to portray the thing as a whole in order to condemn it.
When you strip christianity down to its core, the main message is be aware of your actions and their consequences.
The increasing lack of this basic concept is whats fucking the country and the world up, and fast.
I am not a religious person myself and believe that jesus was probably not what they say he was.
But I will respect other humans decision to believe how they want.
Funny how in a country of mostly christians, founded by christians, that society is telling the people of that country to have tolerance for everybody and everything except christianity.
Yep, do what you want with no consequences, and if someone is not tolerant to your actions no matter how decadent they are, then they are full of hate.
Thats what its come to.
To me its just another sign of the end of the world.
:wave2:
They are called extremists.
This is an example.
But at least their not decapitating, stoning, or blowing up the non believers.
Facials posts are always either anti US or anti religion.
See religion is like a gun. Its use is up to the user.
It can be used for good things, and mostly is.
But there are extremists who people like facial use as examples to portray the thing as a whole in order to condemn it.
When you strip christianity down to its core, the main message is be aware of your actions and their consequences.
The increasing lack of this basic concept is whats fucking the country and the world up, and fast.
I am not a religious person myself and believe that jesus was probably not what they say he was.
But I will respect other humans decision to believe how they want.
Funny how in a country of mostly christians, founded by christians, that society is telling the people of that country to have tolerance for everybody and everything except christianity.
Yep, do what you want with no consequences, and if someone is not tolerant to your actions no matter how decadent they are, then they are full of hate.
Thats what its come to.
To me its just another sign of the end of the world.
:wave2:
I'm not sure about that MP. isn't religion saying that "only god can judge". people who truly believe in religion should be the most permissive of all, because it's not up to us do decide what right and wrong are. In that way, I guess that your actions really don't matter outside of spirituality; think of life like a test to see where you are going to get into in the next world.
it seems to be the non-religious materialistic viewpoint that says actions have meaning in themselves and their own consequences. Funny how moralists always like to turn that one around.
it seems to be the non-religious materialistic viewpoint that says actions have meaning in themselves and their own consequences. Funny how moralists always like to turn that one around.
Nice comment, calpoon... I have tried (and continue to try) to be consistent in my views on these things. I am very much opposed to pharmacists (and also pharmacies) that won't dispense/sell legal medications, and I am also opposed to individuals who want a business to conform to their religious beliefs - if you feel it's wrong to touch/sell alcohol, don't apply for a job at the liquor store. Calpoon's example is also good.
To me these mostly represent attempts to make an end-run AROUND the law. A particular product or pharmaceutical is legal, and someone opposes that on religious grounds, so they try to stop the customer from getting the product by blocking the transaction. I believe in the separation of church and state, but I also understand that citizens want society and government to reflect their moral and spiritual beliefs, be they explicitly religious or not. Some people are opposed to the death penalty. Some of them are religious and some are not. They want the law to reflect their belief that government sanctioned killing is a cruel and improper punishment. So they work to outlaw the death penalty. I haven't heard yet of any prison employees at prisons that perform executions who have refused to do their execution-related jobs on religious grounds (or ANY grounds for that matter). And I think it would be an unreasonable approach. If you're opposed to the idea of the execution penalty, you shouldn't work as an executioner. In the case of the pharmacists, they should work to make the products that they oppose illegal, but if they want to continue to be licensed (by the govt.) as pharmacists, they should do whatever that entails. The laws should (and hopefully do) represent the will of the majority, so if the majority wish to be able to purchase certain pharmaceuticals without having to find a pharmacy/pharmacist that matches their belief system, then the pharmacist should just accept that - even if he/she may be working to change the law at the same time. Trying to be a (particular type of) Christian pharmacist (btw, there are PLENTY of Christians who have zero problem with The Pill, condoms, Viagra, etc.) or Muslim cab-driver (no dogs, no booze, no pork, in the cab, etc.) just doesn't work. If you're unhappy that something is legal, either work to change the law to make that item or activity illegal, or don't participate in selling/providing that service or product.
I also think the interesting hypothetical scenario mentioned here is worth consideration:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/last-minute-bush-administration-rule.html
"What happens if my pharmacist is a Christian Scientist - does that mean they don't have to dispense any medicine at all?" (From what I know, at least some Christian Scientists believe that illness and disease is best relieved by prayer to God - this is actually not so far from many other Christian beliefs, who frequently will augment their earthly, medical treatments with prayer to God to heal their bodies; although few are willing to go so far as to trust God with the cure 100%
)Yes, I suppose the US is "mostly Christians" however your claim that it was "founded by Christians" is problematic. First, the idea that even MOST of the founders were Christians similar to today's Christians is quite debatable. Secondly, even if a majority of the founders were Christians, that doesn't mean that they established the US as a Christian state, wherein our laws should be explicitly carried over from a particular interpretation of a particular version of the Bible. You should check out this very thorough, extremely detailed, well-researched book for more about this:
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/
"Yep, do what you want with no consequences, and if someone is not tolerant to your actions no matter how decadent they are, then they are full of hate."
I'm not exactly sure who/what you're referring to here. The pharmacists who don't wish to dispense The Pill ?? Is taking "The Pill" a decadent action? I have no idea if the pharmacists who refuse to dispense it are "full of hate" - they're probably a very mixed bag of personalities and opinions. I won't speculate on how loving or hateful they are. But that's not really the issue. If they want to be licensed/accredited by the govt. and medical authorities as pharmacists, then they should dispense all legal pharmaceuticals, and leave the moral judgments relating to OTHER PEOPLE (not themselves) to religious leaders or anyone who is vested with some authority by people to make some moral judgment about their behavior. Actually, I feel quite tolerant of people's religious beliefs. If someone thinks that they shouldn't take The Pill, as they're Christian (or whatever religion), that's fine with me. If, as a Christian, they want to work to ban it, they have that right. Let the argument begin. Just as I think it's wrong for Christians to dictate what I can and can't do, I think it's wrong that I should dictate their actions. When it comes to the law, we must work out compromises, find happy middle-grounds that most people can agree with, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).
meester, if you've seen my posts as always "anti-US or anti-religion" then I think you've misread and misinterpreted them. Read more carefully and try to think in ways that go beyond black & white. I, like most people, actually have complicated and nuanced views.
:2 cents:
What these guys can't stand is that contraceptives are about choice for a person to make.
If a person wants to use them it is their choice, if a person doesn't want to use contraception then again it's their choice. The christians that are traditionalists and/or fundamentalists don't seem to realise that the world has 6 billion people in it, in their mind however there are only 2 billion people in the world which makes up the number of all christians including all the versions of the christian myth/religion.
I don't understand why just because they don't like contraceptives they want to ban them for everyone, I personally can't stand all of the religious crap that goes on around me but do I piss and moan about it? No I don't. Do I want to see religions banned? No I don't.
I read the bible and I didn't see anything regarding contraception in it so to me it is simple. The bible was written thousands of years ago in a dead language so it was poorly translated over the years since and the people who follows it personally didn't like contraception so they made up some crap and picked a particular line from it saying that it does forbid contraception even though they have no proof at all.
As the saying about religions and myths goes "No Proof, No Truth."
If a person wants to use them it is their choice, if a person doesn't want to use contraception then again it's their choice. The christians that are traditionalists and/or fundamentalists don't seem to realise that the world has 6 billion people in it, in their mind however there are only 2 billion people in the world which makes up the number of all christians including all the versions of the christian myth/religion.
I don't understand why just because they don't like contraceptives they want to ban them for everyone, I personally can't stand all of the religious crap that goes on around me but do I piss and moan about it? No I don't. Do I want to see religions banned? No I don't.
I read the bible and I didn't see anything regarding contraception in it so to me it is simple. The bible was written thousands of years ago in a dead language so it was poorly translated over the years since and the people who follows it personally didn't like contraception so they made up some crap and picked a particular line from it saying that it does forbid contraception even though they have no proof at all.
As the saying about religions and myths goes "No Proof, No Truth."
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Ok fair enough.
With this pharmacy thing, its obviously extremist thinking.
I just wanted to point out that not all religious people are like that, this coming from a guy who is not very religious but believes that religion can be good, if used with common sense.