Oh, my god. Pharmacists do not have any responsibility to do anything. They voluntarily provide a service of their choice. To force them to provide a certain service, such as selling birth-control pills, would be involuntary servitude.

As for demanding that they find another line of work if they choose not to provide this service, you've got it ass-backwards. If a certain pharmacist won't provide a certain product, customers are free to do business with another pharmacist who will. What no one has a right to do is force someone to sell them something.

A pharmacist's job is to fill prescritions, if they have a problem with filling a drs orders and are not going to perform the job then they should find other work. Yes they are performing a service, but they get paid to do it. Where do you draw the line? will pharmacists start asking women if they are using the pill for sexual reasons or for menstral cramps? Does a pharmacist know if a woman has just been raped and that is why she needs the morning after pill? No, and frankly, it is none of thier concern. In any other line of work, if you refuse to perform the duties of the job you are fired, this should be no different.

If a doctor prescribes cyanide and the patient wants to take it, should the pharmacist fill the prescription without letting his/her personal views interfer with the order?

This is correct. When you are in the service industry, you must provide the service you were hired to provide. If you go to work in a restaurant, you cannot refuse mayonaise to someone who is already overweight because you feel it is bad for them. If you work in retail, you cannot refuse to sell someone an article of clothing because you think it doesn't look good on them. Refusing to provide the service you were hired to provide is blatant insubordonation and grounds for termination. Period. There is no arguement even conceivably possible to counter this fact. If you feel otherwise, you are plain wrong.

Now, one important difference is, that the pharmacist has a responsibility to tell you of any dangers that may be associated with the drug you are taking. Obviously sandwich makers and dress sellers don't have this same responsibility with their products.

As a consumer that sometimes requires the assistance of the pharmacist to inform me of any drug interactions and side effects, I appreciate the extra effort they put into doing their jobs; This IS their jobs! But education or not, beliefs or not, they are still in the service industry and have NO RIGHT to refuse to give me a medicine my DOCTOR has prescribed.

If a pharmacist refuses to sell birth control or morning after pills he should have his liscense revoked by the state who issued it and go be a preacher or sunday school teacher or whatever.

ECUMan (idiot),

Obviously you must have ingested some cyanide. Go read the Pharmacists Code of Ethics.

Paul Elledge, you've got it bass-ackwards, call Ecuman and he can read you the Code of Ethics.

Funny how the same pharmacists that cry foul to some women's presciptions are the same one's that have no problem selling Viagra.

Paul writes:

"Pharmacists do not have any responsibility to do anything."

I disagree. A pharmacist is employed to provide a service. That service is to dispense controlled substances in a legal, safe manner, based on prescriptions provided by physicians. Refusing to provide that service, after agreeing to do so by taking the job, is wrong. These people certainly have no place inserting their moral judgements into the lives of customers.

So far, I like k, and druggys comments the best. A combination of the two sort of represents my feelings on this issue.
Pharmacists are individuals. Some of them act like they are the DEA. You just have to find one that has the don't ask, dont judge, policy. In a city of this size, I'm sure you can find one.

I actually trust my pharmacist more than my doctor. She is aware of all of the drugs I'm being prescribed and often I seek her advice on remedies. So far, I've been impressed with the pharmacists knowledge.

Pharmacists are more than just bottle fillers. Their training is intense and their knowledge of drugs is often better than a doctor's. If my pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for me, it may hurt my relationship with them. But I feel it is their right to exercise their judgement in this particular case. And it is truly up to the employer about whether they will allow this or not.

In some ways, morning-after birth control is like a mini-abortion. I know I'm going to get slammed for that one. But, for some people it is an ethical dilemma. I don't think it is right to force doctors to perform abortions. With that same line of thinking, I don't think it is right to force a pharmacist to fill a prescription for a mini-abortion. Just like a person can't expect every obgyn to perform abortions, they shouldn't expect every pharmacist to fill a morning after prescription. That's my take on it anyway.

The most discreet is the curb service on Grove and McCormick. Just pull over and hold up five fingers. Ask for Bay-Bay or Pookie.

If it was just the morning-after pill I could almost understand their refusal to fill the prescription. But some of these pharmacists who have refused to fill prescriptions are refusing to fill just plain old birth control pills. Plain old birth control pills are used for other reasons than just birth control and the reason for the prescription is between the patient and the doctor. If these pharmacists want to be more involved in which medicines patients take then they should have become a doctor or politician.

LMAO steve..

I say "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". If some pharmacist is bother by dispensing birth control or the morning after pills, let him/her take their highly paid butt out of the industry.

Do you think doctors or nurses can refuse patient treatment? Sure, in theory. But exactually how long would a doctor's practice sustain his behavior before he found himself without any patients and a medical license?

Same with a nurse. He/she can refuse to carry out a doctor's order when they think it would be more harmful to do so. There again, if the doctor or employer of that nurse wants to persue charges aganist them, they are found defending their license before the board of nursing.

Pharmacists are no different. When they are licensed, they are bound by a code of ethics in regard to carrying out their duty. Any violation of that should put them in jeapordy of losing their license.

Personal morality is just that, personal. Meaning it has no place in anyone else's morality. Although I am not a sue happy person, I would bring a law suit aganist any pharmacist who treated me in such a manner.

People,

You keep saying that the pharmacists must do what they were hired to do. In the case of an employee of the pharmacy, he or she is required to do whatever the owner of the pharmacy has instructed them to do, including selling birth-control pills if the owner so chooses.

But you all talk as if the owner of the pharmacy was hired by someone. No one hires the owner of a private business. He or she can decide to sell whatever he or she wants. Have you people forgotten that a pharmacy is a private business?
According to you people's logic, if Advance Auto Parts doesn't sell tires despite the wishes of a majority of its customers to do so, then the government should pass a law saying that Advance Auto Parts must sell tires.

Like Yvonne said, however, any business that doesn't meet the needs of its customers won't last very long. If you want birth-control pills and Wal-Mart refuses to sell them, then go to CVS or Eckerd. When enough people do so, Wal-Mart will stop providing a pharmacy service.

Funny how no one addressed my point about how forcing someone to provide a certain service is involuntary servitude.

What do you mean by 'you people' Paul? Are you trying to incite another Death to the Klan march?

"You people" is a reference to everyone that is beneath his level of intelligence. I think it's an attempt at being hip by one whose erudition kept him near the punch bowl.

LOL @ another bigmouth. Sure kinda sounds like it.
Ok Paul, I'll give it a try: "Oh, my god. Pharmacists do not have any responsibility to do anything. They voluntarily provide a service of their choice. To force them to provide a certain service, such as selling birth-control pills, would be involuntary servitude." I'm guessing you were speaking sarcastically? Maybe thats why nobody responded?

I said "you people" because I was addressing more than one person. Nothing more, nothing less.

Granted, I misspoke when I said they have no responsibility to do anything. I meant that they have no responsibility to sell certain products. But of course they have a responsibility to ensure that what they sell is safe.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic about involuntary servitude. That's exactly what it would be. No one has a right to buy something from a certain person. The sale of any product, including birth-control pills, is a contract. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties which is only valid when all parties willingly enter into it. If a party is forced into a contract, it ceases to be contract and becomes involuntary servitude.

Oh, ok Paul. " No one has a right to buy something from a certain person." Um, I dont get it. I think I have a right to buy from who I wants to wif. LOL!
I am referring to a quote that I heard on the radio the day of the million man march. To this day I have no idea what it had to do with the million man march but here it goes: "I can lunch wif who I wants to wif".
It's a great saying. Try it.

Once again, we're seeing some people say the government (i.e. judiciary) should step in and make laws unless it's regarding the issue these same people don't support, in which case they say the government has no right to interfere.

Lilly,

So you're telling me that you can walk into a private business and demand that they sell you something?

Think about the logical consequences of that. If I can demand that someone sell me their private property, then it's not really their private property. If you own something, then you can do whatever you want with it. That means that the owner can put it up for sale and then change his mind about selling it.

But according to you, no one can do that. You MUST sell something to someone if someone wants to buy it from you.

But you and everyone else aren't even stopping there. Apparently, not only must a businessperson sell what property he or she already owns at the whim of a certain person, but if the businessperson doesn't already possess the item Person X wants, then he or she MUST go out and buy it and then sell it to Person X!

Lilly, do you own a BMW 740? If not, you're gonna have to go get one, because I want to buy one from you.

Absurd, huh?

Paul, you said " No one has a right to buy something from a certain person." I obviously misinterperted it to mean, a person doesnt have the right to shop where they wants to wif. I'm sorry. My bad. But I DO stand by THAT statement.
This aint Russia, I understand what you are saying, Paul.
HELL no, I would never own such a yuppie scum car. How ABSURD is that? LOL.

Paul, IMO and the laws that are already in place, if one goes into a pharmacy one has the right to a reasonable expectation that the pharmacy via it's employees will fill their prescriptions. Just as going to the emergency room for emergency treatment. You would have the right to expect to be treated. What other purpose is there for an emergency room? Maybe a social gathering for the doctors, nurses and anyone waltzing in?

Most pharmacies are no more a private business than hospitals. There are few independently owned pharmacies left which blows your assertions out of the water, in most cases.

Pharmacists have already contracted with the public to provide the service of dispensing drugs. Otherwise they would not be hired to dispense drugs and drugstores would have no use for them.

It's like a medical person hired to work at the health department. But this person has an objection to informing patrons of all alternatives for handling an unwanted preganancy. Is it the person with the objection or the patron who needs to go elsewhere? IMHO, it is the person who has a PERSONAL problem doing the job they were hired to do.

Yvonne,

Can you elaborate on how a pharmacy isn't a private business? If it's not privately owned, then I'll admit that what it sells is subject to the law.

Who owns and operates pharmacies if not private citizens?

Hey Paul, we miss you over at PFA. Now try to keep up with this. As James Taylor said, "You can run but you cannot hide. This is widely known."

My arguments against yours are not based on what is being sold, why the seller disagrees with the sale, or whether it is an employee, owner or any of that.

Here's the thing: when a business presents itself to the public, it has an obligation to provide a certain minimum of services or products. Why? Because there is an implied contract with the people, represented by the government, to do so. What is being offered by the government? A stable currency, police protection, highways to get to the store, all of that and more.

Taxes already pay for all that? Not hardly. Do the math.

Go down the street and get it and leave the capitalist, objectivist, anti-collectivist alone? Why, since he's using the public facilities?

A business that voluntarily opts out of providing this minimum of service or product should opt out entirely and sell out of their bedroom to their relatives & friends only.

What you libs don't get is that, at least in this country, the government is the people. Your response to disagreeing with the government is to take the position that it shouldn't exist. None of us get exactly what we want out of our government, but most of us are mature enough to wait, make our points, and eventually see that our will, the people's will, is done.

Specific point restated: No, it is not involuntary servitude. The presentation of a business to the public obligates the business to provide a certain minimum of service or product. This obligation is weaker, but along the same lines as the obligation to avoid selling harmful items (e coli in the food), restricted items (MRAAM missiles), or lying about what you are selling.

The people aren't strong enough by themselves to get what they want out of the marketplace. They need the government, in fact they have tasked the government, to act on their behalf.

You and Ayn Rand had better realize that the power you wish to take away from the government will be placed in the hands of companies that will use it to rule absolutely. Give it to them once, you will never see that power again.

Hi, Lon. As for running away, as I recall, the last time you and I had an argument, just as it was getting interesting, you simply replied, "Thanks for playing," and then ran away. I tried to bring you back into the argument in order to close it out, and then you ignored me.

I left PFA because it became obvious that you all are in no way in favor of freedom of thought--except the freedom to think the way you want people to think. I don't care to associate with you people, but I'll never run away from an argument if you want one.

"Here's the thing: when a business presents itself to the public, it has an obligation to provide a certain minimum of services or products. Why? Because there is an implied contract with the people, represented by the government, to do so."

I can't even begin to imagine where you that idea. If I start a business, I decide what I will and will not sell.
If this "implied contract" you speak of existed, then there would be no limit to what products and services any given businessperson would be forced to provide at the whim of his or her customers. You're saying that if customers demand that Eckerd sell product X, then Eckerd must sell it?
I give up, then. I really don't know how to answer such stupidity.

"What is being offered by the government? A stable currency, police protection, highways to get to the store, all of that and more."

So you're saying that because Eckerd gets protection from the police, they must sell birth-control pills. Sorry. There's just no logical connection there.

"What you libs don't get is that, at least in this country, the government is the people."

Actually, that's one of the main things we believe in. Where did you get the idea that we don't believe that?

"Specific point restated: No, it is not involuntary servitude. The presentation of a business to the public obligates the business to provide a certain minimum of service or product."

My point restated: If that's the case, then there's no end to which products and services the public could force Eckerd to sell.

"This obligation is weaker, but along the same lines as the obligation to avoid selling harmful items (e coli in the food), restricted items (MRAAM missiles), or lying about what you are selling."

Of course, I agree with you there, except perhaps the part about missiles. Everyone has a responsibility not to harm other people.

"The people aren't strong enough by themselves to get what they want out of the marketplace."

That makes no sense. That's the whole point of the marketplace--to provide what people need and want.

"They need the government, in fact they have tasked the government, to act on their behalf."

I haven't asked them to do it for me.

"You and Ayn Rand had better realize that the power you wish to take away from the government will be placed in the hands of companies that will use it to rule absolutely. Give it to them once, you will never see that power again."

Assuming you're right about that, why would that be any worse than the government ruling absolutely? That's like saying we'd better allow Hitler to rule over us because if we take power away from him, then Stalin will take over.

But you're wrong, of course. Don't you think that the corporations "rule" right now BECAUSE of this government that we have?

Very interesting. I never used the phrase "running away". Why did it come to your mind?

Freethought depends on making your decisions based on evidence, not on what some book says or some other authority tells you. My claim about libs remains, and your arguments have not disproved it, is that you haven't made this step.

As usual, the only way you can make a point is to take it to the extreme. The reality is that a company is setting itself up to provide drugs and related supplies. To withhold certain items breaks the contract with the public and serves only a portion of the public. They discriminate with no real basis. (Discrimination against folks who want to buy heroin or MRAAMs has some basis, at least). The argument is not to make them sell some unrelated product X, but to make them sell something that is in the ordinary and customary mix of products.

I might just ease up a bit and allow a company to advertise itself, say, as the Christian Drug Emporium, "We don't sell things we don't approve of." But they ought to say it up front and be honest about it. And in the case of products with inelastic demand, products whose lack would cause pain and suffering, I would let the government step in at any time and enforce the people's will. There are plenty of precedents: gas rationing during wartime is one example. You think a free market would have worked then?

Read your own literature. You people appear to give the people all these freedoms, but you deny that they have the freedom to form a government, except when the government is one of a few prescribed forms, all of which promote capitalism, reduce the liberty of individuals with respect to corporations, and allow the free market to run rampant over individual needs.

Our government is very far from absolute rule. Statements like this from you tell me you have read Atlas Shrugged, but you haven't really experienced the differences the world offers in governments.

I'm close to saying "Thanks for playing," again. Prove me wrong by actually reading what I've written and responding in actual arguments, not straw-men or other fallacies. And read up on Godwin's Law ... bringing in Hitler just makes your argument weaker.

My apologies ... I did quote James Taylor, didn't I? So I did use that phrase, my bad.

Ok, Lon. You did ease up a LITTLE bit. Thank you. At least you admit now that a company shouldn't be forced to sell something they don't approve of. You win some points for that.

I think that no matter what their name is, however, the Christian Drug Emporium would quickly gain notoriety as "that drugstore that doesn't sell birth control." If they don't sell the birth control, how exactly would that fact remain hidden? I see no point in forcing a certain name on them or forcing them to post signs reading, "We don't sell birth-control pills."

As for taking points to the extreme, I consider that to be a tit-for-tat measure. After all, everyone on this list was talking about forcing someone to do something, which is extreme.

As for making decisions based on evidence, of which you claim I have none, my whole argument is one that people should be free rather than under force. There is no evidence that people should be free. It is in fact just an opinion. By the same token, however, that pharmacists should be forced to sell birth control is also only an opinion.
For that matter, when you really get down to it, one must admit that there's no such thing as rights. Human rights are a fiction invented for the purpose of maintaining a civil society. So we have to pretend that rights exist.

Again, your argument about the "contract" has no basis. A contract does not exist until two or more parties agree to it. Therefore, a pre-existing contract is, by definition of a contract, impossible.
When a pharmacy merely sets up shop, that is not a contract. When a customer picks up a bottle of Tylenol off the shelf, takes it to the register, and the cashier rings it up, that is a contract.
If the pharmacist never even decides to sell birth-control pills in the first place, then it is impossible for there to be a contract for him to sell the pills.
If he stocks his shelves with anything and everything else, however, he is creating the POSSIBILITY of contracts to sell those items, but he's not actually creating a contract. He can't. Contracts can only be created at minimum bilaterally.

"You people appear to give the people all these freedoms, but you deny that they have the freedom to form a government..."

Come on, Lon! You know that I'm not denying anyone the right to form a government! I've made this clear before. It's quite the contrary! I'd love for you to exercise your right to set up your own government. What you don't have a right to do is to force me to live under your form of government.
See, that's the key to all the world's problems--everyone refraining from using force on others.
I'd love to see our current government fragmented into hundreds, even thousands of new, independent governments. As a start though, I'd settle for it splitting up into two--maybe blue states/red states. I think that might be an excellent start.

I'm giving you my points back, and once again, calling it a day. I can't argue with someone who reads what he wants to read and ignores what he cannot refute.

I did not concede that companies should not be coerced into selling certain items. What I said was, "And in the case of products with inelastic demand, products whose lack would cause pain and suffering, I would let the government step in at any time and enforce the people's will."

And once again, the straw man: I didn't imply that anyone forced the name on the drugstore, you did.

And another fallacy, you changed the definition of contract to the formal, legal one. The one I was talking about is closer to the social contract. It's the one your parents "signed" for you when they "granted" you citizenship in this country. And you are still under the terms of this contract as long as you voluntarily stay here.

Now go look up what Nolan says about that argument and entertain the rest of the group. I'm out of here. I'll say this again in the chance that it may sink in, "I can't argue with someone who reads what he wants to read and ignores what he cannot refute."

Lon,

Do these two statements not mean that they are free not to sell certain things, with the stipulations that they're open and honest about it and that they have a telling name?

"I might just ease up a bit and allow a company to advertise itself, say, as the Christian Drug Emporium, "We don't sell things we don't approve of." But they ought to say it up front and be honest about it."

However, yes, you did still say that they should be forced to sell certain things. My mistake.

No, I didn't change any definitions. No matter how small a transaction may be, and regardless of whether there's a written document involved, the sale of a bottle of Tylenol is a contract. Definition number one of the word "contract" according to Random House dictionary is, "an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified."
Where does that require a written document? Where does it require any certain amount of products or services to be bought/sold or any certain amount of money to be exchanged? The sale of a bottle of Tylenol is mutually agreed upon by two parties; therefore, it's a contract.

So what parts of your argument did I ignore? Oh, ok. I see one thing. I didn't address gasoline rationing. Honestly I'm not knowledgeable enough about that to offer any opinion. But what else did I fail to address?

One more time: the contract is implied. It is not the legal definition of a contract.

Your argument should be that there are no social contracts. Instead, you are saying what I describe as a contract is not a formal contract. It's not strong enough. It doesn't address my definition. Since I posited the idea first, you go by my definition, not one you use for convenience.

Go after what I said: there are no social contracts or they don't say what I say they say.

As for gas-rationing, you've used that ignorance defense before. You need to educate yourself in the ways in which the free market fails. There are plenty. Search for truth, son, not just counter-arguments.

mr t,

Just to let you know, the morning after pill is not like a "mini-abortion". It prevents ovulation-its simply like taking a large amount of birth control. It must be taken within 72 hours of a sexual encounter and does not allow pregnancy to occur, You are confusing it with the actual abortion pill, which will end a pregnancy.

Oops. YOu are right. I totally was confused.

I think we are missing the big argument in this. Where does it end? If we allow pharmacists to refuse to sell LEGAL medications based on their own beliefs, then who or what is next? Why do these same pharmacists that refuse to sell birth controll have no problems selling Viagra? Will that be the next drug they refuse? Can teachers refuse to teach evolution (or any other subject) because it goes against their beliefs? Can gas stations refuse to sell gas to drivers of certain cars? Can anyone in the food industry refuse to sell certain items to overweight people? The list could go on. When will you find yourself in the group that someone is refusing to sell to?

Paul, You started this thread with the assumption that people were saying XYZ drugstore should be forced to sell X product. That IS NOT the topic of conversation, with the exception of you and Lon. I would like to ask you to "hear" what I'm "saying".

If a drugstore offers birth control pills and the morning after pills for sale to the public (and they DO), then the public has the right to expect they can buy those products that the drugstore sells. The public is not trying to force the sale of these products by XYZ drugstore be they independently own or stockholder owned.

The ISSUE here is pharmacists imposing their moral beliefs on the buying public by refusing to sell a product the drugstore owner offers. What we are saying is the pharmacists have no legal right to to use his/her religious beliefs to discriminate aganist the buying public. They voluntarily agreed to sell drugs to the public when they agreed to take the job. If they have objections to selling their employers' products, then they need to find a company that does not offer these products or open their own pharmacy.

Then and only then do they have the right to discriminate. I can safely bet such a business would not exist for very long since we are a society who wants a drugstore to sell drugs. And not a pick and choose variety; we want full service and choices.

I usually agree with you on most posts and have a respect for your knowledge and perseverance, but I think your stance on this is wrong. And I think it is wrong because you are not understanding what we're saying.

there's a glaring irony here: in arguing that an individual shouldn't be allowed to passively impose his beliefs on someone else, your saying others should be allowed to actively impose their beliefs on him. recognize that this a person that regards abortion as murder and you are asking him to sell you the loaded gun.

we're generally free to deal with what and who we like. the exceptions are pretty clear cut. if the government (citizens at large) have a compelling interest or need, we sometimes condemn - which can take the form of taking property or regulating or limiting rights that would otherwise be granted. that's gas rationing, a commission that sets rates for electricity, the state bar, the medical board, antitrust law, criminal law. we also limit rights when we identify protected classes. That's gender, age, and race discrimination laws and ADA. We also limit rights or dictate behavior of people on the government payroll. Sometimes that's because they have privity of contract with the government (ie, where they get their paycheck), and sometimes it's because they are agents of the government and we are really limiting the power of the government. And sometimes we limit rights because "we" want to - we use the mechanism of government to take something we want without any real justification otherwise.

hard to see how the pharmacy thing falls in any of those categories. the pharmacy is a private (ie, non-governmental) enterprise even if it has 1M shareholders. unless so many refuse to sell the drug that it presents an unreasonable hardship on buyers and as a matter of public policy we decide we NEED more pharmacies selling, there's no compelling need justification. women with unwanted pregnancies are not a protected class. pharmacists are not legally employed by the government. and apparently they won the vote battle.

the nice thing about this arrangement is that it prevents us from having to agree on a set of beliefs except when we really need to.

it's fanciful and dangerous thinking to think that just because someone hangs out a shingle to sell stuff they've suddenly entered into a contract with the public. and suggesting it's quid pro quo for government services is ridiculous because they pay taxes for that already.

this BS about "social contract" reveals an absolute lack of understanding about our legal system and sounds downright Orwellian. I've addressed why you can't compare the pharmacist's right to opt out to gas rationing, racial discrimination, etc. Now please tell me how you would limit the operation of your proposed paradigm. can we force the pharmacy to stock and sell us pornography? can we force Chik fi La to open on sundays?

but the irony is the suggestion that pharmacists should not have a right to impose their beliefs on others. then why should others have a right to impose their beliefs on pharmacists?

really, it's no business of ours. if eckerds won't condone the pharmacist that won't sell, they can fire him. if you can't condone eckerds not firing him, you go somewhere else (which is what i'd do). if there is nowhere else, you can try to pass a law requiring pharmacies to sell because the need is compelling and unmet, but i doubt we'll ever reach that point.

Dave, I can see you are in a mindset that prevents you from sticking to the point of the letter. This is not about forcing any one or any company to do anything. It is about pharmacists refusing to sell a product that the pharmacy offers. And I might add, in refusing to sell that product he/she is ACTIVELY imposing a privately held belief onto the passive public.

In a social situation a person is free to say and hold any belief they want. But in a business position, unless they are the owner of said business, there is no room for letting their personal beliefs prevent them from doing their job, especially if they have voluntarily contracted to do that job.

I am quite sure if you went to an emergency with your child and the physician refused to treat your child for whatever reason, you would feel differently, especially if you didn't have time to shop around for another emergency room.

We are talking about a business transaction in this thread, not a war of moralistic beliefs. A pharmacist hired by a pharmacy to dispense drugs should do just that or look for another profession. It is not the public's responsibility to seek out another source because an individual has a problem separating business from privately held beliefs.

You can put any spin on that you want to. I have been quite clear about how I feel and feel no need to continue such a fruitless discussion with someone who only wants to prove how wrong I am. Even if they have to bring superfluous topics in to do it.

Lon,

I most certainly did say that "social contracts" do not exist, because I said that there can be no such thing as a pre-existing contract. I put no qualifiers on the word "contract," meaning that I included social contracts.

Yvonee,

Oh, sure. I totally agree with what you're saying now. An employee who takes a job at a drugstore which sells birth control certainly is obligated to sell whatever his employer instructs him to. If that employee doesn't want to do it, then yes, he/she must find employment somewhere else.

But why is that even an issue? Are such employees who refuse to do their jobs not getting fired?

Kisler,

Yes, in every hypothetical you propose, the owner of those businesses could refuse to sell those products to those people or any others if they so desire, but employees couldn't refuse it if they were hired to do those things. But of course, teachers can't refuse to teach evolution in a public school.

Paul writes:

But why is that even an issue? Are such employees who refuse to do their jobs not getting fired?

This is the whole point of the law being proposed in Raleigh and other states. Conservatives want to protect pharmacy employees from any consequences if they refuse to dispense birth control or "morning after" drugs.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but many of these activist pharmacists have been known to refuse to return prescriptions to patients after refusing to fill them. This is grossly unprofessional behavior, and it should be punished instead of protected, IMO.

Lon,

"As for gas-rationing, you've used that ignorance defense before. You need to educate yourself in the ways in which the free market fails. There are plenty. Search for truth, son, not just counter-arguments."

What am I to do? Apparently, according to you, I have two options: Argue but then pointlessly babble a bunch of nonsense about something I know nothing about when that issue comes up, or don't argue with people, period, about anything at all, even things I can defend.

Since you're giving me a directive to shut up about everything until I possess all knowledge of the world, I must do likewise and tell you to shut up until you can also understand all the instances in which government control fails and is wrong. There are plenty of them.

yvonne,

i wasn't responding to your post. i was responding to the posts full of faulty analogies.

but, if i understand your premise it is that a store can refuse to sell the drugs, but if it chooses to then it cannot allow any of its pharmacists to refuse to sell those drugs. i'm not aware of any other case where a rule like that applies. first, i don't see any basis for intruding on the employer's freedom to contract with its employees as it chooses. second, where a pharmacist owns his own shop, do we give him an owner's right of refusal or a pharmacists obligation to serve? if the law proposed were that a pharmacy couldn't fire a pharmacist for refusing to sell these drugs, then to my mind that's a different issue (my understanding is that is not at issue). even then, i think you have to balance the equities and public policy may in fact favor the employee (see, i'm not really a libertarian).

i'm pro-choice, but i can see how telling someone pro-life to sell these things would be a serious hardship, as would telling them else they can get a new job (and ultimately a new career). that in mind, surely we could come up with better ways of ensuring that "emergency" needs are met, or leave it up to the pharmacist.

"It is not the public's responsibility to seek out another source because an individual has a problem separating business from privately held beliefs."

not sure if you mean this is the way it is or the way you think it should be, but regardless: why not? if the druggist would rather close his shop than sell these drugs, can we force him to remain open? if i refuse to represent a child sex offender, should i be required to surrender my law license? i think the analysis gets tougher if the pharmacist has a monopoly of a sort, but we identify monopolies by effect, not on principle.

"You can put any spin on that you want to. I have been quite clear about how I feel and feel no need to continue such a fruitless discussion with someone who only wants to prove how wrong I am. Even if they have to bring superfluous topics in to do it."

i wasn't putting a spin on it, i was putting it in the established legal framework because others were mischaracterizing reality. in any case, you're free to convince me i'm wrong, it happens all the time (regardless of what my wife says).

OK Dave. If I have misunderstood the point you were presenting, I apologize. People tell me I'm crazy but I really believe there is something to this Venus/Mars thing.

I do not believe in governmental interference in the private sector UNLESS the private sector is in violation of the law OR are harming someone other than themselves. Therefore, I do not think a pharmacist who is also the owner should be made to sell anything they don't want to as long as they are upfront with the public. It would be kinda stupid for someone seeking birth control pills to go into a pharmacy that has a notice posted saying they do not sell the product.

Again, I was not speaking of self-employed pharmacists who own their own business. Their refusal to sell something does not pose a threat to the health of the customer because, as you pointed out, there are plenty of places that will. It was those pharmacists who are employed by a pharmacy who does sell the products a customer is requesting. If they refuse then, yes, I stick by my statement that they need to find another profession or open their own business.

Since you are a self-employed lawyer I think you should be able to pick and choose your clients. If, however, you were employed by the government it would be your responsibility to represent the scum. (I try to believe those representing such monsters are doing so because they HAVE to rather than because they want to. It is the only way I can rationalize such. I chose to believe the scum representing scum for money is in the minority. That maybe a naive way of thinking but....)

BTW, is there not some unwritten law that a wife has the right to be right?

Yvonne, usually the public defenders who represent "scum", (not in all cases are these people scum though, just poor) are not really, in my opinion, good lawyers at all.
They are doing a "job" for a paycheck, like alot of those that make good money in State government. Most are young, inexperienced, and/or just dont give a damn. Out of 20, you MIGHT find 1 that has a little bit of sense and can actually be of assistance to their "client".
I realize this isnt about lawyers, but pharmacists.. LOL, however, I wanted to interject my thoughts on your thoughts on public defenders. ;)

Lilly, Always glad to hear your take on things. I think I need to explain myself a bit though. Dave had made the comment about child molesters and that is who I was referring to as scum. Oh, wait, explain time again. The child molesters are scum, not Dave. LOL. Sometimes I even confuse myself when I preview my post. It takes me forever to post because I keep going back and changing things. Honestly, the crosses I bear!

You think I could get me a handicap tag for my car?

Yvonne, I have an extra one.. I'll email it to ya!
PS I agree, child molesters are SCUM.

Dave,

Some good arguments, let's see what happens:

I'm trying to come up with some reasons for behaviour ahead of the legal system, so you are right, the talk about social contract doesn't rely on current legislation.

You deny that they exist? The Social Contract has a nice long history, going back to Rousseau. His idea isn't exactly what I'm talking about here, but it's close. My idea is that there are implied obligations between and among the human community. It's a part of living with each other, and it is not imposed on us by any Big Brother, so there's no Orwellian influence here.

Group cooperation was developed by natural selection, and it is adaptive for survival of humans. There are areas of the brain that are hard-wired to respond to groups, seek out information about groups, learn to work in groups. It's a reason we survived, not having any particular feature that could compete with the other animals, save our brains. Today it serves the valuable purpose of annoying the minarchists and anarcho-Capitalists of the world.

A business is not an individual, and, in my opinion, has even more obligation than a citizen. It benefits far in excess of what it pays in taxes to the government or yields to its customers in products and services. This is why I say that the government, acting on behalf of the people, can impose on these businesses, forcing them to be a perform like a "usual and customary" drugstore, in spite of the beliefs of the owner.

The belief-imposing argument is also quite good. My position here is that the business volunteers to do business first. It sets itself up as a drugstore before anything else happens. Now along comes a citizen and expects to get drugstore related products. He is belief-neutral, he just wants a product. True, he may have certain behaviours that require the product, these may be related to beliefs, or lack of beliefs. Does anyone have a justification for assuming what these beliefs are? I don't think so.

Now the drugstore says, "No, I can't sell you that, what I believe contradicts the sale. I can't condone your value system/behaviour/beliefs." I don't think this is right even if he knows the value system of the customer absolutely, but if he is guessing, then it is an arbitrary and capricious decision that has no basis.

If this is the order in which you cover things, you see that the government, if it is forced to impose obligations on the business, does not say, "Adhere to this customer's belief," instead they say, "Do not impose your belief on others."

There seems to be concern about limits, and I can understand that. I think what we are talking about is sufficiently important (condoms, birth control pills, morning after pills) that arguments could be made on a case by case basis. No such argument for making Chick-Fil-A stay open on Sundays could be made, for example.

The problem with the libertarian position on this and other issues is that it over-simplifies and immediately turns to the extremes. Good argument demands that the analogies you use have some merit: they have to resemble the situation in some way, or they simply hold no water. So you can say the government is "three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch," and completely miss the fact that our government doesn't make arbitrary decisions, has checks and balances, and does a pretty good job of representing the people's interests.

Wow.

Paul, you've more tenacity than I have.

Lon,

It could be just as well argued that the social contract requires we won't (via the state) force one another to act against our belief systems without a clearly compelling reason.
I understand your argument to be that businesses are not individuals and receive much more in benefit than they contribute, and therefore should be required to surrender rights of refusal that the rest of us retain. I'm not sure what you mean by "individual", but i'm certain your assertion that businesses get far more than they pay is unfounded. I did the math. Large corporations typically pay over 40% on profits and then shareholders pay taxes on dividends and gains, and then there are property taxes, assessments, payroll taxes, etc. Smaller businesses pay income tax just like individuals. Your distinction between individuals and businesses is meaningless legally and in practice, as anyone who goes from being an employee to a one man consultant shop can tell you. Your discussion of "group cooperation" is relevant at least here: businesses are people who are working or investing as a group (unless they happen to be individuals). I must admit, I'm not versed in Marx (but I have read Che Guevara's motorcycle diaries), so maybe I'm missing your supposed underpinnings. But I suspect you just have faulty assumptions and irreconcilable notions as to the relationship between business and person.

"This is why I say that the government, acting on behalf of the people, can impose on these businesses, forcing them to be a perform like a "usual and customary" drugstore, in spite of the beliefs of the owner."

Wow, just because a business is getting a good deal (which it isn't), we can tell them how to operate their business and what to sell? Just how far does that extend? Hmmm, the public has an interest in lower prices and extended hours too. Besides, "usual and customary" is what we're defining with the law, after all. If the law says the pharmacist can opt out, then it's within "customary" by definition.

"I don't think this is right even if he knows the value system of the customer absolutely, but if he is guessing, then it is an arbitrary and capricious decision that has no basis."

Far as i know "arbitrary and capricious" is a purely legal term, and does not apply in any way here unless the pharmacy is a state agency. So i'm not sure what you're getting at.

"If this is the order in which you cover things, you see that the government, if it is forced to impose obligations on the business, does not say, "Adhere to this customer's belief," instead they say, "Do not impose your belief on others.""

Semantics. We could as easily state it as don't impose your belief (that the pill is ok) on the pharmacist by forcing him to give it to the customer, thereby facilitating. Valid rights are often at odds with one another. We often settle conflicting claims by balancing the hardships. Here, forcing sale of the pill forces someone to violate his belief. Not forcing him to causes someone else inconvenience but allows them to behave in accordance with their belief by shopping elsewhere.

"The problem with the libertarian position on this and other issues is that it over-simplifies and immediately turns to the extremes."

Not sure where you think I went to an extreme, or why you think this is a libertarian position any more than the rest of American jurisprudence.

"Good argument demands that the analogies you use have some merit: they have to resemble the situation in some way, or they simply hold no water."

Well, your WWII gas rationing analogy was pretty extreme. But how bout this one: pharmacy doesn't want to sell products that were tested on animals or deny women the right to vote or cater to Objectivist vacationers. Customers want those goods and most pharmacies sell them, and the government gladly condones their sale. Can/should the government force the pharmacy to sell those goods?

"So you can say the government is "three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch," and completely miss the fact that our government doesn't make arbitrary decisions, has checks and balances, and does a pretty good job of representing the people's interests."

Then if the majority vote to allow pharmacists to refuse sale, then in accordance with the people's will, he can and that's good because "the people" say so. You've walked into a tautology, but actually worse: you've created a paradigm where a majority can force a minority to do anything against their own belief system (at least if they choose to open a business). I can't think of a place on earth where that model has yielded prosperity or equity, but maybe you can. Maybe I'm vacationing in the wrong places

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dead-kennedys/38157.html

Lon,

You talk about group cooperation. Forcing people to do things against their will is not cooperation; oppression.

As for pretty much everything else in your letter, I think Dave summed it up perfectly by saying, assuming there were a social contract, "It could be just as well argued that the social contract requires we won't (via the state) force one another to act against our belief systems without a clearly compelling reason."

That is, Dave's statement is perfect when you remove the phrase "without a clearly compelling reason."

Additionally, Dave beat me to the point that also occurred to me after writing my last post on this--that you accuse me of going to extremes in my arguments, which cloud the real picture, but then you try to use wartime gas rationing to prove that free markets don't work.

Eric,

I apologize. In this torrent of argument, I forgot that the original letter mentioned the conservatives who want to legally protect pharmacist employees who fail to fill prescriptions. Of course, that would be a horrible law.

Why refuse someone a prescription? There is an even easier way out of it if a certain pharmacist didn't want to provide a certain "service" (as some are calling it). Just do not carry the product. If someone's moral ethics do not allow them to sell something (including birth control or morning after pills) then they shouldn't have them available.

A perfect example (out of context but it works):

My grandmother had to get a rare medication. When she went to the pharmacy they said they didn't have it but she could order it (or go elsewhere where it was available). She went where it was immediately available because she needed it.

So, if they don't want to sell it say it is not available. Most people (if not 100%) will go get it elsewhere.

Problem solved! And nobody had to curse someone else's choices to do it.