9th Circuit judges tell God to drop dead!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the "morning after" contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

...

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that filed the suit ... didn't return a call for comment.

...

The three 9th Circuit judges found common ground despite differing outlooks: Two conservatives named to the court by President George W. Bush and a liberal named by President Clinton made up the panel.

The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,6469894.story

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not very dissimilar from the expectation that if you work in retail you are obliged to sell the products that your employer carries, not simply the ones that you personally want to sell.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh noes!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I never understood how Right Wingers defend the rights of employers to impose whatever rules with regard to an employee, but would also defend a pharmacist from refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds? There's an incredible inconsistency there.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I never understood how Right Wingers defend the rights of employers to impose whatever rules with regard to an employee, but would also defend a pharmacist from refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds? There's an incredible inconsistency there.

Here's the right-wing hierarchy. Anyone on top overrides anyone below.

Reagan

Jesus

CEO's

Evangelicals

Liberals

[AlHayatZween 2]

Here's the right-wing hierarchy. Anyone on top overrides anyone below.

Reagan

Jesus

CEO's

Evangelicals

Satan

Liberals

amended

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Good catch, hz!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Except you forgot to include the Gheys, Sex Industry Hobbyists and Pedophiles

[dalegg 143]

I never understood how Right Wingers defend the rights of employers to impose whatever rules with regard to an employee, but would also defend a pharmacist from refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds? There's an incredible inconsistency there.

Pharmacists are already employed by the government?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Except you forgot to include the Gheys, Sex Industry Hobbyists and Pedophiles

Republicans are gheys and johns

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I never understood how Right Wingers defend the rights of employers to impose whatever rules with regard to an employee, but would also defend a pharmacist from refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds? There's an incredible inconsistency there.

Pharmacists are already employed by the government?

"This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, which defends pharmacists. "More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break not too far down the line."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar27.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Except you forgot to include the Gheys, Sex Industry Hobbyists and Pedophiles

Republicans are gheys and johns

Naw, just your died in the wool perverts. Verbal abuse anyone?

[HAL 9000 96]

Not very dissimilar from the expectation that if you work in retail you are obliged to sell the products that your employer carries, not simply the ones that you personally want to sell.

You mean the ones you don't like.

I never understood how Right Wingers defend the rights of employers to impose whatever rules with regard to an employee, but would also defend a pharmacist from refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds? There's an incredible inconsistency there.

I never understood some Right winger's insistence that a public option would reduce customer choices (that clearly doesn't) while supporting medical practices that impose beliefs unto others. Seems a bit awash with hypocrisy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I never understood how Right Wingers defend the rights of employers to impose whatever rules with regard to an employee, but would also defend a pharmacist from refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds? There's an incredible inconsistency there.

I never understood some Right winger's insistence that a public option would reduce customer choices (that clearly doesn't) while supporting medical practices that impose beliefs unto others. Seems a bit awash with hypocrisy.

I don't know...that's a bit of apples to oranges comparison, IMO.

[dalegg 143]

I never understood how Right Wingers defend the rights of employers to impose whatever rules with regard to an employee, but would also defend a pharmacist from refusing to dispense medication on religious grounds? There's an incredible inconsistency there.

Pharmacists are already employed by the government?

"This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, which defends pharmacists. "More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break not too far down the line."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar27.html

Not sure where that answers my question.