Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 186

Thread: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    To me, public means governmental, where one's morality is irrelevant... or at least over ruled by the Constitution. Any privately owned business... and a business listed in the stock market is still owned by private citizens with their shares, are still private IMO.
    Thats the thing about the stock market, they open themselves up to the public, as such they should not hold policies that may be biased. Not to mention those companies do recieve governmental assistance in the form of subsidies, bailouts, tax exemptions etc etc.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And once those cases are decided, different morality is irrelevant. If the Constitution states something that adheres to a specific morality, opposing morality is meaningless from a constitutional position.
    The problem which you simply ignored is that morality is deciding the cases, NOT the constitution. The constitution is just what they use for their morality, nothing more. Its the weakness of the design they figured out only years after the country came into being. The supreme court idea is simply a failure.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Thats the thing about the stock market, they open themselves up to the public, as such they should not hold policies that may be biased. Not to mention those companies do recieve governmental assistance in the form of subsidies, bailouts, tax exemptions etc etc.
    Companies that sell stock in the stock market are only called public businesses because they sell stock to the public. The people that actually buy the stock are the only ones that have any claims of influence and ownership. Assistance from the government does not change claims of ownership either.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The problem which you simply ignored is that morality is deciding the cases, NOT the constitution.
    Wrong. Morality decided the Constitution, and since cases are also decided by the Constitution and the morality there, I am correct.

    The constitution is just what they use for their morality, nothing more. Its the weakness of the design they figured out only years after the country came into being. The supreme court idea is simply a failure.
    In your opinion.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Wrong. Morality decided the Constitution, and since cases are also decided by the Constitution and the morality there, I am correct.
    In theory, yes. In practice however, you are completely wrong.

    In your opinion.
    In my opinion? Bias has been part of the supreme court since the very early days of the country and its almost always been encouraged by the standing president and the congress. Almost all interpretations of it that has ever been used, most notably the living Constitution interpretation is nothing more than a way to put in place an intent and morality that was never there to be begin with. This is only compounded when they use prior cases to decide the present day cases to decide what powers are given to the government. In theory the supreme court was to make sure the Constitution was followed, but its almost always used to reinforce desires of individual men and government.
    Last edited by Henrin; 03-27-12 at 07:55 AM.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    In theory, yes. In practice however, you are completely wrong.
    No, not at all. The morality of the Constitution continues to decide cases, now.

    In my opinion? Bias has been part of the supreme court since the very early days of the country and its almost always been encouraged by the standing president and the congress. Almost all interpretations of it that has ever been used, most notably the living Constitution interpretation is nothing more than a way to put in place an intent and morality that was never there to be begin with. This is only compounded when they use prior cases to decide the present day cases to decide what powers are given to the government. In theory the supreme court was to make sure the Constitution was followed, but its almost always used to reinforce desires of individual men and government.
    The Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Alexander Hamilton said it best: "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

    The Supreme Court, both in theory and practice makes sure that the Constitution is followed, however, with changing times, the Constitution is used to interpret things that did not necessarily exist when it was created. The essence of those issues is there, though.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #37
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Gotta disagree with you on this one, Objective. As long as the pharmacist directs the customer to someone who WILL fill the prescription, I have no issue with an individual pharmacist acting on his morals. It would be like a gay couple going for couples counseling... to a therapist who rejects GM and gay relationships as sinful. As long as they give the couple names of people who would treat them, there is nothing wrong with what that individual does, ethically.
    this would NOT be the same at all. You are talking a private practice.
    Im talking a public pharmacy if we allow people who want to freely discriminate based on their own personal beliefs where does it stop, why would digs "morals/opinions/religions" be more important than mine if I run a public pharmacy and want to discriminate against him for his religion? that is NEVER ok in US ever and Id love an argument to why it would be acceptable in a public pharmacy. It is simply not and in my opinion its ignorant, disrespectful, disgraceful and hypocritical as an american.

    A private therapist is NOT a public pharmacy they are not the same. So you are telling me if im a pharmacist at the local food center and my religion says being black is sinful Im allowed to refuse service on that alone? no way, never im not buying it.That would be legalizing discrimination. If you disagree Id say you are making an exception for ones religion and not the others.

    Ill wait to see what you have to say, it should be interesting. DIgs choose not to answer my example question because he probably couldnt do it objectively
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #38
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    The difference here I think CC is that a pharmacist is generally public. A counsular is not. There is a world of difference imo between a public buisness and a private buisness.

    Peoples arguments in this thread remind me of the whole controversy with muslim cashiers at grocery stores refusing to run pork and beer through their check out stands because it goes against their moral code. IMO anyone that holds a public service job or company has no right to force their values upon those that use their services. If I was the boss of a public company and one of my employee's refused to do something because of personal moral values then that person would be fired for not being able to do their job fully.
    yep this is the basic foundation of the argument. Dont like public rules stay out the public realm its really simple.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #39
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    A pharmacy is a private business. If it is the policy of that business to NOT sell these types of medications, then there is no issue with them doing that. If that is NOT the business's policy and the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription, he/she should be fired. If the pharmacist owns the business, he/she can decide to not carry or sell the drug if he/she chooses.
    this is NOT the exampleI used. If a pharmacy wants to not stock this items (only because they are do not save lives) I am fine with that. My example is nased on public buisness which a pharmacy is and if that item is in stock.


    SO again, if its a public buisness and I already have a prescription you better fill it and if you dont you are discrimination and violating my rights if the ONLY reason you choose not to fill it is based on your own personal morals/religion etc.

    My immediate advice is you have no business being a public pharmacist if you cant do your job with competence.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #40
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: 1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, not at all. The morality of the Constitution continues to decide cases, now.



    The Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Alexander Hamilton said it best: "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

    The Supreme Court, both in theory and practice makes sure that the Constitution is followed, however, with changing times, the Constitution is used to interpret things that did not necessarily exist when it was created. The essence of those issues is there, though.


    Hold on there...No where in Article 3 does it say anything about interpreting the Constitution for the changing times. If you want the Constitution to change, then that is what the amendment process is for. Period.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •