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

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

CaptainCourtesy said:
Quote the law I violate if I refuse to serve you because you are Catholic.

This is accurate, as I said. But this is hiring practices that are protected by federal law. I do not believe that I MUST serve anyone.

i dont know what the law is that says you cant not hire aperson based on religion? doesnt mean it doesnt excist.
Im not saying you have to serve everyone, I wouldnt want you to have to but I believe discrimination in public services is always protected.

Im not buying that I can open a public business and the if I women walks in tell her to get the hell out, get your fats ass in the kitchen I dont serve any baby factories in here and thats legal. LOL

yes I added some dramatics for joke purposes

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

CaptainCourtesy said:
I've been saying that from the beginning, so no, I did not disagree.

you did though

thats how this whole discussion started with digs and your opening line was "sorry objective I disaagree with you on this one" it really hurt my feelings

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
uhm what I posted isnt an opinion,

Umm...what I posted wasn't referencing your argument, but rather my opinion that discrimination should be allowed. Hello McFly!

Objective-J said:
discrimination is currently illegal, you think it should, lots of libertarians have that opinion, you are welcome to it but luckily the country isnt run that way and the government protects are rights. You call it lazy, im thankful because america would be a lot different and worse.

There were reasons behind making it illegal, however, overall the reason for a lot of these types of laws does come down to laziness. If people were better consumers, we wouldn't need the government getting into our business all the time.

Objective-J said:
also again if the pharmacies reason for not selling me a stocked item is based on religion, race, gender etc and not something scientific and medical its discrimination :shrug:

It's their business. They ain't denying business to classes of people; just access to a drug they perhaps don't want to sell. 80% of pharmacies don't have this problem, so I don't see why there is a problem here in the first place.

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
yep people are discriminated against those things you mentioned arent protected by laws rights and freedoms LMAO

Neither is your access to another's property

Objective-J said:
Pharmicies are NOT private bushiness by discrimination laws sorry.

They are, however, private by all reasonable and rational definition of "private".

Objective-J said:
SPare me you opinion im talking reality.

Spare my your false indignation. This is a political board where people present their opinions on matters. And this matter is not one of discrimination. Can't force a place to sell something if they don't wanna sell it. Go to one of the 80% of pharmacies that have no problem.

Ockham · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
nope because there is no such thing, i dont invent words, I prefer to use words how they are defined in a dictionary otherwise its fantasy or slang.

Well murder is defined asL

1mur·der
noun \ˈmər-dər\
Definition of MURDER
1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. Crime
2. Unlawful
3. Killing of a person
4. malice aforethought

My point here is... since abortion is legalized in the U.S., abortion is not a crime, nor is it unlawful. It's still the killing of a person, though there are some who argue the "person" portion. Then there's malice aforethought, which identified deliberate intent to carry out #3 above. Therefore I would have thought you'd agree that it's still killing a person, since #1 and #2 are invalid, #3 is accurate and #4 is definitely accurate. Can't fess up to killing a person - it therefore must be a non-person in your view? And since it's not a person, you justify it to not be legalized ... err... murder. A very nice way to justify a sucking out an infant from the womb to die. That's also a current fact on how an abortion is carried out. :shrug:

Keeps that pesky guilt away in your method... very nice.

CaptainCourtesy · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
you did though thats how this whole discussion started with digs and your opening line was "sorry objective I disaagree with you on this one" it really hurt my feelings

If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, they can set any rules they like as far as what they will fill. If someone ELSE owns the pharmacy, THAT person sets the rules. If they are OK with the pharmacist operating on his/her morality, then it's OK. If they are not, the pharmacist will be fired. I've said this from the start, Objective.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

CaptainCourtesy said:
Ummm... no. But if I'm wrong, quote the law that discusses service.

Ill have to research it when I have time but i never knew theres a separation between hiring and service in the PUBLIC realm.

FOr example if you fix PCs in you basement of course you get to service whoever you like. personal photographer fine.

If you have a nice corner shop, neon signs, hours listed on your door and a light thats says "we are open" and I walk in with my PC ready to be fixed and you say get the F out of here you stupid black republican gay christian slut that had an abortion. I believe thats illegal if I can prove thats way you refused me service. :shrug:

If Im wrong id love to know so because not only do I not believe it, a business was shut down just 2 summers ago here in my area for discrimination. A service garage refused to fix a black lady's car and he personally told her he doesnt work for niggers.

NOW this happened with witnesses, one witness was a constable and he did have a state provide inspection license so maybe that how they used the law to get this dirtbag and im mistaken??????

Maybe they pulled his ability to do state automotive inspections :shrug: but there was no mention of that just that he discriminated and got caught so he was shut down.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
Umm...what I posted wasn't referencing your argument, but rather my opinion that discrimination should be allowed. Hello McFly!

There were reasons behind making it illegal, however, overall the reason for a lot of these types of laws does come down to laziness. If people were better consumers, we wouldn't need the government getting into our business all the time.

It's their business. They ain't denying business to classes of people; just access to a drug they perhaps don't want to sell. 80% of pharmacies don't have this problem, so I don't see why there is a problem here in the first place.

simple I dont support discrimination for what the law protects nor will I ever.
but i have said if they dont stock it so be it :shrug:

CaptainCourtesy · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
i dont know what the law is that says you cant not hire aperson based on religion? doesnt mean it doesnt excist.

I'm not talking about hiring. There is federal law on this, as far as I know.

Im not saying you have to serve everyone, I wouldnt want you to have to but I believe discrimination in public services is always protected.

I don't think so, but find the law that proves me wrong and I'll concede the point. I WILL say that it's pretty bad business practices.

Im not buying that I can open a public business and the if I women walks in tell her to get the hell out, get your fats ass in the kitchen I dont serve any baby factories in here and thats legal. LOL

I don't think it's ILlegal, though. Pretty stupid, however.

yes I added some dramatics for joke purposes

I know.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
Neither is your access to another's property

They are, however, private by all reasonable and rational definition of "private".

Spare my your false indignation. This is a political board where people present their opinions on matters. And this matter is not one of discrimination. Can't force a place to sell something if they don't wanna sell it. Go to one of the 80% of pharmacies that have no problem.

no thanks Ill just realy on my rights and freedoms protecting me

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ockham said:
Well murder is defined asL

1mur·der
noun \ˈmər-dər\
Definition of MURDER
1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. Crime
2. Unlawful
3. Killing of a person
4. malice aforethought

My point here is... since abortion is legalized in the U.S., abortion is not a crime, nor is it unlawful. It's still the killing of a person, though there are some who argue the "person" portion. Then there's malice aforethought, which identified deliberate intent to carry out #3 above. Therefore I would have thought you'd agree that it's still killing a person, since #1 and #2 are invalid, #3 is accurate and #4 is definitely accurate. Can't fess up to killing a person - it therefore must be a non-person in your view? And since it's not a person, you justify it to not be legalized ... err... murder. A very nice way to justify a sucking out an infant from the womb to die. That's also a current fact on how an abortion is carried out. :shrug:

Keeps that pesky guilt away in your method... very nice.

wow thanks for explaining how you falsely come to your inaccurate nonfactual OPINION

and thanks for also posting the definition of murder that supports me 100%

the facts remain abortion is not murder and I have ZERO quilt about that LMAO

you are free to disagree you are just wrong.:shrug:

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
simple I dont support discrimination for what the law protects nor will I ever.
but i have said if they dont stock it so be it :shrug:

Then that's the solution, they can just not stock it. Though I can understand if they don't want to sell it to kids.

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
no thanks Ill just realy on my rights and freedoms protecting me

I still don't understand what "right" you have to someone else's property.

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

CaptainCourtesy said:
If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, they can set any rules they like as far as what they will fill. If someone ELSE owns the pharmacy, THAT person sets the rules. If they are OK with the pharmacist operating on his/her morality, then it's OK. If they are not, the pharmacist will be fired. I've said this from the start, Objective.

That's about the right of it.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
Then that's the solution, they can just not stock it. Though I can understand if they don't want to sell it to kids.

kids? what kids?
and yes if they dont have it than thats a "loophole" that they can get away with it

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
kids? what kids?

From the article McFly. They said people pretended to be 17 year old girls and at 20% of the pharmacies in the study, they denied service. I can understand if someone doesn't want to sell this to kids.

Objective-J said:
and yes if they dont have it than thats a "loophole" that they can get away with it

Yeah "loophole", how dare they decide to run their business counter to your opinions! Those bastards.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
I still don't understand what "right" you have to someone else's property.

your understanding isnt needed, what are you calling property?

im guessing (correct me if not) in the very general way you are calling something property I could call a job a persons property. If they dont give me that property solely based on my gender thats discrimination and violates my rights in reality.

I know you disagree in your opinion but dont care about that at all.

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
your understanding isnt needed, what are you calling property?

im guessing (correct me if not) in the very general way you are calling something property I could call a job a persons property. If they dont give me that property solely based on my gender thats discrimination and violates my rights in reality.

I know you disagree in your opinion but dont care about that at all.

The drug, the morning after pill. They buy it, it's theirs. You go there to buy it from them, but somehow you are under the impression that you have some right to that property owned by another. That they MUST sell you their property because...it's you and by god, you're owed that property. They buy it to sell it, but they can refuse service to anyone. Just like a bar can. Or pretty much any other place.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
From the article McFly. They said people pretended to be 17 year old girls and at 20% of the pharmacies in the study, they denied service. I can understand if someone doesn't want to sell this to kids.

Yeah "loophole", how dare they decide to run their business counter to your opinions! Those bastards.

uhm legally they are allowed to get it at 17 so if they have id or that is meaningless and has no baring in the debate because then that would be illegal. LMAO

LMAO I wouldnt want any prescription ILLEGALLY given to anybody.

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
uhm legally they are allowed to get it at 17 so if they have id or that is meaningless and has no baring in the debate because then that would be illegal. LMAO

LMAO I wouldnt want any prescription ILLEGALLY given to anybody.

As I said, I can understand why they wouldn't want to sell it to kids.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
The drug, the morning after pill. They buy it, it's theirs. You go there to buy it from them, but somehow you are under the impression that you have some right to that property owned by another. That they MUST sell you their property because...it's you and by god, you're owed that property. They buy it to sell it, but they can refuse service to anyone. Just like a bar can. Or pretty much any other place.

100% WRONG with all your assumptions LMAO which is typically your issue

who said it's me and by god, im owed that property :lamo

thats right, NOBODY

I never said that once, please keep up "McFLy" tie your shoe and dont make stuff up :laughat:

there are many reasons why they could not give it to me I had a very specific reason that if the refused under very specific circumstances its discrimination. Nice try

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
As I said, I can understand why they wouldn't want to sell it to kids.

yeah me to, has no impact on the discussion LOL

I can understand why they wouldnt sell it to people without prescriptions to :shrug: LOL

Ikari · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
100% WRONG with all your assumptions LMAO which is typically your issue

who said it's me and by god, im owed that property :lamo

thats right, NOBODY

I never said that once, please keep up "McFLy" tie your shoe and dont make stuff up :laughat:

there are many reasons why they could not give it to me I had a very specific reason that if the refused under very specific circumstances its discrimination. Nice try

Part and parcel. You are saying that they are discriminating against you if they do not sell it to you. That you have some perceived "right" to not be discriminated against and as such, they should have to sell it to you. You are making claim to the property owned by the other party. That they cannot keep that property which they own to themselves and must sell it to you else there is some form of discrimination. That is your argument, yes? You can keep posting "LMAO" as much as you want; but it doesn't change the base of your argument.

DVSentinel · Mar 28, 2012

Objective-J said:
LMAO every time someone calls it murder I laugh because that is factually incorrect. Its dramatic hyperbole that objective people dont buy.

Ok, someone already posted the definition of murder. So that leaves the definition as to whether the zygote/fetus is a person. What do we know about it from science?

1. The cells after conception and initial splitting of the fetilized egg are living cells.

2. Those cells are human.

3. Those cells exist because a human egg was fertilized by a human sperm.

4. Those cells have a unique identifiable DNA structure not matching any other human being. Therefore, those cells belong to a unique human being, called a person. Even if that person is only made up of two cells instead of hundreds of trillions of cells (or however many actually exist in a person, don't think anyone ever sat down and counted them). While we cannot actually perform a DNA test on just two cells, that would be too small a sample and would kill the two cells in question, we know that those two cells have that unique DNA structure because ever human being grows through their cells dividing. Those two cells have to contain the unique DNA structure because we can later test cells, when it doesn't cause the death of all the cells making up the person, and every cell that will ever make up a person comes from the division of the fertilized egg into those first two cells.

5. Those cells have a chromosome pair that determine the sex of the person those cells belong to.

6. Abortion, whether by medical means or by usning "the morning after pill" is a deliberate act to kill the person who is made up of those cells.

7. The deliberate killing of a human being is murder.

Conclusion from this, Abortion is murder, whether it is called that or not because science can prove beyond any doubt, through genetic testing, that a unique human being exists, even if that human being in question is only made up of two cells, they are living, they are human, they are genetically a new human being.

AGENT J · Mar 28, 2012

Ikari said:
Part and parcel. You are saying that they are discriminating against you if they do not sell it to you. That you have some perceived "right" to not be discriminated against and as such, they should have to sell it to you. You are making claim to the property owned by the other party. That they cannot keep that property which they own to themselves and must sell it to you else there is some form of discrimination. That is your argument, yes? You can keep posting "LMAO" as much as you want; but it doesn't change the base of your argument.

if you say so but NO that is NOT my argument no matter how many times you repeat it LMAO nor has it every been my argument and I LMAO because you are factually wrong and misrepresenting my argument and its base

my argument was VERY specific yours is a blanket statement that I would never make LMAO

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

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Noblesse oblige

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"