03-05-2014 12:37 PM
266 ... 7891011
tools
  1. anon8126715's Avatar
    To me, the whole discussion is very simple. If I own the business, I will sell what I want to who I want for whatever reason I want. If the business is owned by someone else, I sell what they want to who they want, for whatever reason. If this causes anyone any problems, they are free to shop elsewhere or even open a competing business. If the government thinks they can change this, I would then close my doors and sell nothing.
    If you were a Mormon back before the 70s, and your religion taught you that dark skinned people were damned, thus you didn't serve them, would the government be wrong in telling you that you must serve everyone?
    02-15-2014 02:55 PM
  2. toober's Avatar
    If you were a Mormon back before the 70s, and your religion taught you that dark skinned people were damned, thus you didn't serve them, would the government be wrong in telling you that you must serve everyone?
    If that were my belief, it wouldn't matter who told me to do it, I would close my doors before I compromised my beliefs. It's hard to look at things from the past and understand why they had those beliefs. There may be a time in the future that people look back at some of the things we do on a daily basis and think OMG.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-15-2014 03:04 PM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    If that were my belief, it wouldn't matter who told me to do it, I would close my doors before I compromised my beliefs. It's hard to look at things from the past and understand why they had those beliefs. There may be a time in the future that people look back at some of the things we do on a daily basis and think OMG.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    But the government would be wrong to intervene?
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-15-2014 03:12 PM
  4. toober's Avatar
    But the government would be wrong to intervene?
    Yes

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-15-2014 03:18 PM
  5. Timelessblur's Avatar
    If that were my belief, it wouldn't matter who told me to do it, I would close my doors before I compromised my beliefs. It's hard to look at things from the past and understand why they had those beliefs. There may be a time in the future that people look back at some of the things we do on a daily basis and think OMG.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    And my answer to that is good residences to bad scum.
    Simple fact is if you have a problem with giving out the drugs you need to find a new line of work.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-15-2014 03:22 PM
  6. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Why do I have to choose a new pharmacy just because someone has an issue with the medication I take? Who do these people think they are, God? Why do they care so much about what other people do? Do they not have lives?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    msndrstood likes this.
    02-15-2014 07:10 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    I'll probably talk to them about the conscience clause, but I'd be a hypocrite if I insist that they stop supporting those companies.
    I don't think you would be a hypocrite for merely expressing your opinion. You have a right to give your opinion. I just think that if people stop giving these companies money, they will reverse their policies and remove the conscience clause.
    02-19-2014 06:21 PM
  8. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I don't think you would be a hypocrite for merely expressing your opinion. You have a right to give your opinion. I just think that if people stop giving these companies money, they will reverse their policies and remove the conscience clause.
    Problem is the conservatives would then force their beliefs on the companies and say that they can not have that policy.
    This is about the law which is crap. I would free say to the a jackass pharmacist that if he or she has this problem that they need to find a new line of work as clearly they are incapable of doing their job. They are judging others and clear are incapable of separating out their beliefs of what needs to be done for their job.

    Using the excuse not to give out birth control is equivalent of saying they can not give medication to minority saying they can not serve them because they are not white as that is their religious beliefs.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-20-2014 11:31 AM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    If that were my belief, it wouldn't matter who told me to do it, I would close my doors before I compromised my beliefs. It's hard to look at things from the past and understand why they had those beliefs. There may be a time in the future that people look back at some of the things we do on a daily basis and think OMG.

    Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk
    Based on your logic all anti-discrimination laws are null and void if the discrimination arises from your religious beliefs. If that's the case I'd have little pity on you for your doors closing, whether that be voluntarily or forcefully. **** away your livelihood and go live under a rock reading scripture for all I care.
    02-20-2014 12:20 PM
  10. toober's Avatar
    There is a difference between a law saying that all people are equal and one forcing someone to do business with a person he or she would not choose to. If I choose, for whatever reason, not to do business with someone, that is my choice. It should then be up to the community to decide whether or not they want to do business with me. When it starts hurting my livelihood, I will be forced to reevaluate my business model. The best thing to do if I were refusing service to someone would be to open a competing business across the street with a big sign out front "proudly serving xxxx".
    02-20-2014 01:15 PM
  11. Timelessblur's Avatar
    There is a difference between a law saying that all people are equal and one forcing someone to do business with a person he or she would not choose to. If I choose, for whatever reason, not to do business with someone, that is my choice. It should then be up to the community to decide whether or not they want to do business with me. When it starts hurting my livelihood, I will be forced to reevaluate my business model. The best thing to do if I were refusing service to someone would be to open a competing business across the street with a big sign out front "proudly serving xxxx".
    Clearly you do not get it.
    If you want to run a business there are laws and regulations you are required to follow.
    You are allowed to be a racist jerk all you want but you are now allowed to run a business that way.

    Running a business is a privilege not a right. This means you have to follow certain rules and regulations.

    So do you support serrations and discrimination of people of different races?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    02-20-2014 03:24 PM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    For that to work it would require the pharmacy to have 2 pharmacist on staff and WORKING at the same time. In that case it would be fine if their is another pharmacist working at the same time.
    Yes, I would agree with you on that point. Having two pharmacists on duty at the same time can solve a lot of the issues.
    02-20-2014 03:44 PM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    Now I wonder how many hundreds of times I've said something is mutually exclusive without realizing I was using it out of context.
    No worries, I do the same thing. Let me give another example with a different spin on the subject.

    Let's say there is a pharmacy staffed with pharmacists who have no problem whatsoever with birth control pills (or any drug, for that matter). In fact, they dispense birth control pills all the time. A customer comes in to fill her prescription for birth control pills. The pharmacist informs her that they just ran out of stock because they filled out 30 prescriptions for birth control pills earlier that day. The pharmacist offers to order the pills, and the shipment will arrive in 24 hours. The pharmacist can also direct the customer to another pharmacy that has the pills in stock.

    In this scenario, the customer cannot get the pills right away. She can either walk to another pharmacy or wait 24 hours for the shipment to arrive. Remember, the pharmacist has no issues of conscience. The problem is only that the pills sold out quickly, and there are no more in stock.

    Has the pharmacist done anything wrong?
    02-20-2014 04:13 PM
  14. toober's Avatar
    Clearly you do not get it.
    If you want to run a business there are laws and regulations you are required to follow.
    You are allowed to be a racist jerk all you want but you are now allowed to run a business that way.

    Running a business is a privilege not a right. This means you have to follow certain rules and regulations.

    So do you support serrations and discrimination of people of different races?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    I do not support any laws that make people anything other than equal. All I am saying is that if I choose to open a business with my money, I should be free to run it as I see fit. It is bad business to deny people access to my product or service, but i should be free to do so. There are no laws telling me which stores I am free to spend my money. Should we pass laws that I must spend money at the soul food restaurant because I ate at the steak house last night?
    02-20-2014 04:43 PM
  15. jdbii's Avatar
    No worries, I do the same thing. Let me give another example with a different spin on the subject.

    Let's say there is a pharmacy staffed with pharmacists who have no problem whatsoever with birth control pills (or any drug, for that matter). In fact, they dispense birth control pills all the time. A customer comes in to fill her prescription for birth control pills. The pharmacist informs her that they just ran out of stock because they filled out 30 prescriptions for birth control pills earlier that day. The pharmacist offers to order the pills, and the shipment will arrive in 24 hours. The pharmacist can also direct the customer to another pharmacy that has the pills in stock.

    In this scenario, the customer cannot get the pills right away. She can either walk to another pharmacy or wait 24 hours for the shipment to arrive. Remember, the pharmacist has no issues of conscience. The problem is only that the pills sold out quickly, and there are no more in stock.

    Has the pharmacist done anything wrong?
    Nope. Nothing wrong with that. I think something like that would happen all the time in a pharmacy. I believe it happened to me. The pharmacy was out of the cheap generic but the expensive brand was in stock.
    02-20-2014 05:12 PM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    What about only pharmacy with in 20 miles.

    Of those cases

    1 and 3 can be addressed with the drug can be ordered and easily over nighted. Price is generally going to be competitive but not a valid argument.
    This is an excellent idea! Thanks for bringing it up! The solution to the problem is to use a mail order pharmacy. It takes care of multiple issues at once. I will explain.

    If a patient orders from a mail order pharmacy, they don't have to deal with the local pharmacist who is having conscience issues. Mail order pharmacies can deliver anywhere the mail goes, so it doesn't matter if the nearest pharmacy is 20 miles away or 200 miles away. The patient has the added convenience of not leaving her house to get her medication, and since the price is competitive, there is no extra burden on the financial side. The icing on the cake is that the patient does not have to give the local pharmacist a penny. Sure, pharmacists can hide behind a conscience clause, but people can fight back and hit them where it hurts -- their wallet.
    02-20-2014 05:19 PM
  17. nolittdroid's Avatar
    I do not support any laws that make people anything other than equal. All I am saying is that if I choose to open a business with my money, I should be free to run it as I see fit. It is bad business to deny people access to my product or service, but i should be free to do so. There are no laws telling me which stores I am free to spend my money. Should we pass laws that I must spend money at the soul food restaurant because I ate at the steak house last night?
    Condoning racism on a birth control post...This forum is disgusting sometimes. If you CHOOSE to operate a business you have to follow the law...no matter how much money you're worth. Money is not an excuse to be a bigot.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-20-2014 06:27 PM
  18. toober's Avatar
    Condoning racism on a birth control post...This forum is disgusting sometimes. If you CHOOSE to operate a business you have to follow the law...no matter how much money you're worth. Money is not an excuse to be a bigot.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Back to the original topic then. A business owner is the only one that makes the decision of what products are sold in his or her own store. If the pharmacist is the owner, he may choose not to stock any drug he wishes not to stock. If the pharmacist is an employee and the store sells birth control, he can fill the prescription or find a new job. It is not the government's place to decide what items are on any store's shelves.
    02-20-2014 07:07 PM
  19. Paul627g's Avatar
    If we can't discuss things in an adult manor and leave any comments about racism, discrimination, etc out of the discussion then we will handle those individuals based on those comments.

    For anyone who is unclear of the " reward " for racism, discrimination or harassment its an automatic perma-ban, no questioned asked.

    Lets make the right choice folks

    Paul
    Moderator Team Leader @ Android Central.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-20-2014 07:17 PM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    It is not the government's place to decide what items are on any store's shelves.
    Could I open a pharmacy that catered to women only?

    I'm thinking of something similar to a woman's clinic, but it would be a pharmacy that stocked medications suitable only for women. Birth control pills would definitely be for sale in this example. My intention would be to create an environment that fosters women's health care.

    Perhaps I may not make billions of dollars using this business model, but if I make just enough to pay my employees and keep the pharmacy open, would that be all right? Also, would the government force me to sell medication for men?
    02-20-2014 08:42 PM
  21. toober's Avatar
    Could I open a pharmacy that catered to women only?

    I'm thinking of something similar to a woman's clinic, but it would be a pharmacy that stocked medications suitable only for women. Birth control pills would definitely be for sale in this example. My intention would be to create an environment that fosters women's health care.

    Perhaps I may not make billions of dollars using this business model, but if I make just enough to pay my employees and keep the pharmacy open, would that be all right? Also, would the government force me to sell medication for men?
    Why not? I'm sure you could find at least a hundred examples of the same thing done with other sections of the economy. There are colleges for women only. Stores that sell only women's clothing. Doctors that only have women as patients. It's very confusing that we have so many places that are restricted to one group or another, but are not allowed to have a group that caters to all EXCEPT a specific group.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-20-2014 09:55 PM
  22. Timelessblur's Avatar
    No worries, I do the same thing. Let me give another example with a different spin on the subject.

    Let's say there is a pharmacy staffed with pharmacists who have no problem whatsoever with birth control pills (or any drug, for that matter). In fact, they dispense birth control pills all the time. A customer comes in to fill her prescription for birth control pills. The pharmacist informs her that they just ran out of stock because they filled out 30 prescriptions for birth control pills earlier that day. The pharmacist offers to order the pills, and the shipment will arrive in 24 hours. The pharmacist can also direct the customer to another pharmacy that has the pills in stock.

    In this scenario, the customer cannot get the pills right away. She can either walk to another pharmacy or wait 24 hours for the shipment to arrive. Remember, the pharmacist has no issues of conscience. The problem is only that the pills sold out quickly, and there are no more in stock.

    Has the pharmacist done anything wrong?
    Mail order is not a valid excuse as you are trying to use it.
    Forced to go to another pharmacy us not acceptable.

    Mail order only works at beet for maintenance Meds and not as fast. A pharmacy can generally get them faster and less of a chance stuff gets lost.

    So not valid.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    02-21-2014 12:25 AM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    Nope. Nothing wrong with that. I think something like that would happen all the time in a pharmacy.
    The reason why I gave that example is because I want to see whether going to a different pharmacy or waiting at least 24 hours would be acceptable. Consider this example as well:

    There is an office worker who happens to be on birth control pills. She stops by a pharmacy to get her birth control pills refilled. The pharmacist she meets does not want to fill the prescription due to having a objection to birth control pills. However, there will be another pharmacist in the same pharmacy that goes on duty in 8 hours who has no objection to filling the prescription. The office worker leaves the prescription at the pharmacy and goes to work empty-handed. However, she comes back to the pharmacy after working at the office.

    By then, the second pharmacist fills the prescription and gives it to the patient (the woman who was working at the office). The first pharmacist did not have to fill the prescription because the second pharmacist did it. There was a 8 hour delay, but the patient got the medication in the end.

    If you compare this example to my previous example, the patient received her birth control pills 16 hour earlier, despite the fact that the pharmacy employed a pharmacist with an objection to birth control pills. Remember, in my previous example, the patient would have to wait 24 hours for another shipment to arrive if she did not want to go to a different pharmacy.

    So, did the pharmacy in my new example do anything wrong? The first pharmacist refused to fill out the prescription and left it for the second pharmacist. The second pharmacist filled it 8 hours later, and the patient went home with the birth control pills.
    02-21-2014 02:26 AM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    Mail order only works at beet for maintenance Meds and not as fast. A pharmacy can generally get them faster and less of a chance stuff gets lost.
    I can understand your position if you're talking about Plan B, which needs to be taken within 72 hours. However, Plan B is sold over the counter, so people can get it anywhere, like a grocery store (for example).

    My understanding of birth control pills is that a woman needs to take 1 pill every day to avoid getting pregnant. She needs to do that to maintain the contraceptive effect, so, in my opinion, a birth control pill is a type of maintenance medication. Since mail order works best for maintenance medication (as you state), I feel that birth control pills would be an excellent fit.

    I can also understand that a slow delivery from a mail order pharmacy would be a problem. How long would the delay be?

    Lost shipments don't help anyone, but I don't believe mail order pharmacies intend to lose any shipment. That would be a problem with the US Post Office.
    02-21-2014 02:52 AM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    Forced to go to another pharmacy us not acceptable.
    In the post you replied to, I had said that the pharmacy filled out 30 prescriptions for birth control pills earlier that day. The pharmacy has no more in stock now, but the pills will be in stock in 24 hours. None of the pharmacists at this pharmacy have conscience issues. They would be happy to fill out the prescription. They simply can't at the moment because they have nothing to give to the patient.

    If going to another pharmacy is not acceptable, what would be acceptable?
    02-21-2014 03:56 AM
266 ... 7891011

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-16-2013, 09:01 AM
  2. [APP][2.1+] Christmas Cake Recipes App (Santa Clause Approved!)
    By saroyama in forum Android App Inventor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 08:16 AM
  3. The 'Water Damage' Warranty Weasel Clause
    By BrockN in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-14-2013, 11:24 PM
  4. SOLD.......with a guilty conscience.
    By corvette72778 in forum HTC EVO 4G LTE
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-18-2013, 12:33 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD