| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2006 02:16:20 PM |
| Object: |
Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
--
----------------
" The truth shall set you free "
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
10 Apr 2006 04:27:45 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists.
Why do you fascists oppose liberty for women?
Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,
You sound like a Nazi spewing propaganda and lies in order to justify
fascism.
What fascist state had as its agenda the prohibition of murder?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that neocons are totally full of sh*t. |
11 Apr 2006 12:46:05 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists.
Why do you fascists oppose liberty for women?
Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,
You sound like a Nazi spewing propaganda and lies in order to justify
fascism.
What fascist state had as its agenda the prohibition of murder?
Murder is already prohibited, idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "hc23hc" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that neocons are totally full of sh*t. |
11 Apr 2006 03:23:23 AM |
|
|
What fascist state had as its agenda the prohibition of murder?
Murder is already prohibited, idiot.
The embodiment of the fascist state is a regime where institutional
murder is the order of the day, but those who commit it are (as long as
the fascist phalanx holds sway) above the law.
Ergo: we're experiencing the makings of a fascist state here, under
war criminal W.
Cynthia McKinney for President !
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "hc23hc" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that neocons are totally full of sh*t. |
11 Apr 2006 04:41:53 AM |
|
|
What fascist state had as its agenda the prohibition of murder?
Murder is already prohibited, idiot.
The embodiment of the fascist state is a regime where institutional
murder is the order of the day, but those who commit it are (as long as
the fascist phalanx holds sway) above the law.
Ergo: we're experiencing the makings of a fascist state here, under
war criminal W.
Cynthia McKinney for President !
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that neocons are totally full of sh*t. |
11 Apr 2006 03:30:10 PM |
|
|
Tell that to the families of those lost on 9/11 or the famiy of Paul
Wellstone just to name a few. Yes, 9/11...history will show the complicity
of the neo-cons in charge.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hc23hc" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that neocons are totally full of sh*t. |
11 Apr 2006 04:47:10 AM |
|
|
What fascist state had as its agenda the prohibition of murder?
Murder is already prohibited, idiot.
The embodiment of the fascist state is a regime where institutional
murder is the order of the day, but those who commit it are (as long as
the fascist phalanx holds sway) above the law.
Ergo: we're experiencing the makings of a fascist state here, under
war criminal W.
Cynthia McKinney for President !
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 02:31:06 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists.
If these ***** wingnut pharmacists weren't so substandard, they could open
their own damn pharmacy and decide for themselves what medications they wanted
to sell. But they are employees of somebody else.
Maybe they should quit altogether and heal the sick by laying on hands.
Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 09:38:39 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
--
----------------
" The truth shall set you free "
If I were a satanist heart surgeon, would I be justified in refusing to
perform heart bypass surgery on someone because they don't share my
devotion to the dark lord?
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
No, I can't find the bit about the right to refuse medical treatment to
someone who doesn't share your beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
25 Mar 2006 03:20:09 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
All right, that's proof that YOU are full of *****. Where's the proof
about "liberals"?
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 04:17:56 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
If a pharmacist can't fulfill the duties in his job description, then
he should get into another line of work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
23 Mar 2006 03:43:55 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2006 14:17:56 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
OK, suppose I'm a pharmacist and you need a life saving drug
immediately. I decide it's against my conscience to sell you the
medicine because I disapprove of YOUR illness or how you got sick?
Or, worse, you've found a new honey and I refuse to sell you Viagra,
Levitate or Calais?
Or you've been poisoned and I refuse to give you the antidote?
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
24 Mar 2006 04:11:27 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:43:55 -0500, wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 14:17:56 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
OK, suppose I'm a pharmacist and you need a life saving drug
immediately. I decide it's against my conscience to sell you the
medicine because I disapprove of YOUR illness or how you got sick?
Or, worse, you've found a new honey and I refuse to sell you Viagra,
Levitate or Calais?
While Viagra may indeed help you to 'levitate' in Calais, I believe
you mean Levitra and Cialis. <G>
Or you've been poisoned and I refuse to give you the antidote?
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 04:06:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 04:54:20 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 09:28:01 PM |
|
|
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143068060.558003.97020@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a
"Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell
wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their
conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More
info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
Among the many things you know nothing about, a bartender's job (by law) is
to refuse to serve additional liquor to anyone they believe is impaired.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
23 Mar 2006 06:29:32 PM |
|
|
The Pervert wrote:
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143068060.558003.97020@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a
"Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell
wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their
conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More
info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
Among the many things you know nothing about, a bartender's job (by law) is
to refuse to serve additional liquor to anyone they believe is impaired.
Ahhh....so, there is no reason to prevent laws to restrict the
dispensing of RU486 from being passed...as long as the legal system
believes that it is dangerous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
23 Mar 2006 06:52:33 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "yarrido@aol.com"
<yarrido@aol.com> posting the following on 23 Mar 2006 16:29:32 -0800
iin alt.atheism?
Ahhh....so, there is no reason to prevent laws to restrict the
dispensing of RU486 from being passed...as long as the legal system
believes that it is dangerous.
Except that the FDA has already approved its use in the United States.
By law, they are the agency that approves drugs.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
23 Mar 2006 09:36:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
Honey, that IS the bartender's job. They have a civil and criminally
liablity for accidents caused by their drunk customers. A responsible
bartender always cuts a drunk off and gets the guy a cab home.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "JD" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
23 Mar 2006 12:37:27 PM |
|
|
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1143128203.563756.261290@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a
"Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell
wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their
conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More
info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
Honey, that IS the bartender's job. They have a civil and criminally
liablity for accidents caused by their drunk customers. A responsible
bartender always cuts a drunk off and gets the guy a cab home.
JohnN
Which, off-topically, is complete and utter *****. How on earth did the
responsibility for drinking ever get transferred away from the drinker? Or
the responsibility for shooting a gun away from the shooter?
That said, it's fine that a bartender tries to help out a drunk, but should
it really be a legal requirement? Next we will hold car manufacturers liable
for speeding accidents. Or hamburger manufacturers for making people fat.
Oops. Already got that one.
This country is waaaaay off course.
JD
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
23 Mar 2006 01:05:51 PM |
|
|
JD wrote:
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1143128203.563756.261290@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a
"Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell
wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their
conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More
info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
Honey, that IS the bartender's job. They have a civil and criminally
liablity for accidents caused by their drunk customers. A responsible
bartender always cuts a drunk off and gets the guy a cab home.
JohnN
Which, off-topically, is complete and utter *****. How on earth did the
responsibility for drinking ever get transferred away from the drinker? Or
the responsibility for shooting a gun away from the shooter?
The law in North Carolina says the bartender, or at home, the person
providing the alcohol, is responsible.
That said, it's fine that a bartender tries to help out a drunk, but should
it really be a legal requirement? Next we will hold car manufacturers liable
for speeding accidents. Or hamburger manufacturers for making people fat.
Oops. Already got that one.
That's just silly isn't it? Eating a burger and fries is not going to
cause a driver to drive the wrong way on the interstate and kill
people. Drunks have done it serveral times this month in Charlotte,
NC.
This country is waaaaay off course.
I note that the Republicans had control of the Congress and White House
for the past 5 years. 'nough said.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "JD" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
23 Mar 2006 02:43:10 PM |
|
|
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1143140751.805945.103320@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
JD wrote:
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1143128203.563756.261290@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a
"Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to
sell
wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their
conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment?
More
info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for
whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about
a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
Honey, that IS the bartender's job. They have a civil and criminally
liablity for accidents caused by their drunk customers. A responsible
bartender always cuts a drunk off and gets the guy a cab home.
JohnN
Which, off-topically, is complete and utter *****. How on earth did
the
responsibility for drinking ever get transferred away from the drinker?
Or
the responsibility for shooting a gun away from the shooter?
The law in North Carolina says the bartender, or at home, the person
providing the alcohol, is responsible.
Like the supermarket where I got the beer two weeks ago? I'm sorry, but
North Carolina has an absurd law on the books, as do many other states.
That said, it's fine that a bartender tries to help out a drunk, but
should
it really be a legal requirement? Next we will hold car manufacturers
liable
for speeding accidents. Or hamburger manufacturers for making people fat.
Oops. Already got that one.
That's just silly isn't it? Eating a burger and fries is not going to
cause a driver to drive the wrong way on the interstate and kill
people. Drunks have done it serveral times this month in Charlotte,
NC.
Maybe you weren't implying this, but I would argue that the drunk drivers
need to be punished more severely. Alcohol behind the wheel is a terribly
dangerous thing, but you've got to make people aware that it is very, very
illegal, and that they themselves are responsible and will be severely
punished for it, accident or not. Maybe zero tolerance is the way. Making
bartenders responsible is ridiculous. It's not as if there is no other way
to get alcohol. Drunk drivers have to be made more afraid that they will
suffer terrible consequences if they are caught behind the wheel under the
influence.
Bring back personal responsibility!
Otherwise we get:
"I raped her because she tempted me."
"I shot him because he made me angry and the gun was too cheap to resist."
"I stole it because the lock was too cheap."
"I had an accident because my buddy forgot to lock away the beer in his
refrigerator."
"I had an accident because the car goes too fast."
Is this what we want?
This country is waaaaay off course.
I note that the Republicans had control of the Congress and White House
for the past 5 years. 'nough said.
JohnN
Yep, 'nough said. (Actually, probably not, but it's a figure of speech. To
be fair, most of these laws have been around a longer time.)
JD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 08:35:47 PM |
|
|
in article 1143068060.558003.97020@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
at wrote on 3/22/06 5:54 PM:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
More off topic spam, but if someone will not do their job for whatever
reason why not fire them? What difference does the reason make?
Would a cop be hired who refused to enforce traffic laws? How about a
cashier who refused to accept credit cards?
Or a bar tender who refuses you a drink after having ten too many?
You may need lots of booze to get you through the day, but not
everyone else.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 09:50:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
<sigh> Do you *never* get tired of being a damned fool?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 11:22:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
Jesus H. Christ in a solid gold sidecar, Young. Just how fucking
stupid are you? How many times are you going to trot this one out?
If the pharmacist is also the owner of the business, then he/she has
the right to determine what types of medications that particular
pharmacy will or will not dispense. If the pharmacist is merely an
employee, he/she does *not* have that right, and must comply with the
policies established by the owner(s) of the business or risk
termination the same as any other employee who refuses to do the job
for which he/she is being paid. It's not a First Amendment issue, or
indeed a constitutional issue of any kind. It's a matter of do your
job or you're fired. Why is it so hard for you Bible-banging rightards
to get your so-called minds around that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 04:39:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
I just cannot believe you are such a fool.
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 02:53:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
Why should doctors be forced to provide the same standard of care to
those whose morals they disagree with, right?
The problem here is not that pharmacists are being 'forced' to
dispense products that they disagree with, but that employers are
'forced' to not fire their asses when they refuse to do their jobs.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 08:04:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
You think the First Amendment protects you from being fired? What
planet are you from?
There is an easy way to eliminate the problem in this specific
instance. The FDA could approve Plan B for OTC and then your
pharmacist wouldn't have to dispense it. The FDA advisory panel
recommended that the approval be given but it was blocked for
political reasons by the Bushites in the FDA.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 08:03:45 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, J Young in episode
<sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>...
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists.
Then you won't mind if pharmacists start refusing to fill prescriptions
for Catholics right?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
I just love this one...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 09:35:04 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:-6ydnW7DqM1jnL_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, J Young in episode
<sYOdncagE6EyLbzZ4p2dnA@giganews.com>...
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists.
Then you won't mind if pharmacists start refusing to fill prescriptions
for Catholics right?
Or those (like J Young) who are voluntarily brain dead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that liberals are totally full of sh*t. |
22 Mar 2006 04:49:37 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Wed, 22 Mar 2006
15:16:20 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Why does the liberal establishment object so vehemently to a "Conscience
Clause" for pharmacists. Why must these pharmacists be forced to sell wares
that will ultimately lead to killing a pre-born baby,( if their conscience
objects to such things ) Whatever became of the First Amendment? More info.
on the subject at this website:
OK, should a police officer be allowed to not investigate crimes
committed against Catholics if he is an Irish Protestant?
Shall a doctor be allowed to let people die if he's a Giants fan and
the patient is a star player for the Dodgers?
Pharmacists take an oath to dispense medications. Read their Code of
Ethics:
http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html
III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.
"A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes
individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in
decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients
in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects
personal and cultural differences among patients."
Read that last sentence.
Oh, the First Amendment has never protected speech in the workplace.
Never. Not in a single case that would apply. And this isn't a Free
Speech issue, nor is it Freedom of Religion. If your faith means you
cannot do your job, get another job.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
