Tuesday November 27, 2007, 9:12 pm
If I were the owner/manager of a pharmacy and I had an employee that was sending customers to a competitor instead of making the sale that employee would be looking for another job right after I pointed out to him/her how ridiculous their belief in religion is.

Born of a Virgin with Date of birth December 25th.
Joseph Jesus
Miracle Birth Miracle Birth
Of 12 brothers 12 disciples
Sold for 20 Pieces of silver Sold for 30 Pieces of silver
Judah suggested sale Judas suggested sale
Began ministry at age 30 Began ministry at age 30

The same Parallels exist for all of the following:
Horus 3000 BC Egypt
Mithra 1200 BC Persia
Attis 1200 BC Greek
Krishna 900 BC India
Dionysus 500 BC Greek

Significant number
12 tribes of Israel
12 brothers of Joseph
12 judges of Israel
12 O.T. prophets
12 kings of Israel
12 princes of Israel
12 disciples of Jesus
12 phases of the Zodiac!

Sign of the church and sign of the zodiac are the same pagan cross.

2250 BC Sargon’s birth – The description of Moses’ birth is exactly the same as Sargon’s.

All of these Law Givers had 10 laws that were almost identical.
Manou India
Minos Crete
Mises Egypt
Moses - Ten commandments came directly from the Egyptian book of the dead.

Tuesday November 27, 2007, 9:42 pm

Under U.S. law, a corporation has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders to maximize profits. Any chain pharmacies with publicly held stock can be sued by their shareholders for refusing to sell anything profitable.

Those are some fascinating parallels, Ralph. But theoretically and philosophically, couldn't there have been one original plagiarist? ;)

Wednesday November 28, 2007, 5:30 am
Since when do doctors have the right to choose what is right for a person due to their religion? Are we NOT in America?
Noted. This has happen in my state as well. A child 15 or so was raped and was never given the pill after her and her mother requested it several times.

Wednesday November 28, 2007, 5:55 am
I agree.....what ever happened to freedom of choice. Those who have been violated are intitled to protect themselves from an unwanted pregnancy. I know we give them at the hospital when rapes occurred. No one has the right to enforce their religious beliefs on another.....plain and simple. I would fire the person myself for refusing to provide service to someone without a valid excuse. Thanks for posting Jamie!

Wednesday November 28, 2007, 8:16 am
the true colors ..I am outraged over this...my grandfather a very religious man always told me that only people insecure of their believe system will pressure others ..perhaps he has a point..and Religion is used to supresse..shame..

Wednesday November 28, 2007, 1:15 pm
I wonder when they will start refusing viagra. Or maybe they won't dispense insulin, and other life saving drugs. Pharmacists are there to dispense what the doctor prescribes, not question it. If they can't do their job, they need to find another profession.

Thursday November 29, 2007, 4:19 am
A pharmacist is working in and with the public therefore they have no right to judge peoples morals or religion! they are in these jobs to serve the public and if they have any moral or religious problems with what they do they should work in an other area

Thursday November 29, 2007, 7:59 am
So if the morning after pill is against their morals then how the hell do they sleep at night knowing those women who were denied the pill may very well end up having an abortion?

Thursday November 29, 2007, 8:37 pm
An individual's beliefs affect the decisions they make and they sometimes do affect others, however, the pharmacist isn't forcing his beliefs on the individual, and, nor should the individual or courts force their beliefs on the pharmacists. The pharmacists should not be forced to sell the pill, nor should they have to tell them where to get it. Just go somewhere else. The individual needs to take the responsibility for themselves and obtain the pill from another source. As for the "apparent" judging of other people's morals, just because two people have a different stand on an issue doesn't mean they are judging each other.

Friday November 30, 2007, 9:25 am
UGH!!! Idiots! The morning after pill is NOT an abortion pill. It is birth control. It prevents Egg and Sperm from uniting, and there would be no need for an abortion. You would think these idiots would be passing these pills out like candy to prevent abortions. UGH!!! I swear it feels like I'm living in the twilight zone!

Friday November 30, 2007, 9:37 am
William you hit the nail on the head it prevents pregnancy not terminates it, but then the religious right does not really want birth control either.......how are more and more of us ending up with you in the twilight zone, what happened to the age of enlightenment? How did we end up going so far in reverse?

Friday November 30, 2007, 10:08 am

Edward, a pharmacist who does not want to sell birth control is free to choose to go live in Iran or any other religious state that bans birth control. If they choose to live in a country with religious freedom like the U.S., they can't refuse to sell shoes in a shoestore just because Jesus went barefoot.

Friday November 30, 2007, 10:41 am
Mark, in my opinion, that is where you are mistaken. One of the benefits of living in this country is the ability to not have government controls over everything you do. To use your analogy, if a shoe salesman doesn't want to sell shoes because Jesus went barefoot, then that is their choice. [Chances are they wouldn't be in business for long, but that is and should still be their choice.] Just out of curiousity, should OB/GYNs all have to perform abortions? Should all minister/JPs have to perform homosexual marriages? Should religious organizations have to hire homosexuals when it goes against their beliefs? Should the Boy Scouts have to let girls in, likewise with the Girl Scouts and Brownies? Should women's exercise businesses, like Curves, have to allow men in? No! They should all have the right to decide, for whatever reason, what they will and won't do. By the way, being as you started up our conversation with each other, your shareholder comment above is incorrect. I won't get into all the rules and regulations, but the shareholders do not have that power. Along those lines though, should all publicly held retail stores have to sell pornography? Now there is a HIGHLY profitable line of merchandise! Just some things for you to think about. I appreciate the discussion...

Friday November 30, 2007, 11:13 am
Edward wrote: "Mark, in my opinion, that is where you are mistaken."

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, so what follows is my opinion.

"One of the benefits of living in this country is the ability to not have government controls over everything you do."

So there are some businesses that don't have to pay taxes or FICA? How nice for them.

"To use your analogy, if a shoe salesman doesn't want to sell shoes because Jesus went barefoot, then that is their choice. [Chances are they wouldn't be in business for long, but that is and should still be their choice.]"

If you don't sell shoes, why call yourself a shoe salesman?

"Just out of curiousity, should OB/GYNs all have to perform abortions? Should all minister/JPs have to perform homosexual marriages? Should religious organizations have to hire homosexuals when it goes against their beliefs? Should the Boy Scouts have to let girls in,..."

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

"...likewise with the Girl Scouts and Brownies? Should women's exercise businesses, like Curves, have to allow men in? No!"

Here we agree. If it had been wives who had coverture laws in the US that said that all a husband's property belonged to the wife, if it had been wives who had legally been allowed to beat husbands, if one out of every four males was sexually assaulted by females, then I would place the same restrictions on both. If one group is historically discriminated against, I would not continue that discrimination in any way.

"They should all have the right to decide, for whatever reason, what they will and won't do."

We disagree. I believe that one person's freedom stops where another person's chin begins. I'm 67 and my father taught me that when I was young.

"By the way, being as you started up our conversation with each other, your shareholder comment above is incorrect. I won't get into all the rules and regulations, but the shareholders do not have that power."

Google "The Corporation video" and watch the film online. Corporations have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to maximize profits even if doing so kills consumers.

"Along those lines though, should all publicly held retail stores have to sell pornography? Now there is a HIGHLY profitable line of merchandise! Just some things for you to think about. I appreciate the discussion..."

No. In my opinion erotica, the depiction of sex in a loving and respectful way, should be absolutely free of censorship, but porn, the depiction of sex in a degrading way, is a form of discrimination and hate speech and should be outlawed.

Saturday December 1, 2007, 1:34 am
If you don't want to put dogs to sleep then don't be a vet tech. If you don't want to perform abortions then don't become an OB. If you don't want to prescribe birth control THEN DON'T BECOME A PHARMACIST.

It isn't a matter of who is forcing whom to go against their morals. It is a question of STUPIDITY to get into a field of work where you may have to do something that goes against your morals and then cry about it and REFUSE TO DO WHAT YOU ARE PAID TO DO.

Sunday December 2, 2007, 5:15 am
Mark:

"No. In my opinion erotica, the depiction of sex in a loving and respectful way, should be absolutely free of censorship, but porn, the depiction of sex in a degrading way, is a form of discrimination and hate speech and should be outlawed."

...hmmm interesting choice of words here..."in my opinion". You are not willing to force all retailers to sell pornography because in your opinion it is wrong, even though it is legal...so there you have it, in other people's opinions, the morning after pill is wrong, abortions are wrong, etc..

Ann:

So tell an OB he/she can't be an OB because they won't perform one procedure that goes against their moral character? Tell a pharmacist that they can't be a pharmacist because they won't sell one drug that goes against their moral character? Doesn't make sense. I guess any cleaning person that "don't do windows" shouldn't be a cleaning person? Or ENT doctors that don't handle thyroid problems shouldn't be an ENT? Or an accountant that doesn't do corporate taxes shouldn't be an accountant? Or an attorney that won't be a defense attorney shouldn't be an attorney? Where does it stop?

Not to mention, just because something is a civil right, or acceptable by society, doesn't make it morally right...I am sure everyone can come up with an example for themselves on something that is "acceptable" that they don't agree with...Mark, you already gave your example above... Thanks for the discussion...I leave to everyone else their final words...as the final words...

Sunday December 2, 2007, 11:07 am

Edward, before medicine became a for-profit industry instead of a profession, there was a quaint thing called the Hippocratic Oath that doctors had to take, which said, "First do no harm."

The question, to my mind, isn't whether something is moral or legal, but whether it does harm. Forcing females to have back alley abortions or to carry to term fetuses that they don't want or cannot properly care for, does harm. Forcing a druggist who sells Viagra to rapists to also sell the morning-after pill to their victims, only helps to alleviate some of the harm that they've already done, it doesn't atone for it.