Discussion in 'United States' started by cd8ed, Dec 12, 2019.
It took me about 10 seconds to find out.
Good for you!
That wasn’t the question.
No one at the pharmacy attempted to determine [Anderson's] health care. Does Matt Hutera determine [Anderson's] healthcare by not opening a thrifty white pharmacy at the end of her driveway? Do you determine Anderson's health care by not providing her with the medications she wants?
I have no idea if she took personal responsibility I don't have access to her internet usage why would you ask my? I stating the fact the manufacturer will ship overnight for free.
Such absurd questions
It's absurd to think that not selling something to someone that you don't want to sell is some sort of crime. The agreement to administer drugs is not an agreement to administer all drugs.
He should not be in that occupation if he doesn’t want to do the job professionally.
To the degree that there are rules in place - "No shoes, no shirt, no service," or "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," sure. But I dunno, I think when a doctor prescribes something it isn't in the pharmacists job description to refuse.
But hey, I don't think the pharmacist should be thrown in jail - just given a performance evaluation on the spot where his ability to do his job is questioned, and any consequences to follow determined by management.
The purpose of a pharmacist is to double check prescriptions to make sure they are appropriate and safe to administer to the patient. The ability to refuse the sale of medication is actually vital to the job. It's not only possible for doctors to incorrectly prescribe medications, studies have shown that it's likely to happen.
BOTH are covered by private property laws. Test it in court, if you're unconvinced. You'll find out very quickly, and at your cost.
The morning after pill became legal after he was a pharmacist
Would you all be having a heart attack if her doctor refused to prescribe it?
I don’t care
If the doctor would have referred her immediately — no.
You have no idea what you are talking about if you believe residential private property laws are the same as a retail store that is open to the public.
That's between him and his employer. None of a customer's business.
Can't stress this often enough.
They are exactly the same, because both premises are recognised in law as private property. The owner or his/her representative can refuse entry (or service, in the case of a business) to ANYONE, at ANY TIME, for ANY REASON.
Once again, I urge you to test this law. Try insisting on entry to random private properties from which you have been asked to leave, or have been refused entry. Then go to a few stores and ask for things they don't have. When you're politely asked to leave, insist on your right to stay and to have the things they don't have. Don't forget to let us know how you get on!
He can do whatever the hell he likes.
Crappy employees exist everywhere. Are we all going to start legal proceedings against bad service now?
Private homes are not places of public accommodation.
Some facilities are places of public accommodation.
They are not the same.
Your argument is absurd.
You are still missing the point. No one is entitled to enter or remain on private property except under the auspices of the owner or representative. If a private enterprise owner wants to leave his/her door open to allow entry to the public, that is the OWNER'S choice (for as long as he/she wants to allow it), not a right of the public. You need to understand that very important difference.
You also need to understand what 'the right to refuse entry or service to anyone, at any time, for any reason' actually means. The only grounds for legal action is when a reason is given, and that reason is one of the several outlawed. Keeping in mind that the private property owner or representative is not required by law to GIVE a reason. They cannot be sued for closing the shop. They cannot be sued for asking people to leave. They cannot be sued for refusing entry or service.
I never disagreed with this
Correct, people can refuse service by just saying so — what they cannot do [legally] is say I am denying you service because of your <protected characteristic> or even allude to such as that opens them up to a lawsuit and penalties by the state.
There is no such grounds in private dwellings, I could tell someone to get off my property because I don’t like <insert ethnic, sexual orientation or religious slur> and there is zero legal consequence of such.
If an owner gives a 'bad' reason, or even alludes to one, then they are a A-grade idiots. This isn't about that, this is about private property laws, which supersede 'public accommodation' laws.
The buck stops at private property. Any business can close their door, at any time, for any reason. And they can refuse entry or service at any time, for any reason .. and no reason need be given. The law is very clear on that last, incidentally. No one is entitled to know the reason.
The type pr people wanting to refuse service based on personal characteristics typically want the people they are denying service to to know why. They are looking to harm them — punish them for some bias they have against the groups — so simply saying we are closed or we don't have that product doesn't being about the goal they want to achieve.
I dont see how a pharmacist can be allowed to refuse medication if they have it in stock. The second pharmacist lied and said they didn't have it.
There has been controversy with the flu shot and certain antidepressants yet pharmacies cant refuse to offer them.
I don't feel sorry for her though, the woman has five kids and doesn't seem to want anymore. Maybe she should do the right thing and be diligent with bc or get her tubes tied
Separate names with a comma.