Why are Democrats so intent on taking away our rights?

Pat A

I would think the owner of the business could legally decide what to sell and could not be legally required to sell something they do not want to.

This one should go to the Supremes.

A Plague on your houses

You've picked a bad example. Medical professionals are directed legally to care for people with the best knowledge and practices available. Every religion has little quirks and prohibitions, but the medical field much has standards which apply to everyone.

FascFiter

Anyone who has a problem dispensing any legal medicine does not need to be a pharmacist. They should do the decent thing and quit, to become a Preacher.

This has nothing to do with religious freedom. They're taking away the choice of others who want the product. What about THEIR rights? Don't you care?

What if I were the clerk for a bookstore, a customer comes in to buy a Bible, and I say, "I won't sell that to you. It violates my religious beliefs." Should I be allowed to keep my job?

christine_

If you read it carefully, nowhere does it say pharmacists may no longer practice their beliefs, not does it single out democrats. The pharmacists are suing the State of Washington, not a political party.

If one is in a field such as medicine, there surely are going to be many situations that come up that may conflict with religious beliefs.

pip

No where in that law did it say they couldn't go to church, or talk about God, or.. whatever.. to do with their religion. It just stated that they couldn't refuse a drug that has been approved by the government for the public. In no way has their religion been infringed upon. I mean.. seriously.. what if my religion states that I should be able to do every drug in existence.. then should it be made "legal for me"? no.. so the converse shouldn't be allowed either.

Now, a valid question is whether a pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell a drug in their store.. not on any religious grounds.. just if they have that right... maybe they just don't feel like it that day or something.. or maybe they don't feel it's safe... That is an argument that is more than valid to take up.

ilovespacebars

Does your finger hurt?

You spend a lot of time pointing it at others.

Mongo

Just another example of libs telling others how they should think and act. Shameful!

Luchador

You can alway go to another pharmacy.

digital dan

What religion forbids the sale of the morning after pill? Besides, the state is saying customers have a right to purchase the pill. Where do you get liberals are taking away the right to practice religion? The Roman Catholic Pharmacist in this case doesn't have to take the morning after pill. But what right do they have denying it to someone else?

No rights are violated in this case in my opinion.

popsicle

don't point fingers when u live in a glass house

ducky

Clint Eastwood is a California Liberal.

Another Perspective

Why is it everything bad is a Democrat's fault and everything good is a Republican's fault? You can't just say this is bad, therefore it is a liberal's fault. Some bad things aren't politically affiliated.

20JAN13 End of an Error

They aren't preventing the pharmacists from practicing their religion. They're just saying that the religion of the pharmacist should not prevent them from fulfilling an order from a customer.

Religion has never dictated what someone can or cannot sell (even their bodies...and don't preach Christianity to me - the Catholic Church, a division of Christianity, once ran a series of brothels throughout Europe), and using religion as an excuse to not sell an item you don't agree with personally is a BS argument.

How would you feel if your mother or father was in the hospital on a ventilator, and the nurse assigned to him/her had moral/religious (it's the same thing) objections to life support and thus never checked on them the entire shift.

I'm sure you'd be outraged that a health care provider (which is what a pharmacist is) wasn't caring for your loved one because their moral/religious beliefs said it was wrong.

I have moral beliefs against life support, yet I work on an ICU Step Down unit and am exposed to life support equipment (ventilators and feeding tubes and the such) on an almost daily basis, and I don't refuse to care for a patient based on my moral beliefs for one reason.

It's my job.

buickbeast

hmmm I'm not sure...how about we go start another illegal war based on some false info :)

telwidit

Hee Hee! This is a joke right? haha lollollol
oh gosh dang! This is the best I've heard in a while! Your good! Really!!!!
But, Wait!!
It's kind of sad, too!
Phone taps? are they consistent with the first amendment? Is there a right to privacy? I guess not, under the Republican Right wing George W. Bush Administration the citizens of the United States don't have privacy rights.
But, anyway, denying pharmacists their right to worship has not been much of an issue really?
Can't they sell rubbers anymore? Is that the issue?
Dang!

honmani2

This is a silly argument since you are talking about employment. An employer (or the government) has the right to limit your "right" to practice your religion or free speech, etc.

For example, you cannot tell every customer to go screw themselves because you feel like it. The employer has the right to prohibit this.

Using your example is like having a cashier at a supermarket refusing to ring up someone's hamburger since she's a vegetarian.

noinc1111

Its like asking, why do Republicans keep lying to the American Public?

Matt D

The only time liberals get outraged is when we win elections.

Information Police

First of all, this issue has been raised for the past decade. Pharmacists have an ethical code that precludes them from serving customers because they have personal disagreements with the use of a medication which is not based on medical grounds.

They are free to practice their religion on themselves but not to make others conform to their idea of morals. If they cannot adhere to that they are free to find a new profession that does not present them with such conflicts.

B.Kevorkian

The Democrats are a political party. The purpose of a political party is to gain and hold political power. Rights - particularly the rights of political opponents - often get in the way of that objective.

And, no regulating specific professions does not affect the free exercise of religion - being of a specific religion does not exempt you from the law. Whether it's a Christian refusing to sell abortificents, a Muslim refusing to transport a half case of California Chardonay in his cab, it doesn't matter. If your religion keeps you from performing the requirements of a job, just quit.

Sweetpea

They also want to tell us what to eat, what to drive, what health care we can have, what you can smoke, what you can drink, what media you should listen to. The list goes on and on. The silly of this all is they don't seem to see the trend.

smiles 4 u

you have a good point

rhio9

There is presently a serious possibility that America will come under martial law before the 2008 presidential election and be irretrievably turned into a totalitarian state. If this happens there won't even be a free election in 2008. We can and should eliminate this ominous threat to national security by impeaching Bush and Cheney now. But the man in charge, John Conyers, is afraid of what Fox News might say about him.

In a recent article, This Summer, will America Officially Become a Totalitarian State?" presented the following facts:

In May 2007, Bush posted a national continuity policy to the White House Web site that bypasses Congress and puts him in charge of all three branches of the federal government if there is a "catastrophic emergency" -- vaguely defined to include anything from a destructive hurricane to a terrorist attack. This leaves democracy in America dangling on a thin thread of chance that such a "catastrophe" doesn't happen.

On Wednesday [July 11], Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said he has a "gut" feeling that Al Qaeda will launch another terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland sometime this summer. Chertoff's "gut feeling" comes on the heels of the latest National Intelligence Estimate [NIE], which maintains that in the past year, Al Qaeda has reconstituted its core structure and has grown stronger along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

Curiously, the story about Bush's national continuity policy received (virtually) no mainstream media coverage, and its significance in light of the recent NIE report was not broached. Yet, these facts point to a serious and disturbing possibility that a "catastrophic emergency" in the form of a terrorist attack on the homeland will occur before the next presidential election, giving the Bush administration the green light to turn the United States into a totalitarian state. Notice that this is not based on speculation or groundless conspiracy theory. It is based only on the facts: With the posting of the current national continuity policy, Bush has ipso facto announced his intention to take over all three branches of the federal government in the event of another serious terrorist attack. And the NIE does "judge that the United States is currently in a heightened threat environment."

Never mind that this is "only a possibility" and not a certainty. The NIE itself is very clear that it is not saying a terrorist attack is "certain." But, it is irrational to demand certainty in matters of national security before taking action. Imagine you had a suspicious growth, which was steadily enlarging, and your physician told you there was a serious possibility that it would become malignant. Would you ignore it because you could never be sure, or would you remove it? The advice you would hear from any competent physician would be to get rid of it. This is not unlike the present state of our democracy. The stakes are its very survival. The only reasonable response to this national security risk is to eliminate it, and this can be done by starting impeachment proceedings now. Unfortunately, Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) have fallen asleep at the wheel.

The Bush administration has shown an ever-increasing and blatant disregard for the rule of law. This is a White House that has recently used "executive privilege" to thwart investigations into impeachable offenses (from the firing of federal prosecutors for political reasons to the illegal spying on American citizens). It has turned the Department of Justice, under the direction of Alberto Gonzales, into a rubber stamp for its own illegal activities. It has canceled habeas corpus and engaged in serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions (in the torturing of prisoners of war). It has engaged in fraudulent "caging" of minority votes in order to install itself in the White House. To expect that this regime will voluntarily follow the rule of law in relinquishing the power it has steadfastly amassed by ransacking the United States Constitution is wishful thinking. This flies in the face of the evidence of the last seven years.

So as the Democrats look to 2008, they neglect the serious possibility that there will not even be a free election. To ensure a constitutionally valid transfer of power in 2008, it is necessary that Bush and Cheney be impeached now. However, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, refuses to pursue impeachment proceedings because "Fox News would go after him and accuse him of being partisan." He is afraid of jeopardizing his legacy. The irony is that his legacy may already be dead in the water. The patriotism and magnanimity of a public servant is not measured in the self-serving sacrifice of the public welfare, but instead in the courage of personal sacrifice for the greater good.

So, how might we, the American people, send Conyers and others in Congress a clear message before it's too late?

There have already been eighty one towns, cities, and counties that have voted to impeach Bush. More local municipalities need to follow this lead. But what is also needed is an organization to go to bat for them in Congress. The National League of Cities (NLC) is such an organization. It is the largest national organization representing municipal governments throughout the United States. Its mission is "to strengthen and promote cities as centers of opportunity, leadership, and governance." According to the NLC website,

"Working in partnership with the 49 state municipal leagues, the National League of Cities serves as a resource to and an advocate for the more than 18,000 cities, villages, and towns it represents. More than 1,600 municipalities of all sizes pay dues to NLC and actively participate as leaders and voting members in the organization."

Since, the NLC engages in lobbying and grassroots campaigns in Washington, D.C. on behalf of local municipalities, it might well provide the resource we need to give our local governments a voice in Washington.

All Americans have a duty to advocate for impeachment proceedings now. They should join forces at the level of their local municipalities, and the NLC should represent them in Congress.

America is now in grave jeopardy of being besieged and forever lost. Impeaching Bush and Cheney now is not only good preventative medicine; it would be malpractice not to do so.

â€ Absintheâ€

Because Democrats are idiots who think that people need the government to take care of them, and that they can't provide for themselves.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: