Pharmacy owners cannot cite religion to deny medicine -U.S. appeals court

(Reuters) - The state of Washington can require a pharmacy to deliver medicine even if the pharmacy's owner has a religious objection, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, the latest in a series of judgements on whether religious believers can opt out of providing services.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, came in a case filed by pharmacists who objected to delivering emergency contraceptives. The 9th Circuit overturned a lower court that had said the rules were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the Obamacare health law's contraception requirement.

In Washington, the state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, so long as another pharmacist working there provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects.

A unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Thursday decided that the rules are constitutional because they rationally further the state's interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, the court said.

"The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs," wrote Judge Susan Graber.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and Washington State's attorney general office could not immediately be reached for comment. (Reporting by Dan Levine, editing by Andrew Hay and Alan Crosby)

polecat wrote:Why should my civil rights be dictated by your interpretation of the parts of the Bible you choose to believe in?

Markle wrote:

polecat wrote:Why should my civil rights be dictated by your interpretation of the parts of the Bible you choose to believe in?

Because we have a constitution.

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.

2seaoat wrote:Because we have a constitution.

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.

I just joined a religion that says I do not have to talk to Hispanics.  I have my managing brokers license, and a hispanic person comes in to the office, and I tell the person I am sorry but my religious beliefs do not allow me to talk to Hispanics.  Splendid logic Mr. Markle....Splendid.   The court ruled on a licensed professional who is by law required to give equal protection under the law to all customers.  I am so tired of rudimentary or actually primitive cave man like analysis of our constitution.  I think mandatory Civics classes need to be reinstated because a junior in high school knows better than what you just posted.   I am tiring.  really the cancer is less demanding than getting my head around how fricking ignorant people have become in regard to the constitution.....it is getting exhausting to even carry on an intelligent conversation anymore.

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Because we have a constitution.

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.

I just joined a religion that says I do not have to talk to Hispanics.  I have my managing brokers license, and a hispanic person comes in to the office, and I tell the person I am sorry but my religious beliefs do not allow me to talk to Hispanics.  Splendid logic Mr. Markle....Splendid.   The court ruled on a licensed professional who is by law required to give equal protection under the law to all customers.  I am so tired of rudimentary or actually primitive cave man like analysis of our constitution.  I think mandatory Civics classes need to be reinstated because a junior in high school knows better than what you just posted.   I am tiring.  really the cancer is less demanding than getting my head around how fricking ignorant people have become in regard to the constitution.....it is getting exhausting to even carry on an intelligent conversation anymore.

Fair Housing Law.  Simple, you agreed to comply with that requirement when you applied for, passed the courses and obtained a real estate license.

Also, there is no such thing as a managing brokers license.  If you have a Florida real estate license, you have either a Sales Associates license or Broker license.  Probably voluntarily inactive or involuntarily inactive.

Tragically, folks like you and the other Progressives think they are the judges of what everyone must do.  They do not believe in any sort of actual FREEDOM.

2seaoat wrote:there is no such thing as a managing brokers license.

You seriously want to tell me you are a professional speaker......have a real estate license, and you do not know how many states have gone to managing broker exams and the license which is the highest designation in real estate licenses.  Your are joking of course, and yes I have received commissions in Florida, but you really need to catch up man.....this cut an paste thing has frozen your brain.

http://www.in.gov/pla/3173.htm

I could give you other states, but I think you need to do a little research.  Why am I being challenged today by fricking bone headed ignorance.....it must be my friendly aura.

2seaoat wrote:Mr. Markle......when can I expect the apology......man up.