Pro-Choice

Eugene

(62,646 posts) Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:15 PM Jun 2016

Divided Supreme Court rejects family pharmacy's religious claim

Source: Reuters

World | Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:27pm EDT

Divided Supreme Court rejects family pharmacy's religious claim

WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away an appeal by a family-owned pharmacy that cited Christian beliefs in objecting to providing emergency contraceptives to women under a Washington state rule, prompting a searing dissent by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.

The justices left in place a July 2015 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed drugs, including contraceptives, in a timely manner.

Three conservatives among the eight justices argued that the court should have agreed to hear the appeal by the Stormans family, which owns Ralph's Thriftway grocery story and pharmacy in Olympia.

Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court's decision not to hear it is "an ominous sign" for the future of religious liberty claims.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Divided Supreme Court rejects family pharmacy's religious claim (Original Post) Eugene Jun 2016 OP

As it should be, elleng Jun 2016 #1

Inasmuch as religious liberty claims are bullshit (they are not about religious liberty) we should immoderate Jun 2016 #2

So if they disapproved of all contraceptives they could refuse to sell them? yellowcanine Jun 2016 #3

screw wallyworld2 Jun 2016 #4

Good! ananda Jun 2016 #5

Religion has no meaningful place in the public realm Moostache Jun 2016 #6

"violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business"? unblock Jun 2016 #7

"If God had meant for us to fly, he'd have given us wings. BTW, Ilsa Jun 2016 #8

Xray tech here.... Scruffy Rumbler Jun 2016 #9

Or, "there's no point in you getting a PET scan, etc, Ilsa Jun 2016 #10

elleng

(136,043 posts)

1. As it should be,

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:23 PM

Jun 2016

an ominous sign" for the future of religious liberty claims.

immoderate

(20,885 posts)

2. Inasmuch as religious liberty claims are bullshit (they are not about religious liberty) we should

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:25 PM

Jun 2016

turn them all down. These are about the right to impose religion on innocent bystanders.

--imm

yellowcanine

(36,336 posts)

3. So if they disapproved of all contraceptives they could refuse to sell them?

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:23 PM

Jun 2016

What if they were Jehovah's Witnesses and disapproved of blood derived products? They could refuse to sell them also? These are the kinds of sticky wickets one gets into when one goes down this path.

wallyworld2

(375 posts)

4. screw

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:41 PM

Jun 2016

religious liberty claims

It's healthcare

If they don't like it sell something else

Oh and I forgot to thank Fat Tony for dying

ananda

(30,812 posts)

5. Good!

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:45 PM

Jun 2016

SCOTUS is on a roll!

Moostache

(10,161 posts)

6. Religion has no meaningful place in the public realm

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 04:14 PM

Jun 2016

The minute someone decides that the freedom to have their own religious beliefs must extend into them receiving special rules or exemptions, they have lost me for good.

Pray to whatever you want in your home or at your church or even at voluntary assemblies on public land, but the seone you start applying your beliefs onto others, the party is over and you have no greater right to your religion than I have to theat right to be free FROM it.

unblock

(54,150 posts)

7. "violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business"?

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 04:14 PM

Jun 2016

alito says this as if sincerely held religious beliefs should come at no cost.

hey, the amish sincerely believe in avoiding technology. must we bend over backwards to let them fly planes or drive trucks while refusing to operate modern technology?

some accommodation for religious beliefs may be reasonable, but others not. generally, it's when those religious beliefs have an unreasonable adverse impact on others that the line is crossed. preventing or delaying women from having access to medicine is clearly one of those lines.

Ilsa

(62,231 posts)

8. "If God had meant for us to fly, he'd have given us wings. BTW,

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 04:17 PM

Jun 2016

I start flight attendant school next week. I want to be paid not to fly." Or,

"I don't believe Christians should go into debt." "I want to be a banker, but I can't lend Christians money." Or,

"Marriage is for procreation. You're both too old to have kids. I'm not issuing you a marriage certificate."

"It's Friday during Lent. I'm not selling you that BBQ beef sandwich!"

I'd love to turn these crazy ideas on them.

Scruffy Rumbler

(961 posts)

9. Xray tech here....

Reply to Ilsa (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 04:23 PM

Jun 2016

I always thought, if god can see everything, then get off my table. Go ask god to look at your arm and set your broken bone.

Ilsa

(62,231 posts)

10. Or, "there's no point in you getting a PET scan, etc,

Reply to Scruffy Rumbler (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 07:49 PM

Jun 2016

... since you don't believe in nuclear half-life dating if you think the world is only 6000 years old."

Reply to this discussion