I frequently ridicule people excusing their discriminatory behavior by claiming that similar goods and services are available elsewhere. This is the same concept. According to those wonderfully intelligent religious fundamentalists at American Family Association.
Walgreens is being sued by the ACLU after a pharmacist, citing his moral beliefs, refused to fill a prescription.
No. No. No. Walgreens is being sued by the person who was unable to fill the prescription at Walgreens (the ACLU would not have standing). The ACLU is the law group representing the plaintiff. It is an important difference. Aside from being a designated hate group one of AFA’s hobbies is disparaging the ACLU.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued Walgreens after an Albuquerque, New Mexico, pharmacist declined to sell Misoprostol, a synthetic hormone that is commonly prescribed to treat stomach ulcers but can be used to induce an abortion.
Lloyd Duplantis of Pharmacists for Life International tells OneNewsNow what really is at work is a Christian can have conscience rights but must subvert them for people who disagree with their view.
It is not the job of a pharmacist to pass judgment on prescriptions. His or her job is to fill prescriptions according to the orders of doctors. This schmuck wants to impose his religious beliefs on a customer and the prescribing physician. Suppose the pharmacist was a Scientologist. He would fill the Misoprostol but “No Prozac for you!” It has become utterly absurd. But it gets worse:
The ACLU predictably has a different perspective and is accusing Pharmacist Jesse Garrett of discrimination for refusing to fill the prescription.
Citing store policy, a spokesman for Walgreens told Yahoo News that Garrett should have stepped away due to his moral objection and allowed another store employee to handle the transcation
So Garrett was imposing his religious beliefs on the customer, the customer’s doctor, his employer and his co-workers. There are ways to predetermine this kind of behavior in an employment interview without breaking the law. Someone in Walgreen’s HR department did not do their job.
Duplantis is convinced, however, there is an ulterior motive behind the lawsuit.
“It’s just a harassment technique rather than anything of good conscience and there was probably a number of drug stores in the area that the person could have gone to,” he says.
This is not a “technique” and if anyone was harassed it was the person
who was told that his or her prescription would not be filled. People should not be required to go elsewhere to accommodate a pharmacist’s unprofessional behavior. Unlike Mr. Duplantis I am not a mind reader. Nor have a read the complaint. Suffice it to say that anything involving the non-delivery of health care is a serious issue.