Currently in California, there is a big argument raging over whether pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill certain prescriptions, based on their own personal moral views.
Amy Koons, legislative liaison for the Capitol Resource Institute, thinks so. Why? Because, as she put it, "Religious people are a constitutionally protected class, both in California and nationally, and they need protection because history has shown they are often discriminated against."
Give me a friggin' break.
The Capitol Resource Institute, in case you hadn't guessed, is a right-wing lobbying organization that describes itself as "pro-family." That means "anti-choice," for those of you needing a translator.
Now, it strikes me that if a person has certain religious convictions that they take very seriously, certain occupations would be wrong for them to pursue. To wit:
If you're an Orthodox Jew, for example, would you become a butcher? "No, sir, I'm sorry. I cannot sell you any pork products, for you would surely eat them, and God would be angry."
If you're a devout Mormon, would you take a job in a convenience store? "I'm sorry, I can't sell you that beer. Alcohol is evil. No, sorry, I can't sell you the Marlboro soft-pack, either. Tobacco is evil. I'm afraid I cannot in good conscious sell you that Snapple, or the Frappacino. Caffeine is not good for you."
If you're a Scientologist, would you become a psychiatrist? "Yes, ma'am, your son does appear to be leaning toward inflicting self-harm. No, I cannot prescribe anti-depressants, because mental illness is a myth."
If you're a Jehovah's Witness, would you open a Hallmark store? "Ma'am, celebrating birthdays is something you shouldn't do, so I can't ring up that card for you. No, not the holiday assortment boxed set, either."
Need I go on?
If you were the owner of the butcher shop, the convenience store, the hospital, or the card store… wouldn't you be perfectly justified to fire the asses of these people? Of course you would. So if your Catholic pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills, as an example, why should they be allowed to continue working there?
If you have that big a problem with some aspect of your job, don't take the damn job! What are you, stupid? You're a pharmacist. You don't get to pick and choose which prescriptions you get to fill, so long as they're legally obtained!
If legislation is passed that would allow such idiotic behavior, what's next?
"I'm sorry, ma'am, sir… but I can't fix this flat tire for you. She looks like she could be pregnant, and I'm afraid you'll get in this car, drive to a hospital, and get an abortion. I can't allow that."
Amy Koons also said, "We don't believe there's the same constitutional protection for people to want to waltz to a Rite Aid and get prescriptions on demand as there is for religious people."
Amy… dear, sweet, vapid Amy… this isn't about the constitution. This isn't about protecting the rights of religious people. This is about you and your kind imposing your narrow, personal morality on the state as a whole. It's quite common with your kind. And the truly sad part is that you don't even see that. Instead, you turn it around, so that you and your kind get to play victim. Without this legislation, you say, religious people are being forced to adhere to the morality of others.
No, they're not.
If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you don't believe in drinking alcohol, don't drink. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of your own gender. And if you don't believe in contraception, don't become a bloody pharmacist, where you'll be required to fill prescriptions for birth control pills!
It's really that simple.
