Divided Supreme Court rejects family pharmacy's religious claim

[Eugene]

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]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-religion-idUSKCN0ZE1PM

[elleng]

1. As it should be,

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

[immoderate]

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

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

--imm

[yellowcanine]

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

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]

4. screw

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]

5. Good!

SCOTUS is on a roll!

[Moostache]

6. Religion has no meaningful place in the public realm

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]

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

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]

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

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]

9. Xray tech here....

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]

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

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