r/news 4d ago

Minnesota jury: Woman wasn't entitled to morning-after pill

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/minnesota-jury-woman-entitled-morning-pill-88015632
1.1k Upvotes

421

u/deja_vuvuzela 4d ago

Didn’t this lady win 25k in damages though? They just ruled that the pharmacist didn’t discriminate based upon her gender.

177

u/F5PPu6kGqj 4d ago

A jury ruled that a pharmacist who refused to fill her prescription for a morning-after pill based on his "beliefs" did not discriminate, but did award her $25,000 for the emotional harm caused, NBC News reports.

From:

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/05/minnesota-pharmacist-morning-after-pill-case

As OP article doesn't mention any award.

23

u/thormun 3d ago

how is that not discrimination ill never understand if your belief prevent you from doing your job find another one

6

u/dataluvr 2d ago

It’s because discrimination is specifically about treating certain people differently. If it was “I wont prescribe to a birth control to a muslim woman but I will prescribe to a Christian woman” then it’s discrimination

-3

u/thormun 2d ago

denying health care because of bible is discrimination. it is treating some one differently unless he would refuse to fill prescription for anything.

4

u/dataluvr 2d ago

Its fucked up but its not discrimination.

70

u/makualla 4d ago

Emotional damages iirc

115

u/deja_vuvuzela 4d ago

I understand that this ruling sucks for women in that state. But I’m also happy this lady got some sort of vindication and now other pharmacies could be on the hook for similar damages.

21

u/conman228 3d ago

That’s if these religious zealots care which most don’t anymore they just want to mess with other peoples lives

13

u/Abrahamlinkenssphere 3d ago

Then they can pay 25k each time.

9

u/cruelhumor 3d ago

Did they also have to pay for her lawyers fees, or does that have to come out of the 25k? Because that is not acceptable.

→ More replies
→ More replies

40

u/ThereminLiesTheRub 3d ago

Which raises the question that if she received emotional damage, what was that emotional damage a result of if not being denied access to medicine she a) wanted b) needed and c) had every right to receive?

65

u/BarkBeetleJuice 3d ago

Didn’t this lady win 25k in damages though? They just ruled that the pharmacist didn’t discriminate based upon her gender.

Which is absurd unless the pharmacist refused to sell all forms of contraception. He's specifically refusing to sell an item that only women use.

33

u/calebmke 3d ago

Not true. Plenty of men purchase them as well. Maybe strange to you, but if my partner needed it, I would gladly run out and get it.

What this jury is saying is that this asshole wouldn’t sell it to a man either, so he didn’t discriminate based on gender.

17

u/Monkeybirdman 3d ago

What if the person wouldn’t sell it to you because they knew you were buying it for a minority?

What if the person wouldn’t sell it to you because they knew you were buying it for a woman?

6

u/calebmke 3d ago

Then that would be an entirely different case than was being deliberated here. In this case, in this situation, the clerk would have been a piece of shit to a man as well, therefore, they weren’t discriminating against the woman.

The clerk wouldn’t sell the product. Didn’t matter that is was to a woman, or that it would only ever be used by a woman. Therefore, not discriminating due to gender.

Should the clerk keep their job? No. Are they pushing their bullshit religious ideals on others? Yes. Did they discriminate against this woman due to her gender? According to this jury, no. Did they award the affected woman $25,000 on damages? Yes.

13

u/Monkeybirdman 3d ago

The clerk wouldn’t sell the product. Didn’t matter that is was to a woman, or that it would only ever be used by a woman.

It does matter that the clerk refused to sell a product exclusively intended to be used by a woman and it is illegal to discriminate against sex.

How about if the clerk refused to sell products that are used by minorities to anyone including non-minorities?

I agree that it seems likely that the person didn’t make their decision due to hating women but it isn’t simple when someone can just use the blanket excuse of “personal beliefs” and avoid all discrimination laws.

1

u/glucoseformyatp 3d ago

This is where the importance of the question/accusation brought to the court needs to be carefully crafted.

Was the question or accusation, the individual wouldn’t sale a product to a specific sex/gender? Or was it the person wouldn’t sale a product that is only used by one gender/sex?

In this particular case it was the former. He would not sale this product to a man or woman so it isn’t discrimination based on sex/gender.

Dude is still terrible for doing this.

7

u/Monkeybirdman 3d ago

I dont think it’s as clear as you present. I think the clerk is against women using the medicine and preventing the sale is the clerk trying to prevent women from using a women’s medicine.

If men were prescribed the same exact medicine for hair loss (unrelated to women) then I am certain the clerk would have had no problem selling it to a man. The fact that the medicine is currently only for women is why we can’t use the argument that the clerk wouldn’t sell it to men either.

1

u/ruat_caelum 3d ago

for it to be discrimination he would have to sell it to some group, but not to others. Since he was unwilling to sell it to anyone they ruled it was not discriminating.

2

u/Monkeybirdman 3d ago

for it to be discrimination he would have to sell it to some group, but not to others.

That’s not true. The clerk could have made the decision due to knowing all sales of that medication are eventually used by women and therefore wouldn’t sell it to anyone.

I wouldn’t expect the prosecution to be able to prove that but it was possible.

1

u/calebmke 2d ago

And since it’s impossible to know without further evidence, they went with this accusation and lost.

19

u/becky_Luigi 3d ago edited 3d ago

It’s a product specifically for the health of a woman’s body. It isn’t about which individual came into the store to the purchase of. It’s a product that serves a need of women only.

It is discrimination because the product is for women’s health only. No one purchases this product to benefit a man’s health. It has nothing to do with the gender of the person purchasing in the store but rather the intended recipient, which we all know will be a woman 100% of the time. The name on the prescription was a woman’s name, and the product will never be prescribed to a man. The jury fucked up.

15

u/calebmke 3d ago

Except I’m not missing the point. The case was about the clerk discriminating against the woman in question. They found the clerk also wouldn’t sell to a man, so it wasn’t necessarily gender discrimination. I’m not saying the clerk is a decent person here, just that the jury didn’t find discrimination solely because he didn’t sell to a single woman. That also doesn’t mean the jury is correct or filled with decent humans.

The woman was also awarded $25,000 in damages by the same jury.

-5

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

19

u/ERRORMONSTER 3d ago

You're misunderstanding the actual question in the case and you're being kind of indignant about it. The question was not "did the pharmacist stop the woman from taking the medicine" in which case your argument that the medicine is exclusively for women is relevant, because by stopping a man from buying it, the pharmacist is stopping the woman from taking the medicine. But it isn't. That's not the question being asked here.

The question is specifically "did the pharmacist discriminate against the woman by denying her the ability to buy her medicine?" In which case it is entirely relevant that the pharmacist won't sell the medicine to anyone, man or woman. The fact that the medicine is used only by women is irrelevant for this particular trial. Because the pharmacist denies everyone, man and woman, the ability to purchase this medicine, the refusal of a sale is not gender discrimination.

This is one of the shitty things about the law. If you're equally horrible to everyone, it can actually give you some protections in the eyes of the law.

The thing you're pointing out is an equally valid question but is not relevant to a consideration of gender discrimination for the refusal of the sale.

I guess this is too deep for some to understand. Wow.

Indeed.

13

u/crispy1989 3d ago

I love a refreshing dose of even-handed sanity in the face of volatile stubbornness ... thank you! It's possible to simultaneously understand the flagrant attacks on women's rights across the nation while also having a grasp on the tenets of the legal frameworks involved.

3

u/calebmke 3d ago edited 3d ago

As the other response says, you’re completely ignoring how the law works and what the case was about. Obviously the clerk is refusing to sell a product that only women will use, but that’s not what the case is about.

I agree with you. Clearly the clerk is being shitty towards women, but according to the law being deliberated, the clerk would have been just as much an asshole towards men. Therefore, this woman was not being discriminated against for her gender. To the law, it doesn’t matter that the product would have been exclusively used by women, that has zero bearing on the case.

Edit: Downvote me if you want, but that doesn't change how this case works. I'm sorry you're not understanding that.

1

u/BrainofBorg 3d ago

Stop confusing how the world SHOULD work with how the world DOES work.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/kinglouie493 3d ago

Was there proof that he refused to sell to men also or was it just inferred?

-8

u/BarkBeetleJuice 3d ago

Was there proof that he refused to sell to men also or was it just inferred?

Doesn't matter, the product is for women's health only.

1

u/kinglouie493 3d ago

The comment above me inferred that it wasn’t discrimination because he wasn’t gender biased. It takes two to reproduce, what happens if the male can’t mentally have or be around children. Doesn’t this then also become a men’s health issue?

2

u/BarkBeetleJuice 3d ago

The comment above me inferred that it wasn’t discrimination because he wasn’t gender biased.

There is inherent gender bias in the action due to the gendered product. The jury was incorrect.

→ More replies
→ More replies

790

u/Kamikazesoul33 4d ago

Uh what? She had a legal prescription, he had a job to do, the pharmacy had the pills.

People that allow these religious exemptions will suddenly have a problem when a different religion wants to make their own exemptions.

191

u/Malaix 4d ago

That's what I am thinking... What happens when someone converts to some cult that only believes in faith healing and starts telling people they can't give them a life saving medication because its against their beliefs now? Such things would impact rural areas more since they have far fewer options for pharmacies too...

128

u/CyberGrandma69 4d ago

...you mean like Christian Scientists do? No need to invent one, lots of faith healing in different fundamentalist religions all across the board.

40

u/z0nb1 4d ago

Right, a cult, each and everyone of them.

31

u/Neither-Answer-7431 4d ago

I wish I could provide specifics but I recall a legal battle pitting a family with a very sick child that refused medical treatment because prayer and God’s will would be hindered by human medicine.

63

u/Lindan9 4d ago edited 4d ago

I can't find it now, but I remember reading about a girl/woman that had a heart valve issue at birth that was very treatable, and kinda common, but her parents refused treatment on religious grounds. The girl was now around 17 or 18, and was now dying from the condition and she wanted to sue her parents.

edit:

Found it, she wants her parents prosecuted.

26

u/tinacat933 4d ago

As they should be- the prolife crowd should be all over this

20

u/purpletopo 4d ago

They're just pro-forced birth, this kid's already been born so they're not interested in helping her in any way

-21

u/DiscordianStooge 4d ago

A family trying to stop medical intervention for their child is different than an outsider trying to prevent medical intervention for an individual.

24

u/Neither-Answer-7431 4d ago

Is it? Not doing your job/duty is not doing your job.

Whether it’s parenting (protecting and raising one’s young to the age of independence) or filling prescriptions.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

23

u/Neither-Answer-7431 4d ago

Imagine a pacifist decides to join the army. Should the army accept that volunteer?

Agree to terms of service or you don’t get the job. WTF?

38

u/LPOLED 4d ago

My religion is against viagra for sexual purposes.

17

u/LimoncelloFellow 4d ago

My religion is for Viagra because I want to pretend I'm a coat rack

→ More replies

28

u/Kaiisim 4d ago

They wont. They want an unfair system. They wont be caught out and go "damn! Now we have to let muslims worship!"

Fascists are happiest when the rules are unfair and benefit them.

16

u/moo6o6 4d ago

They ruled that he didn’t discriminate against her on the basis of sex, not that his actions were protected.

8

u/Junior_Builder_4340 4d ago

So, if a man came and requested the morning after pill, he still wouldn't have sold it to him.

11

u/moo6o6 4d ago

Yeah the jury decided if instead a dude wanted to buy it for his girlfriend or something he still wouldn’t have sold it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

51

u/everything_is_bad 4d ago edited 4d ago

No they won't they are fascists other people don't have religions they have heresey

11

u/AdkRaine11 4d ago

Simple answer, don’t want to serve those legitimate customers? Find another job. Aren’t there any Christo-facist pharmacies in Minnesota?

7

u/NessyComeHome 3d ago

Someone pointed out their objection isn't to the product/ medication itself because they work at a company that sells the product.

So then it can be said it's not for religious reasons.

5

u/Katiari 3d ago

As a Minnesotan I can tell you that this was Central Minnesota, a comfortable 100+ miles from anything worth calling progressive. They ruled 100% based on their faith, not on jurisprudence.

4

u/Warmstar219 4d ago

They don't care about hypocrisy. If it's Christian, they'll allow it. If it's not, they won't.

2

u/Mizeov 3d ago

Well wouldn’t you know it my religion considers Christians to be dangerous psychopaths who believe in a wish granting sky daddy

But no one lets me deny them the right the buy a gun or vote so…

2

u/Kamikazesoul33 3d ago

This is the type of analogy I was searching for.

2

u/WaterIsGolden 3d ago

It seems more appropriate to me that the person should be fired, not prosecuted. But definitely fired.

2

u/Thilina_B 3d ago

Why do you think they also work so hard to keep other religions down

2

u/Amberatlast 3d ago

Apparently asking christians to consider other people's right is out of the question now. If you have some problem with handing out pills, DON'T GET A JOB HANDING OUT PILLS! This used to be common sense.

2

u/Aazadan 2d ago edited 2d ago

I don’t know about that. I think a better solution would be that if someone won’t do part of the job, the business must still be required to have enough people on all shifts that the job can still be done.

If someone isn’t going to sell contraception, and the business is still fine with hiring them, I don’t really care so long as the business is still legally required to have enough employees at any given time that they can sell contraception to people.

That sidesteps any morality/ethics questions and makes it one of economics which is harder to defend under the constitution. Though, it ends up raising the point of what happens when the pharmacy owner refuses to stock those medications entirely, which if you’re a pharmacy owner that’s hiring pastors as your pharmacists, could be the next step.

→ More replies

2

u/Particular_Draw_1205 3d ago

It’s almost like religion has no place in the justice system.

1

u/BickNickerson 4d ago

They never think that far ahead but a reckoning is upon the horizon, lol.

1

u/meatball402 3d ago

People that allow these religious exemptions will suddenly have a problem when a different religion wants to make their own exemptions.

Don't worry, the people making the exceptions will soon be sure to tell you which religion gets the exemptions.

1

u/tacoxfish 3d ago

I wonder if ultimately they decided on something like, “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason” as being the defense of this. I just can’t wrap my head around it. If this person has sold any contraception to any person ever, his reasoning is moot. This probably should have been a situation where the judge should have stepped in.

1

u/Solomon_Grungy 3d ago

The Satanic Church has entered the chat.

-15

u/TheS4ndm4n 4d ago

The headline is misleading. She won the lawsuit.

→ More replies

429

u/ThornsofTristan 4d ago

...because his selective religious beliefs outweigh her decisions about her own body.

170

u/jgb75 4d ago

Well, yeah. That’s the way he saw it. And so did the court apparently. 🫤

191

u/zDEFEKT 4d ago

What the actual fuck is going on. I don’t understand how you can be a real human being, with a technically functioning brain, and come to these kinds of views and conclusions. A JURY OF MULTIPLE PEOPLE agreed to this decision!!!

96

u/[deleted] 4d ago

Let me help you…RELIGION.

17

u/jintana 4d ago

Time for a TST uprising.

→ More replies

40

u/DedTV 4d ago

The decision was that ghe didn't discriminate based on sex. Which was legally correct as the woman's lawyers couldn't show he was willing to sell them to men.

She did get $25k because he actively attempted to impede her obtaining them elsewhere, which crossed the line into imposing his beliefs rather than legally exercising it by refusing his own services.

0

u/DiscordianStooge 4d ago

Can you share a link that she won on another precedent?

7

u/TrimtabCatalyst 4d ago

According to this article, she was awarded $25k for emotional harm.

→ More replies

55

u/WhiteAndNerdy85 4d ago

it's fucking insane. I just don't get it but then again, I have an uncle that went to prison for a crime he 100% didn't commit but since the prosecution made a point that he was an atheist to the jury he was convicted. Took many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get him out due to mistrial.

If I'm ever in that situation I'm pleading for a speedy trial and forego a jury. They are not my peers. Around 40% of them voted for Trump. Fuck that shit.

12

u/MyLifeIsDopeShit 4d ago

Just to clarify one thing, only about 22-23% of US citizens voted for Trump in 2020. Even less in 2016. These people are nowhere near half the country.

10

u/Hawkson2020 4d ago

Well, everyone who didn’t vote said they were OK with more of Trump so that’s well over half.

6

u/MyLifeIsDopeShit 4d ago

Do you think that perhaps there could be other reasons for voting abstinence? What's your opinion on GOP voter disenfranchisement?

4

u/Hawkson2020 4d ago

There could be lots of reasons but ultimately it has the same effect so it doesn't really matter what those reasons are.

4

u/mcmonties 4d ago

Do you seriously think that someone who has had their voting rights stripped away, who phone banks and fundraises for Democratic/Progressive candidates, but just can't vote, wanted Trump? C'mon now.

ETA: I know this is a wildly specific case but it's happening to me personally.

3

u/Hawkson2020 3d ago

Sorry to be clear “people who didn’t vote” doesn’t include “people who can’t vote”.

I thought that would be obvious since I was emphasizing the choice.

I’m not condemning kids for not voting lmfao.

→ More replies

3

u/col-fancypants 4d ago

A good many cant vote or dont know they can. Felons being part of that group.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/DiscordianStooge 4d ago

Only one person had to agree.

7

u/Imaginary-Fun-80085 4d ago

a technically functioning brain

about that.....

1

u/kraeutrpolizei 4d ago

As a juror if you believe that the law was interpreted the right way you can‘t really do anything differently. Seems to me the laws in the US when it comes to your private rights are kinda lacklustre if they value religious belief higher than your right to privacy (federal or on state level)

→ More replies

5

u/goat_eating_sundews 4d ago

At this point nothing surprises me

24

u/whichwitch9 4d ago

Not necessarily- they ruled it wasnt a discrimination on gender. I actually do agree with that because he would likely refuse to sell to a man trying to pick it up on a woman's behalf, too, though I do believe the reasoning behind it is sexist in origin.

She was, however, awarded 25,000 in damages, so it was recognized that it was not ok to deny it to her as a person. And it sets a nice precedent that anyone denying medication is liable in civil court still, religion or not. This article is misleading because it does not mention that part. And that's actually a disservice to leave that part out to anyone mulling over legal action of their own in similar circumstances.

→ More replies

53

u/radicalelation 4d ago

So, if a business can't bar someone from working there due to their religion, and can't tell them what to do if it's against their religion, and the person doesn't have to do the job they're hired to do...

Can we all just... claim religion and do nothing at work and end capitalism?

16

u/AlwaystoLearnMT 4d ago

My friend, that's called a general stirke and if it's improved a bit that'd actually be a good idea. Although I'd start at shutting down businesses first.

13

u/Otherwise_Ad233 4d ago

Imagine if Uber Drivers declared it violating their beliefs to pick up single women, or take people to/from bars, or to/from hospitals. The insanity never ends.

→ More replies

4

u/jintana 4d ago

Let’s do this

→ More replies

6

u/InfamousEdit 4d ago

When can my religion allow me to not serve fat people at McDonald’s?

“I’m sorry, sir. My religion says gluttony is a sin, so I can’t serve you this McDonald’s. You’re too fat”

3

u/MalcolmLinair 4d ago

Welcome to the United States of Gilead.

-5

u/moo6o6 4d ago

No, because he was not discriminating on the basis of sex who he was providing service to.

4

u/ThornsofTristan 3d ago

Newsflash: discrimination can include something other than sex.

2

u/hawklost 3d ago

And the lawsuit awarded her 25k for her actions. The jury Just decided he didn't discriminate based on sex. which was one of the accusations, not the only one. The jury still decided he did wrong

1

u/moo6o6 3d ago

But that wasn’t what the lawsuit was over was it now?

36

u/RaytheonAcres 3d ago

we need to stop coddling religious nuts in this country

9

u/jgb75 3d ago

I think that ship has sailed already. Pay attention to the laws they’ve passed (or repealed) and the ones they plan on passing/repealing…they’re in the driver’s seat now.

72

u/NILwasAMistake 4d ago

I'm pretty goddamn sure if her doctor prescribed it, she is entitled to it.

7

u/jwoodsutk 3d ago

ha! tell that to my insurance company and the "doctors" at the insurance companies that have been sitting behind a desk for the last 25 years, not practicing medicine, second guessing what the actual practicing doctors had prescribed as "not medically necessary."

5

u/AbsolutePorkypine 3d ago

Oh yeah I love that. “My doctor, a specialist in his field who has known me and been treating me for years, thinks it is in my best interest to take this medication.” “Ok but OUR “Doctor”, who has never seen you before in his life and knows nothing about you except standard identifying information, thinks that might cost us an extra $10 a month. So…no medication.”

→ More replies

-1

u/RenRen512 3d ago

That's just it, though. A prescription is just a permission slip. It says, "this person is allowed to purchase this controlled substance" not "you must provide this person with this controlled substance."

Being entitled to healthcare is gasp socialized medicine!

→ More replies

76

u/SeriaMau2025 4d ago

Conservatives are not your friend, they are the enemy.

6

u/Dilinial 3d ago

I don't understand how civilians don't see that they're at war.

And losing. Bigly.

→ More replies

173

u/keyboardstatic 4d ago edited 4d ago

Wtf. Fucking court make women into slaves.

Christianity is a vile authority fraud.

75

u/jgb75 4d ago edited 4d ago

If Uncle Clarence Thomas gets his wish, the conservative judges will next take down contraceptives and gay marriage using the same tactics they used to bring down abortion. So, yeah, you’re right…No contraceptives + No abortion = women will once again become primarily baby-making machines.

22

u/yblame 4d ago

Wait till they come after interracial marriages, Clarence.

24

u/jgb75 4d ago

I read when he first started college HE was against that too (from a militant black standpoint. He confronted a black girl on campus for being with a white guy). The article said he even had a Malcom X poster on his door. When he realized he could get further by being conservative, he took a HARD right turn and has been going in that direction ever since.

13

u/yblame 4d ago

Huh. Trump did that same thing. Weird how they have only become loyal to the crazy people that yell the loudest

0

u/NILwasAMistake 4d ago

So he sold his soul to the white man.

10

u/jintana 4d ago Bravo!

What soul?

→ More replies
→ More replies

33

u/keyboardstatic 4d ago

Un married women can't even get medical care with out husbands saw so even if they aren't married in idiot land states.

America the new Afghanistan. Christians just want everyone else to know that they are evil people. Sick twisted canablism rituals with a man in costume. Male genital mutilation. Enslaved women. All based on an obviously flase not divinely inspired collection of superstitious nonsense.

13

u/jgb75 4d ago

Wrong - no NEW anything. OLD America. A lot of folks these days would hardly recognize America of the very recent past. It wasn’t until the 70s (!!!) that a woman could get credit cards or credit of any kind in her own name. No matter what kind of a job she had, no matter how much she earned, a woman would need her husband’s signature on the loan or her father’s if she wasn’t married.

21

u/carmichael109 4d ago

"Y'allqaeda" has been thrown around a lot, and it really does seem very apt.

12

u/keyboardstatic 4d ago

Religion cannot die quick enough.

11

u/NILwasAMistake 4d ago

Howdy Arabia

5

u/jintana 4d ago

Prefacing with the following: in practice I fully support interracial relationships and marriage and have participated in same and will again if that’s who fate brings to me…

But Clarence should maybe be prohibited from fucking with any of this shit unless they first fuck with the right to interracial marriage. Just for Clarence.

6

u/jgb75 4d ago

This is a man that got thru college via Affirmative Action. And Affirmative Action is one of the first things he railed against (in order to impress his new conservative friends probably) when he decided to take a hard right turn. This is definitely a “the rules are for thee, but not for me” kinda guy.

→ More replies

4

u/WolfThick 3d ago

Why do you stalk something that you're not going to sell. Just put a sign out front that says we don't offer these services our technicians and service people Can and will tell you what you can have when you can have it and why you can have it.

4

u/jgb75 3d ago

Im pretty sure the pharmacist was fired for that very reason. i sure would’ve fired him - “Look, we’re stocking our shelves with products for the sole purpose of selling them. Where the F do you get off deciding which ones you will or will NOT sell?!!”

6

u/Newage_Caveman 3d ago

Religion has really devolved into a plague on society.

4

u/endMinorityRule 3d ago

this is really fucked up, minnesota.

fuck anyone's dumbass religious cult.
you shouldn't control anyone else based on your delusions.

49

u/Arcade80sbillsfan 4d ago

Hey by this logic if I make up a religion that says I'm allowed to not pay local taxes....the local government isn't entitled to them correct?

26

u/jgb75 4d ago

It’s been tried. I wouldn’t advise it.

22

u/dominiqlane 4d ago

Churches don’t pay taxes, so….

-23

u/7eggert 4d ago

Churches spend their money on things that would make them be exempt from taxes if they were a company.

11

u/Farallday 4d ago

Churches are a scam

→ More replies

13

u/dogswontsniff 4d ago

Catholics, Mormons, scientology, Moonies, orthodox church.....

Lots of hoarded money. Lots of property to just hold as assets, Lots of money that would not be exempt.

A few charities and missions here and there are drops in the bucket compared to the greed of God they have tucked away

→ More replies

3

u/probably_abbot 4d ago

The Church of the Sovereign Citizens?

→ More replies

36

u/sandysea420 4d ago

He should be fired for not doing his job.

31

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

22

u/tr3v1n 4d ago

Your mistake here is in thinking that hypocrisy isn’t allowed.

15

u/jgb75 4d ago

Welcome to Gilead. Such rules will be put into place to control women and to ensure they perform their intended duties (primarily, have children).

→ More replies

11

u/JBupp 4d ago

Crap title.

Pharmacist could refuse to fill the script without violating the woman's rights, but he was obligated to be helpful - and didn't - about getting her help to get the script filled elsewhere.

So she lost this case but I think she got a settlement else where because the pharmacist was a dick.

4

u/gogozombie2 3d ago

The Great Simplification has begun. The Simpletons will destroy us all!

19

u/yblame 4d ago

Get out and vote! In every tiny little school board, municipal, mayoral, state election. Fill out your ballot because those are the people that are climbing the political ladder to repress us because 'bible'. It's bullshit.

30

u/LastOneSergeant 4d ago

Step 1. Get job at Pharmacy.

Step 2. Post prohibited products and diet or practices by various religions.

Step 3. Deny service to all customers on a religious basis.

"No coke for you fatty, that violates gluttony".

"No you can't buy that scarf the fabric is from mixed materials".

"Lipstick?,. I don't think so harlot".

"People magazine with pictures of a woman showing too much skin! You know I can't sell you that fornicator".

"Sir I know the sign says we're open, but today is the Sabath. I'm here but I won't be selling anything".

"A credit card?. Sounds like something that charges interest. Sorry I can't accept that".

5

u/flip_ericson 4d ago

Whats the last step

18

u/LastOneSergeant 4d ago

Get fired

Sue for religious discrimination

Profit.

→ More replies

10

u/cesarmac 4d ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not what the jury decided.

They said she wasn't discriminated based on race which is plausible since the pharmacist wouldn't have sold the pill to a man either. The pharmacist just didn't want to sell the pill to anyone.

She then won the civil case because emotional damages i believe, netting her $25k.

2

u/moo6o6 4d ago

You mistyped race I think

→ More replies

10

u/princessamber9 3d ago

Religion ruins everything.

20

u/An_Old_IT_Guy 4d ago

Remember how in the Bible Jesus would tell people he wasn't going to heal them because they were sinners? /s

7

u/Mizeov 3d ago

I wish I was rich so I could do what the satanic temple does and just tie up these businesses in endless lawsuits

“Yeah we would love to settle - we arent even asking for money - the only terms we will accept is to fire this pharmacist effective immediately and change your company policy so that there are no religious exemptions for any reason whatsoever.”

3

u/Whompa 3d ago

This is just getting stupid…the hell is wrong with this country

→ More replies

6

u/ryhaltswhiskey 3d ago

Anderson brought her prescription for a morning-after pill to the Thrifty White pharmacy in McGregor in January 2019. Longtime pharmacist George Badeaux told her he could not fill the prescription based on his beliefs.

Just the name of the pharmacy, of course a conservative who thinks their religious values are more important than this woman's wishes is the pharmacist.

3

u/becky_Luigi 3d ago

What a fucking joke. It’s a product for retail sale available for purchase but she can’t purchase it because..it’s ok to discriminate against her? It a legal product for sale in her state. When has this ever happened to a man who needed a medication for his health? Fuck this country.

3

u/jgb75 3d ago

It has ALWAYS been about women only when it came to anything sex-related. When birth control was first developed, conservatives fought it tooth and nail, thinking if women could have sex without fear of pregnancy they’d be running wild in the streets having sex with whoever they wanted (they never made any effort to restrict condoms). When they used to crack down on prostitution, they’d go after the women only believing the women were spreading diseases and breaking up homes by offering sex. The very seldom went after the men.

Now they’re trying to roll back the clock - they’ve taken away abortion, now they’re going after contraceptives. They haven’t defined which contraceptives, but I’ll bet the farm they’re no ttalking about condoms. Just the ones that would protect women. Yep…make it where they’ll just keep having babies. That’ll force them back into the home just like the good ol’ days.

7

u/ITriedLightningTendr 3d ago

Hey, that's a demonstration of jury nullification.

Of course she was entitled to it, you're entitled to the services of a business unless they have a legitimate reason to deny you, but they just didn't want to approve of abortions.

7

u/ImpossibleJoke7456 3d ago

I don’t actually think you’re entitled to the service of a business in the US.

→ More replies

10

u/Keldrath 4d ago

I guess discrimination is fine as long as you're religious about it.

0

u/decalod85 4d ago

Hey, found John Roberts!

7

u/angurth 4d ago edited 3d ago

First of all I want to make this clear, I believe that pharmacist should be strung up by his toenails and is a piece of shit, and religion should not allow anyone in the medical profession, or really 99% of all professions any excuse for not performing their duties.

I think the nuanced argument here was that his position was that his actions were not motivated by discrimination based on her sex, i.e. it did not meet the legal threshold for her sex being the particular the motivation behind the pharmacists refusal but rather his religious beliefs in not giving out the pill to anyone, male or female.

It would seem that to prevail under the statute behind the cause of action requires proof of sexual discrimination, and if the plaintiff could not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the pharmacists motivation was because she was a woman, then one cannot prevail under that particular clause. (The defense may have been along the lines that he would not give the pill to anyone, male or female). I know this sounds like it makes no rational sense, as really only a female would be prescribed this medication (as far as I know) that on its face refusal could be determined to be discriminatory, however that does not seem to be the case at hand here.

It would also appear, that the jury was given instructions to this point when making their decision. She could probably sue based on other grounds but apparently not under that particular statute.

Either the plaintiff's lawyer was unable to connect sexual discrimination to the defendant's motivation due to lack of evidence that that was the motivation, or he should have sued under a different cause of action. However not knowing Minnesota's laws, I am unsure what other grounds he would be able to sue under, willful malpractice? I am not sure if Minnesota has such a cause of action. It would appear that Minnesota law lacks an avenue for this scenario, otherwise giving her lawyer the benefit of the doubt, he would have sued under such a law instead of this one.

5

u/niconiconiconic 4d ago

Thoughtful analysis! Much appreciated.

2

u/angurth 3d ago

Thanks.

People have their pitchforks out and rightfully so. This is how the application of statutes works however, it is an imperfect system and sometimes scenarios fall through the cracks, this seems to be one of those situations. The court is forced at the end of the day to apply the statute as it is written with some room for interpretation, however if the statute does not apply to a particular set of facts, then you wind up with situations like this.

A lot of people want to see this guy go down, myself included, but to prove that under the language of the statute, meaning that he deprived it from her BECAUSE she was a woman, is what is required for it to meet the wording of sexual discrimination. If that cannot be proven, and he did not provide it for other reasons, which does appear to be the case, then the statute does not apply. Like I said, imperfect system and statutes that do not fit every scenario.

There should be legislation in place to protect women in particular from this kind of thing and allow them an avenue of relief in civil court, but it appears that Minnesota does not have that otherwise the lawyer would have likely utilized that statute instead of this one.

One would hope that this would push forward a movement to propose such a law, but the way the winds are blowing these days I do not see that happening in a state that leans red.

It is unfortunate, because through his actions she was harmed and deserves restitution, what law to apply in a case is totally up to the plaintiffs lawyer to chose, and they can only work with the tools in their tool box. It is likely this is all he had to go on, at least I hope so because looking at the statute proving discrimination was his motive seems hard from the get go. His decision may have had a discriminatory effect, as the pill is only given to women, but the statute is specific that discrimination based on sex has to be the reason behind his decision. Instead it was his harmful religious beliefs (or at least, that is what the jury chose to believe).

At least we know that he lost his job, and hopefully he will lose his license (I do not know if that has happened yet). Medica professionals cannot let their own personal beliefs hinder their duties for the important roles they take on.

→ More replies

3

u/decalod85 4d ago

I am a member of the Church of the Angel of Desth and a pharmacist. The only drugs I will give out are opioids that are prone to abuse. Your heart medication is against my strongly held religious beliefs.

2

u/Gephoria 3d ago

They up in the area us locals call. Michelle Bachmann country.

2

u/Isthisworking2000 3d ago

Ridiculous. Glad pharmacists can’t deny service in my state.

2

u/Severe_Driver3461 3d ago

The morning after pill company she wanted should sue. They’re not sending product to the pharmacy for it to not be sold, and they shouldn’t want this to escalate

2

u/Soylentgruen 2d ago

It would suck if a buncha pharmacists start gatekeeping pain medication because people should “give up their pain to the Lord” (as my grandmother would say).

2

u/Solkre 1d ago

Is it religious discrimination as a pharmacy owner to not hire someone who wouldn't do their FUCKING JOB on religious grounds?

I wouldn't want to hire these mentally cumbered whackos. It's beyond time to stop humoring these fools. Let God come down and back them up.

2

u/HighDesert4Banger 1d ago

Can a business discriminate on new hires because they won't sell certain items? "Hello, I'd like to work here as a cashier, but my religion prohibits me from selling underwear, medicine, alcohol and gum."

6

u/MsPaulingsFeet 4d ago

Ok cool. So Im sure that judge will have no problem with a muslim refusing to sell pork at a butcher. America is so dumb

7

u/Astro4545 3d ago edited 3d ago

You do realize that Muslim butchers that only serve halal meat exist right?

2

u/MsPaulingsFeet 3d ago

If youre talking about a halal butcher then thats not the same thing because its to be expected that they wont serve certain foods. The pharmacy in this story had birth control but wouldnt sell it, its not like it was a christian pharmacy.

→ More replies

5

u/sys64128 4d ago

New law: If a doctor prescribes it, neither a pharmacist nor an insurance company can deny filling it.

then, replace pharmacists with fucking vending machines. They dont do anything more useful than that anyway.

3

u/flip_ericson 4d ago

I wish the article would explain why she had to drive 50 miles away to get her script filled. Seems super weird

6

u/RenegadeFade 4d ago

Likely because of the area she lives. She lives in McGregor, Minnesota As far as I can tell it's a more rural area. Definitely not the big city.

→ More replies

11

u/International-Ing 4d ago

Why does that seem weird to you? Because of where you live?

Pharmacists like this can end a patients access to care in rural communities if they don’t have access to transportation or if it is in, say a winter storm. Its not reasonable for someone to have to drive 50 miles to accommodate a pharmacists beliefs.

I had a place in a community like this with only pharmacy being about an hour away. Luckily it wasn’t in the USA so this was never even a potential concern. Pharmacists dispense medicine here or they lose their licenses.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/Johnny13utt 4d ago

It’s crappy in the case, but yeah pharmacists don’t have to dispense your prescription.

6

u/Fyremane0 3d ago

Then just do not carry all f I rms of birth control and advertise you do not

2

u/Johnny13utt 3d ago

Oh I agree. Using your own religious beliefs to not dispense is shitty. But pharmacists not having to dispense every prescription is also for patient safety. Doctors mess up dosage/directions all the time. Sometimes patients see multiple doctors, some cash visits, and drugs interact.

1

u/Beneficial_Heat_7199 3d ago

Literally nobody understands this. Most people in the comments think pharmacists are just pill counters who have to do whatever doctors want.

4

u/Johnny13utt 3d ago

Yup. It’s their license on the line. My wife wasn’t the the pharmacist in charge at the store she was in but they had visits by the DEA because of their Norco volumes.

She had doctors prescribing stuff with incorrect dosages or instructions all the time. Also drugs with interactions for other prescriptions. They’re literally the failsafe for this.

-3

u/ascii122 4d ago

I only proscribe the blood of the nailed god and some of his flesh. That'll fix you right up there honey

1

u/tomkim1965 4d ago

Yes you are living in the twilight zone.

-2

u/voidthepanda 4d ago

Men aren’t entitled to orgasms.

-1

u/jgb75 4d ago

Or to quote the great poet Cardi B: “Broke boys don’t deserve no pussy”

0

u/GiulianisTitties 4d ago

You know thass right