Prostitution to be legalized in Canada

[whork]

I don't agree with you on many issues, but on this one you are correct.

The almighty dollar is more important than morality. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.


Does that mean you are no longer a free-market capitalist?



The fact that people argue there is nothing morally wrong with this, shows how far humanity has fallen.

Humanity is in a fallen state.

[whork]

I hope they make it legal.

Its a pain in the ass to talk services and prices with Vegas hookers because they are afraid to get busted.

Dont know about other parts of the country though.

[avxo]

I asked about other than talking about sex within the confines of marriage.  That's really the only "repression" I'm aware of. 

Let's see:

Trying to ban pornography is pretty repressive.
Trying to prevent objective sex-ed ("if you have sex at least be smart and use condoms") in schools.
Trying to prevent HPV vaccinations on the ground that getting the vaccine will cause girls to become promiscuous.
Advocating against the repeal of "sodomy" laws (which are more general than "no anal sex!")
Advocating against birth control pills (let's not talk about abortion.)

Now, not every Christian does it and I don't blame them all for the actions of the few. But there really is more "repression" than talking about sex as something that's only meant for marriage.

[Dos Equis]

Let's see:

Trying to ban pornography is pretty repressive.
Trying to prevent objective sex-ed ("if you have sex at least be smart and use condoms") in schools.
Trying to prevent HPV vaccinations on the ground that getting the vaccine will cause girls to become promiscuous.
Advocating against the repeal of "sodomy" laws (which are more general than "no anal sex!")
Advocating against birth control pills (let's not talk about abortion.)

Now, not every Christian does it and I don't blame them all for the actions of the few. But there really is more "repression" than talking about sex as something that's only meant for marriage.

Silly examples.  Like I said, other than sex within the confines of marriage.   

[avxo]

Silly examples.  Like I said, other than sex within the confines of marriage.   

It's a silly example that some Christians seek to ban pornography? That they are opposed to sex-ed if it doesn't begin and end with "abstain"? That they oppose birth control? Abortions? HPV vaccinations? The repeal of existing sodomy laws?

None of those things are about sex outside of marriage.

That you don't see how repressive some of these actions are only proves one thing: you have blinders on.

[Dos Equis]

It's a silly example that some Christians seek to ban pornography? That they are opposed to sex-ed if it doesn't begin and end with "abstain"? That they oppose birth control? Abortions? HPV vaccinations? The repeal of existing sodomy laws?

None of those things are about sex outside of marriage.

That you don't see how repressive some of these actions are only proves one thing: you have blinders on.

They are silly examples of "Christians" trying to repress sex, or being fearful of sex, which was the original statement Ozmo made. 

Even if we accept all of those examples as true (which they are not) and that they reflect the view of "Christians" as a group (which they don't), they still are nothing more than examples of promoting sex within the confines of marriage. 

[avxo]

They are silly examples of "Christians" trying to repress sex, or being fearful of sex, which was the original statement Ozmo made. 

Even if we accept all of those examples as true (which they are not) and that they reflect the view of "Christians" as a group (which they don't), they still are nothing more than examples of promoting sex within the confines of marriage. 

I did say, earlier, that these positions don't represent all Christians, nor do I think they do.

However, I fail to see how opposing birth control promotes sex within the confines of marriage. How advocating against the repeal of sodomy laws promoted sex within the confines of marriage.

Christians (again, not all) consistently and doggedly seek to not only enforce their morality on everyone else but they seek to control how consenting adults can choose to use their genitals.

[Dos Equis]

I did say, earlier, that these positions don't represent all Christians, nor do I think they do.

However, I fail to see how opposing birth control promotes sex within the confines of marriage. How advocating against the repeal of sodomy laws promoted sex within the confines of marriage.

Christians (again, not all) consistently and doggedly seek to not only enforce their morality on everyone else but they seek to control how consenting adults can choose to use their genitals.

If you're talking about the Catholic teaching that opposes birth control, then I agree that teaching doesn't promote sex within the confines of marriage.  By the same token, it is not an example of repression or fear of sex. 

Promoting traditional marriage, which is what supporting sodomy laws are really all about, is promoting sex within the confines of (traditional) marriage.  That entire paradigm is changing though.  I've been saying for years that homosexual marriage was inevitable.  I've also been saying that triad marriages are next.  That is coming too. 

Christian teachings do talk about sexual morality.  And yes those teachings do bother some people.  But I have no problem with Christians or any other group using the legislative process to promote their ideas.  If I support those ideas, I vote for them.  If not, I vote against them. 

Also, if someone looks at the bigger picture objectively, we should be using public policy to promote what is best for society.  How we get there is obviously the subject of debate, but the discussion is healthy. 

[avxo]

If you're talking about the Catholic teaching that opposes birth control, then I agree that teaching doesn't promote sex within the confines of marriage.  By the same token, it is not an example of repression or fear of sex.

I'm talking about Christians who, on the basis on their beliefs, advocate against the use of birth control, whether that be in pill form, in condom form, in ring form and whathaveyou. The particular ideology doesn't concern me, in the sense that I don't care if the person who advocates against a woman's ability to be on the pill is a member of the Catholic Church or some backwater Protestant denomination in rural Alabama.

With that said, if you are so inclined we can get into a debate about Martin Luther and his theology, the reformation, the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the various "Ecumenical" councils, and so on. You'll find that I am quite well versed in the history of your religion.

Promoting traditional marriage, which is what supporting sodomy laws are really all about, is promoting sex within the confines of (traditional) marriage.  That entire paradigm is changing though.  I've been saying for years that homosexual marriage was inevitable.  I've also been saying that triad marriages are next.  That is coming too.

Laws against sodomy are about promoting traditional marriage? You say this shit with a straight face?! How is getting a blowjob related to "traditional marriage"? How does it promote traditional marriage for the State to tell a wife "sorry, no sucking you on husband's dick!"

No, sodomy laws aren't about protecting traditional marriage - if they were, they would prohibit all sex between unmarried people; not just oral and anal sex as they do. Of course, we all know that would be blatantly unconstitutional as neither the Federal Government nor the several states have the authority to regulate the private sexual conduct of consenting adults, a fact that Courts have repeatedly pointed out.

Sodomy laws are laws passed by people who believe that they should be able to use the power of the State to enforce their particular moral views and to legislate away sexual acts they find icky. Nothing more, nothing less.

Christian teachings do talk about sexual morality.

And Christians are free to follow those teachings, as they see fit.

And yes those teachings do bother some people.

You will forgive me for being bothered when your almighty God is concerned about my marital status vis–à–vis my sex life, and about how my girlfriend and I have sex.

But I have no problem with Christians or any other group using the legislative process to promote their ideas.

I don't either. Except when those ideas seek to curtail freedoms and outlaw behaviors and actions which the State doesn't have the authority to curtail or outlaw. The simple fact is that the Government has no authority to control my genitals or to dictate how I choose to use them.

If I support those ideas, I vote for them.  If not, I vote against them.

There's more to consider - not just whether you support those ideas.

Also, if someone looks at the bigger picture objectively, we should be using public policy to promote what is best for society.  How we get there is obviously the subject of debate, but the discussion is healthy.

What's "best" for society is, at best vague. Get any group of people together and I doubt you'll be able to come to a consensus about what's best for society. Having some "top-down" direction, where public policy guides people into something that's deemed "best" seems very dangerous to me.

[Mawse]

Good!

I thought it was legal there already actually, but any third world goat fucking mohamedean who soft-touch Canada let come live there should fuck off back to turdistan if they disagree with their host countries laws.

[Dos Equis]

I'm talking about Christians who, on the basis on their beliefs, advocate against the use of birth control, whether that be in pill form, in condom form, in ring form and whathaveyou. The particular ideology doesn't concern me, in the sense that I don't care if the person who advocates against a woman's ability to be on the pill is a member of the Catholic Church or some backwater Protestant denomination in rural Alabama.

With that said, if you are so inclined we can get into a debate about Martin Luther and his theology, the reformation, the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the various "Ecumenical" councils, and so on. You'll find that I am quite well versed in the history of your religion.


Laws against sodomy are about promoting traditional marriage? You say this shit with a straight face?! How is getting a blowjob related to "traditional marriage"? How does it promote traditional marriage for the State to tell a wife "sorry, no sucking you on husband's dick!"

No, sodomy laws aren't about protecting traditional marriage - if they were, they would prohibit all sex between unmarried people; not just oral and anal sex as they do. Of course, we all know that would be blatantly unconstitutional as neither the Federal Government nor the several states have the authority to regulate the private sexual conduct of consenting adults, a fact that Courts have repeatedly pointed out.

Sodomy laws are laws passed by people who believe that they should be able to use the power of the State to enforce their particular moral views and to legislate away sexual acts they find icky. Nothing more, nothing less.


And Christians are free to follow those teachings, as they see fit.


You will forgive me for being bothered when your almighty God is concerned about my marital status vis–à–vis my sex life, and about how my girlfriend and I have sex.

I don't either. Except when those ideas seek to curtail freedoms and outlaw behaviors and actions which the State doesn't have the authority to curtail or outlaw. The simple fact is that the Government has no authority to control my genitals or to dictate how I choose to use them.


There's more to consider - not just whether you support those ideas.


What's "best" for society is, at best vague. Get any group of people together and I doubt you'll be able to come to a consensus about what's best for society. Having some "top-down" direction, where public policy guides people into something that's deemed "best" seems very dangerous to me.

The Catholic Church is the only denomination I'm aware of that prohibits birth control, so yes the particular ideology does matter.  Also, I don't believe they are trying to force non-Catholics to adopt that belief.  They just don't want the government forcing them to violate that belief.  But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with repressing sex or fear of sex. 

No, I'm not inclined to have a penis measuring contest over our respective knowledge of religious history.  You win.  There, I conceded.  Collect your trophy from Ron.   

Sodomy laws were designed to prohibit homosexual sex.  I understand the definitions are overly broad, but it's pretty clear that was the purpose of those laws.  So yes, sodomy laws are, at their core, about preserving sex between married heterosexuals. 

And sodomy laws were not "blatantly unconstitutional" until pretty recently, but that again doesn't have anything to do with repression or fear.

I'm not insecure about having people lobby for things they believe in, but that I happen to disagree with.  It bothers you.  It doesn't bother me at all.  Another way to look at it is this:  perhaps millions of Christians have a problem with people who want to remove all aspects of religion and Biblically based morality from the public sector?  I see nothing wrong with those people using the legislative process to promote what they believe in.  Just like I have no problem with any other group promoting a purely secular agenda, or lobbying for anti-religious stuff.  If you like it, vote for it.  If don't like it, vote against it.  That's the way our democracy works. 

I agree that people will have different opinions about what is best for society and what we should be promoting.  For example, I personally believe a male/female two-parent household is the ideal environment to raise kids.  I think public policy that promotes that kind of environment is a good thing.  And no, that doesn't mean this is the only way to raise good kids, that single parents cannot be good parents, etc., etc. 

[Primemuscle]

The Catholic Church is the only denomination I'm aware of that prohibits birth control, so yes the particular ideology does matter. 

Actually, many religions oppose birth control with varying nuisances. The Catholic Church even allows for it as long as it is practiced in the form of abstinence. Keep in mind that when Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. began, populating the world was of the upmost importance. This helps to explain why religions weighed in on people reproducing so heavily. And thank goodness for that or many of us would not be here today.

Speaking of today, the world is likely populated to the point that the earth cannot continue to sustain it. In recent times, birth control has been imposed by governments and in some cultures as a means of dealing with over population. It is just a matter of time before religions will have to weigh in on this issue too. It will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.

There are those who suggest gay marriage will limit population growth. Personally, I doubt the impact will be significant. Unless something changes significantly, there will come a time (not too far into the future) when anything that limits population growth could be looked on as a positive thing. 

[Dos Equis]

Actually, many religions oppose birth control with varying nuisances. The Catholic Church even allows for it as long as it is practiced in the form of abstinence. Keep in mind that when Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. began, populating the world was of the upmost importance. This helps to explain why religions weighed in on people reproducing so heavily. And thank goodness for that or many of us would not be here today.

Speaking of today, the world is likely populated to the point that the earth cannot continue to sustain it. In recent times, birth control has been imposed by governments and in some cultures as a means of dealing with over population. It is just a matter of time before religions will have to weigh in on this issue too. It will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.

There are those who suggest gay marriage will limit population growth. Personally, I doubt the impact will be significant. Unless something changes significantly, there will come a time (not too far into the future) when anything that limits population growth could be looked on as a positive thing. 

Which religions prohibit birth control other than Catholics?

I don't think homosexual marriage will limit population growth, because there aren't enough homosexuals in the country to make a significant difference. 

[24KT]

Which religions prohibit birth control other than Catholics?

I don't think homosexual marriage will limit population growth, because there aren't enough homosexuals in the country to make a significant difference. 

ROTFLMAO!!!
If all the gays, lesbians, bi, and transgendered were out, you'd be surprised how many of them there are.

On just this board alone would shock you!

[Dos Equis]

ROTFLMAO!!!
If all the gays, lesbians, bi, and transgendered were out, you'd be surprised how many of them there are.

On just this board alone would shock you!

Oh please.  It's cool to be gay these days.  And yet they're still a tiny percentage of the population. 

[avxo]

The Catholic Church is the only denomination I'm aware of that prohibits birth control, so yes the particular ideology does matter.  Also, I don't believe they are trying to force non-Catholics to adopt that belief.  They just don't want the government forcing them to violate that belief.  But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with repressing sex or fear of sex.

When you have pharmacists who claim that they should not only be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription on the grounds that doing so violates their religious beliefs, but who will refuse to return the unfilled prescription, I would submit to you that yes... some people are forcing others to adopt their beliefs.

True, this isn't necessarily related to repressing sex, and the conversation drifted slightly but it is a legitimate issue.

Sodomy laws were designed to prohibit homosexual sex.  I understand the definitions are overly broad, but it's pretty clear that was the purpose of those laws.  So yes, sodomy laws are, at their core, about preserving sex between married heterosexuals.

You're reaching here. If, as you claim, the goal was for those laws was to prohibit homosexual sex, they would do nothing to limit or encourage sex between only married couples.

And sodomy laws were not "blatantly unconstitutional" until pretty recently, but that again doesn't have anything to do with repression or fear.

I think that a law can be blatantly unconstitutional without a Court order. All the Court order does would be to codify a pre-existing fact. So, were such laws blatantly unconstitutional? That's a good question. My position is that a law that seeks to controls how consenting adults have sex is a huge overreach by Government, one that is completely unjustified and outside of the realms of the powers granted to it.

I'm not insecure about having people lobby for things they believe in, but that I happen to disagree with.  It bothers you.  It doesn't bother me at all.

People can lobby for whatever they want. That's not my point. My point is that when there are people who lobby to curtail my freedoms I feel obliged to stand up and challenge them. And if their lobbying was based on nothing more than their "feelings" or their "beliefs", I would challenge them more vigorously because I do not think that someone else's beliefs can justify chaining me.

Another way to look at it is this:  perhaps millions of Christians have a problem with people who want to remove all aspects of religion and Biblically based morality from the public sector?  I see nothing wrong with those people using the legislative process to promote what they believe in.  Just like I have no problem with any other group promoting a purely secular agenda, or lobbying for anti-religious stuff.  If you like it, vote for it.  If don't like it, vote against it.  That's the way our democracy works.  

I don't disagree with you, although I think that there are degrees and variations. A Christmas Tree at the State Capitol is quite different from a school prayer, and a Judge who refuses allow someone to use an affirmation instead of an oath is different from a Court clerk who wishes you "Merry Christmas" after you submit paperwork.

I also believe that people should be able to lobby for just about whatever they want. But they should also realize that they can and, likely, will be criticized for their positions and their beliefs. And sometimes that criticism will be blistering. Case in point: the Duck Dynasty guy. He should be able to not only advertise his beliefs, but lobby for them. But he shouldn't expect everybody else to shut up and give him the floor uncontested.

I agree that people will have different opinions about what is best for society and what we should be promoting.  For example, I personally believe a male/female two-parent household is the ideal environment to raise kids.  I think public policy that promotes that kind of environment is a good thing.  And no, that doesn't mean this is the only way to raise good kids, that single parents cannot be good parents, etc., etc.

I don't disagree with anything that you said there. Or, to avoid the double negative: I agree with just about everything you said here.

[Dos Equis]

When you have pharmacists who claim that they should not only be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription on the grounds that doing so violates their religious beliefs, but who will refuse to return the unfilled prescription, I would submit to you that yes... some people are forcing others to adopt their beliefs.

True, this isn't necessarily related to repressing sex, and the conversation drifted slightly but it is a legitimate issue.


You're reaching here. If, as you claim, the goal was for those laws was to prohibit homosexual sex, they would do nothing to limit or encourage sex between only married couples.


I think that a law can be blatantly unconstitutional without a Court order. All the Court order does would be to codify a pre-existing fact. So, were such laws blatantly unconstitutional? That's a good question. My position is that a law that seeks to controls how consenting adults have sex is a huge overreach by Government, one that is completely unjustified and outside of the realms of the powers granted to it.


People can lobby for whatever they want. That's not my point. My point is that when there are people who lobby to curtail my freedoms I feel obliged to stand up and challenge them. And if their lobbying was based on nothing more than their "feelings" or their "beliefs", I would challenge them more vigorously because I do not think that someone else's beliefs can justify chaining me.


I don't disagree with you, although I think that there are degrees and variations. A Christmas Tree at the State Capitol is quite different from a school prayer, and a Judge who refuses allow someone to use an affirmation instead of an oath is different from a Court clerk who wishes you "Merry Christmas" after you submit paperwork.

I also believe that people should be able to lobby for just about whatever they want. But they should also realize that they can and, likely, will be criticized for their positions and their beliefs. And sometimes that criticism will be blistering. Case in point: the Duck Dynasty guy. He should be able to not only advertise his beliefs, but lobby for them. But he shouldn't expect everybody else to shut up and give him the floor uncontested.


I don't disagree with anything that you said there. Or, to avoid the double negative: I agree with just about everything you said here.

The handful of pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions aren't forcing people not to get those prescriptions.  They simply don't want to do it themselves.  Another pharmacist can do it.  What's the big deal? 

Regarding sodomy laws, I'm sure we can both come up with many examples of where the government wanted to pass a law affecting one thing, but through poor drafting affecting many other things.  That's all that happened with those laws IMO.

I agree a law can be unconstitutional without a court order.  Just pointing out that those were actually deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court until pretty recently.

I think we pretty much agree on people being able to use the legislative process to promote their ideas. 

[avxo]

The handful of pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions aren't forcing people not to get those prescriptions.  They simply don't want to do it themselves.  Another pharmacist can do it.  What's the big deal?

More than once, pharmacists have collected a prescription and upon seeing that it was birth control products refused to fill it, refer to another pharmacist or return the prescription. So although another pharmacist might be able to do it, that other, hypothetical pharmacist often doesn't get the chance. So yes, this issue is a big deal.

As for the beliefs of pharmacists: they can believe whatever they want to believe in their personal lives, but if their beliefs interfere with doing their jobs - to dispense prescriptions as written - they ought to choose a different profession.

Notice, by the way, how you brush off and dismiss as trivial something that is a very real issue and which affects people directly. Would you equally dismissive of someone who interfered with someone's ability to exercise their religion?
 

Regarding sodomy laws, I'm sure we can both come up with many examples of where the government wanted to pass a law affecting one thing, but through poor drafting affecting many other things.  That's all that happened with those laws IMO.

Perhaps - it wouldn't be the first time laws were poorly drafted and had unintended consequences. But I think that the intent of anti-sodomy laws us pretty clear and has nothing to do with promoting sex within marriage and everything to do with making illegal forms of sex that one group of people (those in power) perceives as repulsive.

[loco]

Actually, many religions oppose birth control with varying nuisances. The Catholic Church even allows for it as long as it is practiced in the form of abstinence. Keep in mind that when Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. began, populating the world was of the upmost importance. This helps to explain why religions weighed in on people reproducing so heavily. And thank goodness for that or many of us would not be here today.

Speaking of today, the world is likely populated to the point that the earth cannot continue to sustain it. In recent times, birth control has been imposed by governments and in some cultures as a means of dealing with over population. It is just a matter of time before religions will have to weigh in on this issue too. It will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.

There are those who suggest gay marriage will limit population growth. Personally, I doubt the impact will be significant. Unless something changes significantly, there will come a time (not too far into the future) when anything that limits population growth could be looked on as a positive thing.  

How has limiting population growth worked for China and Japan?  I am aware that in China it's forced, while in Japan it isn't.  Both countries are facing social, economical, etc. problems because of a reduced population.

[temple_of_dis]

how can one worry about buttsex legality while voting for socialists who will lock down thier entire life and destroy economic growth?

[tu_holmes]

Why are we talking about abortion? Wtf?

Somehow, some way, the religious types can always compare something to abortion.

Holy fuck.

[Dos Equis]

More than once, pharmacists have collected a prescription and upon seeing that it was birth control products refused to fill it, refer to another pharmacist or return the prescription. So although another pharmacist might be able to do it, that other, hypothetical pharmacist often doesn't get the chance. So yes, this issue is a big deal.

As for the beliefs of pharmacists: they can believe whatever they want to believe in their personal lives, but if their beliefs interfere with doing their jobs - to dispense prescriptions as written - they ought to choose a different profession.

Notice, by the way, how you brush off and dismiss as trivial something that is a very real issue and which affects people directly. Would you equally dismissive of someone who interfered with someone's ability to exercise their religion?
 

Perhaps - it wouldn't be the first time laws were poorly drafted and had unintended consequences. But I think that the intent of anti-sodomy laws us pretty clear and has nothing to do with promoting sex within marriage and everything to do with making illegal forms of sex that one group of people (those in power) perceives as repulsive.

I'm brushing it off as trivial because it doesn't appear to be a problem for patients.  Who has been unable to get a prescription filled due to a pharmacist's religious convictions? 

And what's not trivial is the free exercise of religion. 

Regarding sodomy laws, looks like we now agree they were targeting homosexual and not heterosexual sex.  I'll concede it's debatable whether those laws were designed to preserve sex with within traditional marriage.  I think they were, but I can see your point.

[avxo]

I'm brushing it off as trivial because it doesn't appear to be a problem for patients.  Who has been unable to get a prescription filled due to a pharmacist's religious convictions?

Pharmacist Michelle Long refuses to fill prescriptions, claiming she didn't want to participate in murder. At least one woman claims she became pregnant as a result and had to have an abortion.

This is just one case. But no... this sort of thing doesn't "appear" to be a problem.

And what's not trivial is the free exercise of religion. 

First of all, pharmacists should exercise their religion on their own time and do their job when on the clock. And if they have a problem dispensing medications - the quintessential function of their job - perhaps they should look for another job.

As for the free exercise of religion, nothing prevents a private business from firing a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription, nor does the Constitution shield pharmacists. Remember, the Constitution protects us against infringement of our rights by the Government. Private pharmacies (the norm) are not agencies of the Government.

[Dos Equis]

Pharmacist Michelle Long refuses to fill prescriptions, claiming she didn't want to participate in murder. At least one woman claims she became pregnant as a result and had to have an abortion.

This is just one case. But no... this sort of thing doesn't "appear" to be a problem.



First of all, pharmacists should exercise their religion on their own time and do their job when on the clock. And if they have a problem dispensing medications - the quintessential function of their job - perhaps they should look for another job.

As for the free exercise of religion, nothing prevents a private business from firing a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription, nor does the Constitution shield pharmacists. Remember, the Constitution protects us against infringement of our rights by the Government. Private pharmacies (the norm) are not agencies of the Government.

I see.  So in 2005, an unnamed woman in Wisconsin with six kids claimed she couldn't get an abortion pill, subsequently became pregnant, and had to have an abortion.  Sorry.  Not convinced.  As an aside, if she couldn't afford to have another baby, why the heck wasn't she using birth control??   

If pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions, and this actually prevents women (or anyone else) from getting their medication, then that is obviously unacceptable.  Don't see that happening. 

Fortunately, the free exercise of religion doesn't require a pharmacist to observe his or her faith only on their own time.  That's not how the First Amendment works.  That's not how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works either. 

[Shockwave]

I see.  So in 2005, an unnamed woman in Wisconsin with six kids claimed she couldn't get an abortion pill, subsequently became pregnant, and had to have an abortion.  Sorry.  Not convinced.  As an aside, if she couldn't afford to have another baby, why the heck wasn't she using birth control??   

If pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions, and this actually prevents women (or anyone else) from getting their medication, then that is obviously unacceptable.  Don't see that happening. 

Fortunately, the free exercise of religion doesn't require a pharmacist to observe his or her faith only on their own time.  That's not how the First Amendment works.  That's not how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works either. 

WoW dude. Its not up to the pharmacist to decide if a person should have their medications or not. The woman not being on birrh control is irrelevant.  The pharmacist should be fired for not doinh her job