What impact does Ms. Davis have on pharmacies that refuse to offer contraception?

[Orrex]

I know that such pharmacies aren't public-funded government agencies, but if they invoke their religion in order to overrule a doctor's prescription, how is it fundamentally different?

[PoliticAverse]

1. The pharmacist issue depends on the state as state laws on the issue differ, see...

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx

[jberryhill]

2. Depends on your definition of "fundamentally different"

A halal or kosher butcher doesn't have to sell pork.

However, nobody has a medical need for a ham sandwich either, and a shop which is halal or kosher is expressly in the business of fulfilling certain religious dictates.

The two situations have little to do with each other and wouldn't even arise under the same statue.

But there is an analytical difference. If a pharmacist is categorically refusing to dispense Plan B, it is not a question of the pharmacist discriminating among customers on the basis of their sex, religion, race, etc.. That is analytically distinct from a refusal of services based on whether the customer falls into some class of persons.

The law doesn't care WHY Davis refuses to issue licenses to same sex couples. That she invokes a "religious belief" really doesn't matter. What matters is that she refuses to issue them to some couples, but has no problem issuing them to other couples. (And, no, the dodge that she was refusing ALL couples doesn't work, because the reason she was refusing them all is so that she could avoid issuing them to one particular class against which she wanted to discriminate)

So with your pharmacist it's not even a discrimination case, which is what the Davis case is.

The only reason your question arises is by accepting the framing of the Davis case as "a religious freedom" case. It's not. It's s discrimination case.

[tblue37]

5. But if the pharmacy sells condoms, couldn't it be seen as discrimination

against women--IOW., men are permitted to enjoy sex without procreation, but women are not.

[jberryhill]

6. Does the pharmacy sell condoms to women?

[jberryhill]

3. Another distinction is...

...aside from the lack of discrimination, the refusal of a marriage license is denial of a fundamental right. Legally eligible people have a right to get married. Whether someone with a prescription has a "right to get their prescription filled" is a matter of the conditions of state licensing of pharmacists.

[potone]

4. The fact remains that it is the imposition of one's own religious views on another person.

To pretend that there isn't sex discrimination in that decision is pure casuistry. In addition to those two violations, the pharmacist is inserting himself in between a woman and her doctor; isn't there a law protecting the relationship between a patient and doctor? Why does a pharmacist get to violate a doctor's prescription to a patient? Would this be accepted if it were for heart medication or indeed any other condition?

[jberryhill]

7. The question is not about whether the behavior is "okay"

The KY clerk case was not about "imposition of one's own religious views on another person". It was about denial of government services by a government official to a class of persons having a right to those services.

The question is vaguely posed as what "impact" the KY clerk situation has on the situation with the pharmacist.

While it's not clear what is meant by "impact", there is no legal relationship between the two situations. In the first place, the proposition in the Davis case is utterly mundane and hardly novel - no, a government official cannot deny government services on a discriminatory basis directly contrary to a Supreme Court decision that they are entitled to those those services.

It's only a "religious freedom" case if one accepts the absurd framing of Davis' lawyers. But a suit involving denial of rights by a government official is an entirely different animal from a suit involving a public accommodation under the civil rights act.

From the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file119_29548.pdf

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a pharmacy or pharmacist violate a woman’s
federal constitutional rights by refusing to satisfy
her request to purchase birth control?

No. A pharmacy’s or pharmacist’s refusal to sell birth
control does not violate a woman’s federal constitu-
tional rights. [...] Although the Constitution protects a
woman’s right to contraception, it does not ensure that
women can access reproductive health services.

Do I have a right to buy cigarettes? Sure. They are a lawful product and I am an adult. Can I buy them from a CVS pharmacy? No, because CVS made a decision not to sell them.

A pharmacist's professional obligations to a customer are a matter of however the state in question regulates pharmacists.

The short answer is that from a legal perspective the KY clerk situation has nothing to do with the situation described in the OP. They are entirely different animals, and the cause of action - i.e. "the thing you can sue for" - isn't the same, even if in some broader sense the background involves "some person being a pain-in-the-ass because of their religion".

[lonestarnot]

8. Thanks for taking the time to splain it.

[jberryhill]

9. Just because something is legal, don't make it "right"

Being an asshole is completely legal - a fact of which one becomes painfully aware by spending a lot of time dealing with lawyers.

[lonestarnot]

10. Legal asshole, illegal asshole either way still an asshole.