Degs, you are evading the questions.

Do you believe that the average Joe has an idividual right to own a fully automatic machine gun. A simple yes or no will do.

And how are you going to treat Lieberman if the U.S. Senate stays the same?

I know you won't answer these questions, and the reason I ask these questions is to show readers that you are nothing more then a hypocite. So keep up the good work.

In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

I'm an atheist, and I respect other peoples religions, but just because I respect them does not mean that I must partake in their beliefs. I also respect the cultural aspects of Judaism but I won't wear a yarmulka. Respect just means to treat with esteem, not give up your own beliefs. No where in this code does it say that you must put other peoples beliefs before your own.

The evidence that I will provide, will show that not only are you incapable of reading links but you are wrong. Let's go back to your link or mine (USPHRMD) and left click on " Pharmacist ". Scroll down to just past the Pharmacist Oath and click on the " Pharmacist right to Refuse ". If you actully try to read the info you will notice the " Conscience Clause ". If you scroll down to exception one of the bullets says: However, there are no states that have mandated that a pharmacist must dispense a prescription. So you Degs have no legal grounds. However it is left up to the employer as to wether you must despence them or not with the exception of S. Dakota, Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi wich specificall permit pharmacist to refuse to fill valid prescriptions which they fined morally objectionable.

And if you read " Frequently Asked Queations" you will see that you are not violating any womens Constitutional rights by not dispensing this pill even if the refusal takes place in a state owned pharmacy. Now I'm sure that the great Degs will never admit to being wrong, even tho this is a none bias link.

Degs the only way that you believe in Constitutional rights is if they apply to you. And people like you will use licensing as a means to take a persons Constitutional rights away. I'm sure in the future you will try and use this reasoning as a means to make a church marry gay couples even if that church feels that by being gay is a sin. People like you have no problems with trampling on Constitutional rights. So that makes you the one who is poorly reasoned and a bigot.