"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan 2006 12:44:59 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married
couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no
right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely.

Ah, but bork isn't on the USSC, nor will he ever be. He got borked.

My guess is for them to overturn roe v wade they first do have to
dismantle griswold. This is actually already happening when
drugstores refuse to sell birth control to selected folks. But
not codified into law, of course.

Jim

So you are claiming that a liquor store should be forced to sell
booze, even to drunks?

Or is this an individuals right (business owners) right to serve who
he chooses?

Business ownner have some lattitude. Pharmacists may or may not, depending
on state laws.

Like doctors who can't refuse to treat someone they don't like, or who has a
condition the doctor may believe the patient brought upon himself,
pharmacists in many states can't decide to whom they will dispense drugs.

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

Think of it as "Biblical-based pharmacy." A pharmacist gets to choose
whether you can be treated for anything, based on his biblical world view.
If you fit within his religious beliefs, you get treated. If you don't,
sayonara, baby.

--
Ed Huntress