HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Illinois Court Permits Re...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:35 PM

Illinois Court Permits Religious Pharmacists To Refuse To Dispense Emergency Contraception

Source: Think Progress

An Illinois appeals court upheld a ruling Friday that exempted pharmacists with religious objections from prescribing emergency contraceptives, finding that the medical professionals were protected by state law. The plaintiffs, both individual pharmacists and corporations that own pharmacies, had challenged an order by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich requiring that pharmacists sell “Plan B,” a brand of the contraceptive also known as the “morning-after pill.”
The court rejected the ACLU’s argument that prescribing emergency contraceptives fell under an exception in the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience for “emergency medical care,” even though doctors testified that the contraceptive was most effective when taken immediately after unprotected intercourse.
The three-justice panel did narrow the scope of the lower court’s ruling, which had entirely blocked the governor’s requirement to provide contraceptives. The appeals court held instead that the state law merely prohibits enforcement of the order against plaintiffs who claim a religious exemption.
The court’s decision to allow individual pharmacists to claim the protection of the law is not particularly surprising, given the Illinois statute’s broad wording: “No physician or health care personnel shall be civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, public or private entity or public official by reason of his or her refusal to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or health care personnel.”


I hope I can post this here.....

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/09/26/909341/illinois-court-permits-religious-pharmacists-to-refuse-to-dispense-emergency-contraception/



The real outrages claim of this religious right, does not apply to corporations.... They can block employees from their religious rights?

55 replies, 6288 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Illinois Court Permits Religious Pharmacists To Refuse To Dispense Emergency Contraception (Original post)
midnight Sep 2012 OP
niyad Sep 2012 #1
midnight Sep 2012 #5
LizW Sep 2012 #2
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Sep 2012 #10
ashling Sep 2012 #30
midnight Sep 2012 #44
ashling Sep 2012 #45
midnight Sep 2012 #48
xxqqqzme Sep 2012 #38
potone Sep 2012 #3
midnight Sep 2012 #7
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #9
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #14
niyad Sep 2012 #19
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #20
niyad Sep 2012 #23
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #28
joeglow3 Sep 2012 #35
sweetapogee Sep 2012 #31
Canuckistanian Sep 2012 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #15
Canuckistanian Sep 2012 #24
David__77 Sep 2012 #25
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #27
benld74 Sep 2012 #6
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #8
midnight Sep 2012 #41
Trillo Sep 2012 #11
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #21
midnight Sep 2012 #40
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #12
Humanist_Activist Sep 2012 #33
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #47
Humanist_Activist Sep 2012 #54
McCamy Taylor Sep 2012 #13
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #16
midnight Sep 2012 #42
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #46
midnight Sep 2012 #50
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #52
midnight Sep 2012 #55
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #17
AmyDeLune Sep 2012 #26
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #29
joeglow3 Sep 2012 #36
HockeyMom Sep 2012 #32
christx30 Sep 2012 #18
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #22
Humanist_Activist Sep 2012 #34
MountainLaurel Sep 2012 #43
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #37
supernova Sep 2012 #39
Shitty Mitty Sep 2012 #49
FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #51
CBGLuthier Sep 2012 #53

Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:59 PM

1. people who are not willing to do their WHOLE jobs, in this case, dispensing ALL legal drugs,

or, providing complete medical care, NEED TO GET OTHER JOBS. my health and well-being should not be dependent on finding a non=whack job doc or pharmacist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:31 PM

5. Exactly.... Dispensing moral judgement should not be allowed..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:05 PM

2. I hope they have to put up a sign outside

stating that they pick and choose which drugs they dispense based on their religious judgment of customers' behavior. Then people can decided to take all their business elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LizW (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:50 PM

10. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LizW (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:29 AM

30. I was thinking the same thing

Certified Religious Pharmacy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #30)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:43 AM

44. Akin probably see this as " times of real law and order"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #44)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:52 AM

45. The woodcut was taken from

the cover of the GOP platform

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:19 PM

48. Thanks for informing me.... I suppose they are advertising that they have had a break from reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LizW (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:53 AM

38. Exactly my first thought.

There should be a warning sign posted in public view that the pharmacy reserves to right to pass moral judgement on your health care prescriptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:18 PM

3. I have two questions about this.

First, are pharmacists normally considered to be "health care personnel?" I would not have thought that they would fall into that category. Secondly, why is this Illinois stature not being contested on the grounds that it enables pharmacists to violate their patients' own right to religious liberty, as well as infringing upon physician's rights to provide the medical care that they deem necessary for their patients, including any prescribed medications? I would appreciate it if somebody with more knowledge than I possess of the Illinois law and its history would enlighten me concerning this issue. Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to potone (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:36 PM

7. potone this is a really good question about the patients religious freedom.... I too would love to

be enlightened about this....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to potone (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:49 PM

9. Excellent point.

That would also mean that if any of their ''patients'' suffers a healthcare problem as a result of their refusal to provide them with legal pharmaceuticals ordered by their doctors, then they're legally and financially liable just like any doctor and/or hospital would be when they fuck up.

- How nice.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to potone (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:13 PM

14. Some thoughts

They are a retail goods provider. They get to choose what they carry. No pharmacy carries everything out there all the time. I have had to wait a day or two for large chain stores to have what I need. The government does not tell merchants what they have to carry in terms of products or merchandise.

The patients' rights are not being violated since they are free to go where they choose. Pharmacies, while regulated, do not have exclusive territories or other kinds of state protection that would open them to mandates. This cuts both ways, as I will get to later. Some have argued that with the state license comes responsibilities, including a minimum list of drugs that must be carried. No state is currently taking that approach directly.

The physician gets no say in this and has no rights to be violated. They give prescriptions to the patient and where they get them filled is not under the control of the doctor.


Despite all of the above there is much that can be done...


Medical insurance plans can require that to be a preferred provider/plan participant that conditions are met. I want to recall at least on state in the NE is doing that.

People can choose to go to pharmacies that do not use religious beliefs to govern the goods they sell. There are no restrictions stating what pharmacy you must go to. Its really competitive out there with all the major chains, Wal-Mart etc. If a mom and pop shop gets stupid like that, they can easily be driven out of business over this, the more publicly the better.

Chains can make it clear that they expect their employees to sell everything they carry or at least get someone else on duty to handle it. While one can argue that the Federal law requiring religious accommodation where practical may apply, it is not overriding. Condition of employment kicks in here as well.

In then end its all about the Benjamins. Use that power and the stupidity will go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:41 PM

19. and what about the town that only has ONE pharmacy? and the next town or village over also

has only one pharmacy, also run by the zealots? it isn't as easy as you try to make it sound.

or, how about the areas that only have one hospital, a catholic one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:07 AM

20. The easy refutation to your strawman is to ask how many of those really exist

these days. And if you think Catholic hospitals are bad, you should try a 7th Day Adventist one.

Seriously, there is no viable legal structures out there to address a scenario where there is no Wal-Mart/Costco/Sams Club/CVS/Wallgreens/Rite Aid/etc within the range of a tank of gas and the local pharmacy is run by religious nuts who won't stock birth control and/or Plan B. Blago tried with a clearly illegal executive order in Illinois. However, do such scenarios really exist today? While I do not like religious people controlling my health, is it really happening is a valid question.

Today the only legally viable way right now to get rid of such knuckleheads is to identify them and run them out of business. It has the added benefit of showing the religious nuts that the people have power and they need to serve the clientele or lose their shirts. Its a pretty powerful incentive for them to do the right thing.,



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to niyad (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:29 AM

28. That's nice, but the topic was Plan B and pharmacies

I noted that you really had 1 article used twice and the third was rehash of the first. There were a few anecdotes and no single case of where the unavailability of Plan B lead to an unwanted full term pregnancy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:23 AM

35. A different question:

What does it say about us as a nation when it appears no single group or entity is willing to step up and provide healthcare like Catholics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #20)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:46 AM

31. there is another

solution to the problem. Simple really, go to pharmacy school, get your pharm D and get a reputation for selling anything to anyone no questions asked. It's a great job and pays well. I know as my daughter is currently working on her pharm D. Her university has a 98% sucessful placement rate for graduates. Those 2% who are unemployed are those who refuse to relocate for whatever reason (silly or not silly).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:25 PM

4. What if the WOMAN's religion MANDATED birth control?

Could she counter-sue, claiming her religious freedoms were violated?

Don't answer that. We all know what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:16 PM

15. No

There is no requirement that a retail goods provider accommodate every one who comes in the door. Pharmacies are not in state allocated protected territories. A patient can go to any one she chooses.

By the same token, if there is a business that is refusing to meet customer needs due to religion, that should be broadcast from the rooftops and the local bookies will start taking bets on how long before it goes out of business

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:50 AM

24. Very scholarly answer

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:55 AM

25. A pharmacist is not merely a simple retail employee, and neither is a pharmacy a simple retailer.

The state has every right to impose requirements on them. Pharmacists may not dispense drugs without proper license. How is this not gender discrimination? Refusing to dispense a medicine that only a woman would use...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #25)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:24 AM

27. That is how the law treats them today

The state has every right to impose requirements on them.

There are specific rules for the operation of the pharmacy, but the law does not require the stocking of all available drugs nor any particular subset. Doing so would be more than sticky, very hard to administer, and the state would incur a broad variety of liabilities. To the best of my knowledge, no state requires it directly.

Pharmacists may not dispense drugs without proper license.
Obviously true, but how does that impact this discussion?

How is this not gender discrimination? Refusing to dispense a medicine that only a woman would use...
What to carry is a business decision. A store does not have to stock products equally for both sexes if its not appropriate to their business model. That does not mean it is discrimination. I can't buy mens briefs at Lane Bryant...is that gender discrimination? Without a must carry mandate at a minimum, if a pharmacy does not carry a particular product, its not discrimination.

I don't like zealots controlling my health issues, including Bloomberg. Given the large number of pharmacies and the minimal chance of this happening, I am still looking for a practical problem here. When those zealots turn up, it will be easy to gleefully drive them out of business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:31 PM

6. There is a pharmacist oath. But it is pretty broad and vague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:45 PM

8. Hmmm.....

...I wonder if they'll stop selling condoms too.

- Especially to married men......



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:39 AM

41. This video clearly show why it's time to put the breaks on the religious Taliban in this

country...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:50 PM

11. Just make emergency birth control OTC. Problem mostly solved.

There's no good reason to pay "professionals" to dispense something they can refuse to dispense on non-professional grounds.

Maybe the local gas stations will pick OTC emergency birth control as a "convenience" item, right alongside the aspirin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:08 AM

21. I thought it was but most places have it behind the counter

That could be a state by state thing too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:30 AM

40. Trillo that doesn't sound like a bad idea.... This birth control option

should be that convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:52 PM

12. One could argue some sort of religious accommodation should be made per Federal law

The counter argument is condition of employment.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:20 AM

33. Seriously, a pharmacist refusing to dispense medications based on their religion...

And nothing more is failing at their job of being a pharmacist. What reasonable accomodation could possibly be made here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #33)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:11 PM

47. Have another on duty dispense it is what is often cited

However, according to some the larger issue is even having it available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #47)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:19 PM

54. Neither regular contraceptives nor emergency contraceptives are rare medications...

they are relatively common hormone therapies that regulate periods and prevent pregnancy. My fiancee takes an intravenous BC shot every 3 months, and she picks up the prescription at a local grocery store and then goes to the doctor's office to get it administered. I would imagine that it is much more rarely used than oral contraceptives, yet a local chain of grocery stores carry it on a regular basis. Granted, we are near a medium sized city, so that could be it, but what pharmacies stock should be based on supply and demand, NOT on religious objections or arbitrary judgments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:53 PM

13. Proper response:allow physicians to sell pharmaceuticals in their offices.

That way they and their patients can be sure to get the care they need. Too bad if it cuts into drugstores' profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:21 PM

16. That has been problematic in the past...and is somewhat banned by law

In the bad old days docs would only write scripts to the captive pharmacy which sold them at inflated prices. We do not want that again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:41 AM

42. How about Doc's selling the medicine at cost only to their customers...

This way people get the care they want...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #42)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:07 PM

46. Seems to me as long as the price is fair in the market it should be good

Bear in mind that Plan B is sold without a script these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #46)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:56 PM

50. Yes... And so why shouldn't all birth control be that way... Can you imagine men

asking for a script for condoms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #50)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:00 PM

52. Agree with any barrier method or similar technology

Not so much with pills, injections, insertions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #52)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:53 AM

55. I remember when buying motrin required a script... Now you can buy it without a script... Not sure

if you use that pill... But it has been used frequently by many...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:30 PM

17. What??!! Doctors who do this (and it is legal as I'm sure you know this since you are an MD)

have been notoriously extortionate. This already happens all the time and its a racket. I can't even begin to dissect your post. You must know about this as an MD. Its common practice!





"When a pharmacy sells the heartburn drug Zantac, each pill costs about 35 cents. But doctors dispensing it to patients in their offices have charged nearly 10 times that price, or $3.25 a pill.

The same goes for a popular muscle relaxant known as Soma, insurers say. From a pharmacy, the per-pill price is 60 cents. Sold by a doctor, it can cost more than five times that, or $3.33.

At a time of soaring health care bills, experts say that doctors, middlemen and drug distributors are adding hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the costs borne by taxpayers, insurance companies and employers through the practice of physician dispensing.

Most common among physicians who treat injured workers, it is a twist on a typical doctor’s visit. Instead of sending patients to drugstores to get prescriptions filled, doctors dispense the drugs in their offices to patients, with the bills going to insurers. Doctors can make tens of thousands of dollars a year operating their own in-office pharmacies. The practice has become so profitable that private equity firms are buying stakes in the businesses, and political lobbying over the issue is fierce. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/business/some-physicians-making-millions-selling-drugs.html?pagewanted=all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:20 AM

26. On the flip side

my old (now retired) doctor, seeing I had no insurance, gave me a physicians sample of antibiotics for my strep throat instead of writing me a $60.00 prescription for the same number of pills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmyDeLune (Reply #26)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:32 AM

29. No profit - no foul

Captive pharmacies on the other hand are clearly a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmyDeLune (Reply #26)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:25 AM

36. ALL Doctors do that

They get free samples all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:33 AM

32. Physicians get free samples

When I had no insurance and went to a clinic, the doctor gave me free antibiotics from his sample closet. The problem with this for the Morning After Pill the woman would have to go to a clinic or doctor.

OTC at a supermarket would be the best place. Even rural areas have supermarkets. You can now get many meds that used to be sold only with a script on a supermarket shelf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:32 PM

18. Lets see how fast

repubs run to the courts to hold a Jehovah's Witness liable for refusing to give blood or blood products. Or a Hindu at a grocery store refusing to sell beef. Or a Muslim or Jew refusing to sell pork. That whole "If my religion forbids it, then no one can have it" thing can cut many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:11 AM

22. There were stories about muslim grocery cashiers not wanting to touch pork

There were also lawsuits about jobs that required uniforms that did not accommodate mulsim hijabs or scarfs. Have not seen anything about it in a while. There is a Federal law that requires reasonable accommodation, but that is not overriding.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:25 AM

34. Generally a reasonable accomodation is being able to perform the minimal amount of work required...

For employment. For example, headwear is allowed if it doesn't create a hazard, health or safety wise. Likewise with handling pork, if you work at a sausage factory and you are Jewish or Muslim, well you will have to get your hands dirty, aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:43 AM

43. Similarly

Muslim cab drivers in large cities have refused to pick up passengers with guide dogs and other working dogs. Big no-no there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:39 AM

37. This is 100% wrong, and total bullshit...

...keep YOUR religion out of MY prescriptions tyvm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:16 AM

39. Then "religiously motivated" pharmacists must put up sign

announcing that they do not accommodate women who need birth control, Plan B, or anything that gets up their noses. That way honest, hard-working women who need these medicines and products can freely go elsewhere.

Make no mistake, these fake pharmacists can walk the plank as far as I'm concerned.

But, there is such a thing as truth in advertising. If you advertise yourself as a FULL SERVICE(TM) pharmacy, and no one knows you are not until we go to the counter and ask for Plan B, then you are lying to the public about what you are.

These low-lifes live to lecture women about their sexuality, and now they have the law on their side. Make them state publicly what they are.

edit: I know all about this shit because it happened to me. At Target. At 39! I still get enraged at that hick prick who thought his "exemptions" were more important than MY birth control. Fuck him. Fuck him with a hot chainsaw!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:03 PM

49. That this is a deal with some people absolutely ASTOUNDS me

For fuck's sake, it's TWO-THOUSAND-FUCKING-TWELVE, not 2012 BC!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:58 PM

51. For the 15 millionth time, FIRE THEM!

If they won't do the job they can do something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:42 PM

53. So if a pharmacist converts to Christian Scientist can he sit on his ass and tell people to

just pray it away?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread