254
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
254 points (99.6% liked)
politics
31042 readers
191 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
private citizens never faced punishment for not recognizing same-sex marriages in their private lives. they want private citizens to be able to enforce their opinions in the public square. Like that idiot pharmacist wanting to not fulfill birth control orders. eff them all.
Nothing stops that pharmacist from doing that though, its a company policy that would allow or prevent it.
If the company policy is they can't refuse then they can refuse and lose their job.
For a small owner run business it could be different though like we wont make you a wedding cake.
I very much doubt this. there are a lot of regulations in that industry and you can't have pharmacists or pharmacies just willy nilly deciding to not fill prescriptions.
The pharmacy no, the pharmacists absolutely, they'll just lose their job.
This bill is about the individual, so it doesn't really change anything in this example.
that seems reveresed but even then I have doubt. pharmacies should have plenty of regulation and pharmacist is one of those jobs where you have to be licensed. It kinda sounds like at the end you are agreeing with my statement though that private citizens have never been blocked from doing things in their private lives.
Yes, I was saying that they can and still do what they want, but can/will still face punishment if they decide to do it because individuality has no place in a company setting. Its the company rules that will dictate if they can or can't do something, and those company rules may also be dictated by laws.
That pharmacist would (should) have faced punishment because it was at work.
ah I see what you mean now. your saying the law won't protect them in that setting. maybe. republicans are pretty good at double standards in the way they do things.