The religious feelings of the clerk took priority over the woman’s being equal to a man and able to determine her own sexual / medical needs. This is what the SCOTUS has created, a place where the Christian religion which views women as inferiors who must submit to the rules of the males, she is basically own by men. It strips women of the rights of life, liberty, and happiness and any equality rights of the constitution. Thomas made a mistake because many think mixed race marriages like his are against their religion. But think on this, in the TYT video I posted a woman was denied the right to birth control her doctor prescribed and a company was losing sales due to the religious beliefs of one woman in the pharmacy that refused to fill or sell the medications the doctor prescribed. Women welcome to the discriminations trans people have experience for years. But what this comes down to is these religious people feel they have a right to push their religion on to other people and the religious person has the right to regulate the personal behavior of the other person. They really feel they have the right to tell you how to have sex, when you can have sex, and also tell you who you can have sex with. Think of that. They feel their religion allows them the right to tell you, to control your sexual activity when they are not even involved. It creates a ruling religious class that all people are required to obey. Will dress standards for modesty becoming next, will religious people be able to tell others that the skin they are showing in public offend their religious moral convictions and require they change or go inside? The US Christian Taliban. Hugs
Photo: ShutterstockA woman named Jessica Pentz has shared her story of an employee of a Walgreens drugstore refusing to sell her a box of condoms. The employee told her that selling condoms was against his religious beliefs.
In response, a Walgreens spokesperson said that its employees are allowed to “step away from completing a transaction to which they have a moral objection.” The company’s policy has troubling implications considering that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon reconsider its decision guaranteeing people’s rights to contraception.
Related: Walgreens sued after a security guard shot a black, gay man for ‘shoplifting’
While vacationing in Wisconsin with her husband, Pentz realized she left her oral contraceptives at home, she told the Star Tribune. So she visited a Walgreens store in the city of Hayward to purchase condoms.
When she arrived at the checkout register, a clerk named John told her, “I can’t sell those to you.” When she asked for clarification, the clerk allegedly replied, “We can sell that to you. But I will not, because of my faith.”
Pentz said, “That’s none of your business.”
The clerk responded, “Well, I’m sorry, this is what my faith demands.”
“You’re not sorry,” Pentz replied.
She said that during their interaction, a line of customers began forming behind her. She then realized she was the only woman in the store. She began wondering if the clerk would’ve refused to sell her the condoms if she were a man.
The clerk called over a manager who signed the clerk out of the register, and the clerk reportedly left the area with a smirk. The manager then proceeded to sell Pentz the condoms.
When Pentz left the store, another customer named Alec Jeffery followed her into the parking lot. He had overheard her conversation with the clerk, had seen the clerk’s smirk, and told Pentz, “It was complete bulls**t, and you handled that way better than I would have.”
Pentz was shocked that a store clerk would refuse to sell her a product carried in their own store. She also felt bad for any younger or less confident person who might experience similar pushback from an unwilling sales clerk.
When asked about the incident, a Walgreens spokesperson said, “Our company policy allows team members to step away from completing a transaction to which they have a moral objection and refer the transaction to a fellow team member or manager who will complete the customer’s request.”
The policy is troubling considering that Walgreens, the second-largest pharmacy chain in the U.S., may serve as the only source for contraceptives in some communities.
The store’s policy is even more alarming considering that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated wish to overturn previous Supreme Court decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that recognized the right to access to contraceptives.
Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn that ruling, it could still issue a “religious freedom” ruling that would empower employees of any business to refuse to sell just about any item to an LGBTQ customer or any other customer under the guise of “religious beliefs,” even if a state bans discrimination in public accommodations.
The previous presidential administration signaled its support to provide legal protections for businesses that refuse to serve customers under “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A future Republican administration could try to reinstate similar rules, threatening the ability of adults to make decisions concerning their own sexual health.
Scottie's Playtime 