# Pharmacists and refusals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713 "2011-04-08T20:18:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/701 "2011-04-15T18:13:54Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Are you denying you (and Whack-a-mole) said it was discrimination against women? How can you deny it isn’t? I mentioned this before: A law, even if not explicitly targeted at a group, can be deemed to discriminate against a group. This is why literacy tests and poll taxes, despite applying to _everyone_, were deemed discriminatory. _Nowhere_ in those laws did they mention it applying to only one group. This law affects only women that I have seen. If you care to point out where men are being denied service under the same law I (again) invite you to do so. If the law has the effect to ONLY inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. It does not matter that, in theory, it applies to everyone. It does not matter that the intent can be “claimed” to be non-discriminatory (see poll taxes and literacy tests as an example). ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/702 "2011-04-15T18:16:45Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I notice you’ve excluded an interesting word there. I wonder why. > Of course, as is par for the course, not only are your claims factually incorrect, you’re ignoring previous refutation. You stated it was discrimination against women. Women constitute the _entirety_ of the class _women_. Therefore, when you said it discriminated against women, you were referencing the entire class women, or _ALL_ women. If you intended on saying it discriminated against “some” women, I assume you would have been able to express it in those or similar terms. Once again, the error is on your part. Or are you saying you never said it was discriminatory towards women. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/703 "2011-04-15T18:18:52Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You stated it was discrimination against women. Women constitute the _entirety_ of the class _women_. Therefore, when you said it discriminated against women, you were referencing the entire class women, or _ALL_ women. If you intended on saying it discriminated against “some” women, I assume you would have been able to express it in those or similar terms. > > Once again, the error is on your part. Or are you saying you never said it was discriminatory towards women. Poll taxes were deemed discriminatory to minorities. Literacy tests for voting were deemed discriminatory to minorities. Of course among minorities there were plenty who could afford to pay the poll tax and plenty who could read. You are being pedantic. Indeed this could lay greater claim to being discriminatory to all women since any woman may run afoul of it. At least a minority who can read will always be able to do so or if they can’t they could learn. There is no way a woman can get around this short of never needing contraceptives (which are prescribed for medical reasons in addition to birth control so any woman may require them). ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/704 "2011-04-15T18:29:00Z")
This thread is full of cites and rational as to why your discrimination argument fails. You’ve refused to accept those citations, or grasp the rational presented proving your point invalid merely because you don’t agree with it. That’s your right. However, it changes nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/705 "2011-04-15T18:29:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I must’ve missed the part where you granted this to me or others in this thread. Yes, you must have. Here are some posts where I have granted that you and others were acting from a reasonable position: > [@Bricker](#): > > I claim simply that this case does not present a question of objective justice, simply a question of which is the wisest social policy. > [@Bricker](#): > > There are plenty of stroing arguments to be made for keeping that law in place, and plenty of strong arguments for changing it. Neither side may claim, objectively, that its proposed social policy is the right one. > [@Bricker](#): > > Great! Well, there’s certainly no legal problem with a state deciding that pharmacists must serve the public good by accepting all comers. If the people of some state find that desirable, they can certainly enact it. New Jersey has, in fact. > [@Bricker](#): > > I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that this is your opinion, and I appreciate the fact that you’re doing something else our system permits and values: arguing that the rules should be changed. > > But don’t you think we’ve reached an “agree to disagree” moment here? You’ve highlighted the key disagreement: when balancing the pharmacist’s refusal against the customer’s desire to use that store, and not another, you’d resolve the dispute in favor of the customer, and I in favor of the pharmacist. > > In New Jersey, the legislature agrees your argument is the best. In other states, my argument has convinced the lawmakers. > > It’s as simple as that. See what I mean? I have consistently acknowledged that your view is not unreasonable. I don’t share it, but I don’t say it’s unreasonable to hold. You, in turn, don’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/706 "2011-04-15T18:35:26Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > This thread is full of cites and rational as to why your discrimination argument fails. You’ve refused to accept those citations, or grasp the rational presented proving your point invalid merely because you don’t agree with it. That’s your right. However, it changes nothing. So basically you got nothing. \*“A law, even if not explicitly targeted at a group, can be deemed to discriminate against a group.” \* Is that true or not true? _“This is why literacy tests and poll taxes, despite applying to everyone, were deemed discriminatory. Nowhere in those laws did they mention it applying to only one group.”_ Is that true or not true? _“This law affects only women that I have seen. If you care to point out where men are being denied service under the same law I (again) invite you to do so.”_ Is that true or not true? If not true did I miss where you pointed to examples of it affecting men? _“If the law has the effect to ONLY inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. It does not matter that, in theory, it applies to everyone. It does not matter that the intent can be “claimed” to be non-discriminatory (see poll taxes and literacy tests as an example).”_ Is that true or not true? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/707 "2011-04-15T18:40:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How can you deny it isn’t? > > I mentioned this before: > > A law, even if not explicitly targeted at a group, can be deemed to discriminate against a group. > > This is why literacy tests and poll taxes, despite applying to _everyone_, were deemed discriminatory. _Nowhere_ in those laws did they mention it applying to only one group. Again you say that poll taxes were “deemed” discriminatory. Could you explain, please, who “deemed” them discriminatory? > [@](#): > > This law affects only women that I have seen. If you care to point out where men are being denied service under the same law I (again) invite you to do so. > > If the law has the effect to ONLY inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. It does not matter that, in theory, it applies to everyone. It does not matter that the intent can be “claimed” to be non-discriminatory (see poll taxes and literacy tests as an example). This is a legal claim. You’re not trying to say what the law should be, here, are you? You’re laying out the specific claim that this is how the law works: that if the law has the effect to only inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. Or am I misreading you? Are you simply saying that this is how the law SHOULD work? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/708 "2011-04-15T18:53:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So basically you got nothing. > > \*“A law, even if not explicitly targeted at a group, can be deemed to discriminate against a group.” > \* > Is that true or not true? > > _“This is why literacy tests and poll taxes, despite applying to everyone, were deemed discriminatory. Nowhere in those laws did they mention it applying to only one group.”_ > > Is that true or not true? > > _“This law affects only women that I have seen. If you care to point out where men are being denied service under the same law I (again) invite you to do so.”_ > > Is that true or not true? If not true did I miss where you pointed to examples of it affecting men? > > _“If the law has the effect to ONLY inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. It does not matter that, in theory, it applies to everyone. It does not matter that the intent can be “claimed” to be non-discriminatory (see poll taxes and literacy tests as an example).”_ > > Is that true or not true? We’ve already spend 3+ pages burying your invalid discrimination argument. You refused to accept the facts and the citations that have been presented. I assume you’re going to continue to refuse to accept the facts and citations. That’s your right. I don’t see the need to revisit that discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/709 "2011-04-15T18:56:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again you say that poll taxes were “deemed” discriminatory. > > Could you explain, please, who “deemed” them discriminatory? Are you kidding? Who didn’t? Will the US Supreme Court suffice? (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax. 4 Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing **voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate**. > > SOURCE: [HARPER v. VIRGINIA BD. OF ELECTIONS, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=663) > [@](#): > > This is a legal claim. You’re not trying to say what the law should be, here, are you? You’re laying out the specific claim that this is how the law works: that if the law has the effect to only inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. See the court’s analysis above. The law in question made no reference to a particular group. It applied to all people. The court ruled it was discriminatory even so. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/710 "2011-04-15T19:01:32Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > We’ve already spend 3+ pages burying your invalid discrimination argument. You refused to accept the facts and the citations that have been presented. I assume you’re going to continue to refuse to accept the facts and citations. That’s your right. I don’t see the need to revisit that discussion. Four true/false questions and you can’t be arsed. So basically you got nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/711 "2011-04-15T19:01:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, you must have. Here are some posts where I have granted that you and others were acting from a reasonable position: > . > . > . > See what I mean? I have consistently acknowledged that your view is not unreasonable. I don’t share it, but I don’t say it’s unreasonable to hold. > > You, in turn, don’t do that. Did you miss this post, **Whack-a-Mole**? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/712 "2011-04-15T19:03:01Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You stated it was discrimination against women. So you’re admitting you simply made up a claim that anybody stated it was discrimination against “all” women. Thank you. Likewise you’re admitting you simply ignored a factual refutation that pointed out that even if you’re only discriminating against blacks who “don’t know their place”, you’re still discriminating against blacks. Thank you. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > If you intended on saying it discriminated against “some” women, I assume you would have been able to express it in those or similar terms. You mean, like when [I did exactly that, and pointed out your mistake in the post you’re responding to now](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13691827&postcount=700), which you’re deliberately ignoring in order to repeat a false claim? Don’t worry, you can apologize for that odd error, too. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Once again, the error is on your part. That’s funny, given the facts above. Even funnier that you then respond with the same fallacy that if something is discrimination against women, it must be discrimination against absolutely all women. Restrict service for “uppity negroes”, not racism in Morgenstern’s book. The Virtue Police beating women and forcing them back into a raging inferno if they’re not properly covered up? Not discrimination against women since, after all, all they had to do was put on a veil and the veiled women weren’t beaten anyways. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/713 "2011-04-15T19:12:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Are you kidding? Who didn’t? > > Will the US Supreme Court suffice? (bolding mine) Yes. The US Supreme Court’s ruling came in 1966. (And look at that! You’re citing the actual law. I may faint.) But since the states ratified the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964, I was kinda hoping you’d focus on that move, since it was the action of legislators, not judges. But you’re right. The 24th amendment reached federal elections only, and _Harper_ covered all elections, so your point is absolutely correct. > [@](#): > > The law in question made no reference to a particular group. It applied to all people. The court ruled it was discriminatory even so. That’s true. But _Harper_ wasn’t the last word on the subject. The Court also analyzed a law that affected everyone, and upheld it. I’m talking of course about _Crawford v. Marion County_, where the court upheld a law that requires voters to have a photo ID to vote, even though the argument was made that voters without a birth certificate would have to travel, and pay money, to get replacement documents. In deciding _Crawford_, the Court discussed _Harper_ at length: > [@](#): > > Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. But despite that heavier burden, the Court upheld the law. How does that square with your idea that if the law has the effect to only inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group? I mean, here we obviously have a law that has the effect of only inconveniencing one group, right? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/714 "2011-04-15T19:27:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did you miss this post, **Whack-a-Mole**? Nope. Just too busy to write the response I want. Short responses I am capable of currently but probably will not be able to address that till I get home. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/715 "2011-04-15T19:29:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does that square with your idea that if the law has the effect to only inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group? I mean, here we obviously have a law that has the effect of only inconveniencing one group, right? It tells me you agree the CC law is discriminatory (so thanks) and are now debating how much discrimination is acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/716 "2011-04-15T19:33:06Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So you’re admitting you simply made up a claim that anybody stated it was discrimination against “all” women. Thank you. > Likewise you’re admitting you simply ignored a factual refutation that pointed out that even if you’re only discriminating against blacks who “don’t know their place”, you’re still discriminating against blacks. Thank you. > > You mean, like when [I did exactly that, and pointed out your mistake in the post you’re responding to now](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13691827&postcount=700), which you’re deliberately ignoring in order to repeat a false claim? > Don’t worry, you can apologize for that odd error, too. > > That’s funny, given the facts above. > Even funnier that you then respond with the same fallacy that if something is discrimines against women, it must be discrimination against absolutely all women. Restrict service for “uppity negroes”, not racism in Morgenstern’s book. The Virtue Police beating women and forcing them back into a raging inferno if they’re not properly covered up? Not discrimination against women since, after all, all they had to do was put on a veil and the veiled women weren’t beaten anyways. This shouldn’t be rocket science so I’ll try it again here. You stated it discriminated against women. _Women_ is a class. It comprises all members of the human race who are not _men_. The entirety of the class _women_ are, by whatever definition, … women. You did not exclude any women from your claim that it discriminated against women. Therefore. If we give your statement fair meaning, you have said it discriminates against women. You excluded no one from the group women, which by the way, might have given your argument a little validity that it lacked as presented. So yes, your statement that something discriminates against women is inclusive of **all** members of the class\* women\* Now why not go ahead and state that the men’s room in Dodger stadium discriminated against women. Clearly the men’s room has urinals and the woman’s room does not. The women are forced to walk a little further to another facility where they can sit comfortably while pissing. It’s inconvenient and it applies to all women. I wonder what would happen in an emergency where there wasn’t time for the extra steps? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/717 "2011-04-15T19:59:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It tells me you agree the CC law is discriminatory (so thanks) and are now debating how much discrimination is acceptable. The word “discriminatory” has both a general meaning and a more focused meaning. If I prefer chocolate over strawberry, I may discriminate against strawberry ice cream. Any law is “discriminatory” if it favors something over something else. A law against jaywalking is discriminatory against those who don’t cross the streets in crosswalks. So if you mean that sense of “discriminatory,” then of course I agree. The CC law discriminates in favor of pharmacists and against some pharmacy patients. But the word is also used as a descriptive term to describe a law that _impermissibly_ creates classifications. If you intended that meaning, then I don’t agree. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/718 "2011-04-15T20:05:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So if you mean that sense of “discriminatory,” then of course I agree. The CC law discriminates in favor of pharmacists and against some pharmacy patients. “Some pharmacy patients” who always happen to be female. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/719 "2011-04-15T20:14:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > “Some pharmacy patients” who always happen to be female. So, you’ve abandoned your “discriminates against a women” misstatement. We’re making progress. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/720 "2011-04-15T20:19:59Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > So, you’ve abandoned your “discriminates against a women” misstatement. We’re making progress. Eh? What is this nitpick you are on? I have already answered this in post #703: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Poll taxes were deemed discriminatory to minorities. > > Literacy tests for voting were deemed discriminatory to minorities. > > Of course among minorities there were plenty who could afford to pay the poll tax and plenty who could read. > > You are being pedantic. > > Indeed this could lay greater claim to being discriminatory to all women since any woman may run afoul of it. At least a minority who can read will always be able to do so or if they can’t they could learn. There is no way a woman can get around this short of never needing contraceptives (which are prescribed for medical reasons in addition to birth control so any woman may require them). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=37)