Ahem:
(emphasis added)
I lived without a car, bud, for quite some time.
To who? To you? Why should I care what’s acceptable to you? Do you think I plan my support for policy decisions based on what’s acceptable to you?
I don’t. I don’t spend one single solitary second caring what’s acceptable to you.
Let me guess. “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need,” right?
Again, your opinion. Again, I couldn’t care less.
I say that we should stick to our traditional principles of personal freedom, and let pharmacists decide what they wish to serve up and what they wish to avoid. Freedom is the cornerstone of our democracy, not slavish adherence to the hive colony mind you espouse.
What a lucky thing the lawmakers of this country are not swayed by your invitations to become a colony of ants.
No, you’re not. Since I have explained many times that I don’t agree this reasoning extends to race, I have no particular reason to believe your claims that you seek to understand my principles. If you did, you would have acknowledged that I agree race is an impermissible factor. Since you deliberately invoke race again, it obvious that your interest is not in any views I actually hold.
How does it feel to know that (with the exception of New Jersey) state lawmakers everywhere have either ignored or explicitly rejected your lame arguments?
You want a one-size-fits-all answer to a question that has a many variables as Campbell’s has soups. It’s a question that has to be asked with respect to a particular situation. This sort of shifts the burden on you to provide the specifics to be examined, much like the WV example that was buried previously.
Not even once. You offered some spurious objections, and when I pointed out that they were spurious, and why, you quickly changed the subject. You know this is true, because I just linked to the post where I debunked your rationalizations, and you couldn’t respond with any actual principles.
Well, of course, I suspect that you don’t have any on this issue beyond not liking abortion and wanting to stick it to those folks who disagree. Which is why you’re still fighting, tooth and nail, against putting forward and actual coherent principle and instead have been using the “It’s the law, suck it pro-choice hippies!” defense and various rationalizations for why discriminating against women is okay but discriminating against blacks is just wrong.
I’m honestly quite curious to see if you even have a principle that you’re using to defend your stance, but it seems increasingly unlikely. Again, these are the logical refutations to your rationalization as to why it’s okay to discriminate against women, but not against blacks at pharmacies.
Nope. You have voiced no such principle. In point of fact, your logic explicitly would allow for blacks to be denied service at pharmacies, and only at pharmacies, if something they did/who they were/etc violated a pharmacists “conscience”. You have remained mum on why this would be wrong for blacks but right for women. Your same rationalizations that you use for discriminating against women at pharmacies only would carry right over to discriminating against blacks at restaurants only.
That you are either unwilling or unable to address this fact goes a long way to showing the substance of your argument.
Deja vu all over again.
It does appear that you are utterly unwilling to put forward your own principles and support the law on its own merits, and instead this thread is all about: “Nyeh nyeh hippies, suck it, we’re discriminating against women who don’t follow our religious views and there aint nuthin you can do about it!”
Prove me wrong. After hundreds of posts in this thread, provide a reasoned response for why the law is a good, just, necessary law (no, not “It’s the law, so, um… it’s the law!”). Explain why allowing discrimination against women at pharmacies is okay but allowing discrimination against blacks at restaurants is not. (no not "Um… because!). Explain why a pharmacist can deny medicine to a woman because she may not have acted in accord with his/her religious views, but someone at a restaurant can not refuse food to a black person because of something they may have done that’s not in accord with his/her religious views.
It’s CLEARLY not discrimination against women. There is no indication that grandma has ever been denied her water pills. There is no proof that a soccer mom has ever been denied her Valium. There is nothing in the facts that shows a teenage girl was denied access to diet medication.
Unless you can show where the entire class is denied all access to medication, your claim that a class is being discriminated against fails.
Point out to me where cites were needed/requested and I failed to provide them.
Mmm hmm. Can you point me to how many men have a uterus, just for the purposes of fighting ignorance? No?
Of course it’s discrimination against women. Please, don’t next use the dodge “Well, it’s only discrimination against some women!”. Refusing to serve only blacks who were ‘uppity’ and had gotten college degrees would, also, be discrimination against blacks.
This is lamer than your claim that if a pharmacist denies someone’s request to fill a prescription then they haven’t actually been denied if there are other pharmacists somewhere who won’t also deny it.
That’ll teach me to respond to your claims as they come rather than reading an entire post to see what next bit of nonsense you’ll include.
Evidently refusing restaurant service to any “uppity” blacks is fine, as it’s not discrimination against a class.
Then I imagine you had no place important to go.
Acceptable to normal people.
Nor should you. But we live in a society, not in the crumbling hellhole Catholic theocracy you long for. In a society we have to come to a consensus about what’s acceptable.
What did I say that was remotely related to that? Is there some reason that you can’t argue rationally, but instead have to accuse me of being a communist?
Good for you.
I have done nothing of the kind. Pharmacist is a job that in our society dispense certain drugs. They are performing a government duty. You are advocating cops who don’t arrest white people or INS agents that ignore non-Mexican immigrants.
You should be against this, but because you share the delusional beliefs of the pharmacists in this case you are turning a blind eye.
I have said nothing of the kind. If you weren’t so worked up because you agree with the asshole pharmacists in this issue you’d realize that.
And what do you think would be a reasonable distance for those who for some reason(no car, can’t drive, disabled, crappy or nonexistent public transportation) have to rely on their rural pharmacy?
I think I’ve said, no fewer than three times in this thread, that refusing service based on race is not, in any way, acceptable. Our society demands equality for all races. It may not always be the case, but it’s definitely the goal. With respect to the issue of discrimination against women, I understand you haven’t read most of the thread, otherwise you’d not be arguing invalid points that have been dispelled, destroyed and buried numerous times.
I’m not going to insult you by posting a legal definition of discrimination, instead, I’m going to make you do the research on your own, and perhaps you’ll learn why your argument is without merit. In the meantime, I’ll quietly laugh every time you manifest your misunderstanding of the particular concept.
Of course you and I are entitled to our opinions.
Given your pro-life stance I doubt there will ever be a restriction on abortions you do not like. You maintain a self-proclaimed dedication to “facts” and reasoning to inform your opinions but in Scalia-like fashion you can pervert and pretzel that reasoning to suit whatever predetermined outcome you like.
Support for CC laws is perverse. Where does it end? What limits are there on them?
-
If a court clerk decided, because of their personal conscience, they do not want to file your case is that ok? Just come back tomorrow and file with a different clerk. That is not too onerus.
-
If a biology teacher decides not to teach evolution is that ok? The teacher’s conscience does not permit them to teach evolution. The kids can find the information on the internet or library.
-
If a pharmacist decides not to provide HIV medication is that ok? Their conscience does not agree with the lifestyle so they will not be a part of providing medication.
-
If a medication for Alzheimers uses stem cells that a pharmacist’s conscience objects to can a pharmacist refuse to provide it to grandma?
You and your ilk cannot get abortions outlawed outright (wouldn’t that be your “will of the people”?). Instead a raft of laws and regulations are attempted to put every possible roadblock in the way of women. This is another piece in that larger picture.
Pharmacists can object to filling a prescription based on training science and facts.
You would have them interfering with the doctor/patient relationship based on personal belief.
You are tossing the rational in favor of the irrational. For someone who has prided himself on being rational that is…odd.
Surely the pharmacist, in her infinite majesty, will deny men as well as women their post-abortion medication for uterine bleeding.
I think this example comes closest because it involves a moral rejection of providing medicine to those who(in the the mind of the pharmcist) are in need of medicine because they supposedly got that way through sinning. Would/should a pharmacist be able to refuse to provide HIV meds?
So 40 minute round-trip.
Hope the weather is nice.
Would you feel better if the pharmacist refused to fill an order for male hormonal contraceptive? Is that discrimination against men?
So maybe you’ll be the one to explain why discriminating against women is okay, but discriminating against blacks is not? Remember, pharmacists can discriminate against ‘impure’ women who may potentially have had abortions, and restaurants can discriminate against ‘uppity’ blacks who may not know their place.
Both fair, right, since an entire class isn’t being discriminated against.
As a tactic this ranks even below your attempts to claim that the law says things it does not, doesn’t say things it does, defines terms it does not… to say nothing of your claims that denying someone medicine isn’t actually denying them medicine or that behavior specifically allowed by a law is an “absurd hypothetical.”
Last time you posted a law and it was proved, again and again and again that you were dead wrong in your claims, you retreated to the same sort of nonsense. It’s okay, you keep telling folks that you can refuse to serve “uppity negroes” at restaurants since that’s not discrimination, and the rest of us will understand that’s still discrimination.
Happy laughing.
Not sure what their objection would be since, if it worked, it would mean no fertilization of an egg so no de facto abortion is possible.
Maybe if they were religiously opposed to people having sex for any reason except procreation but even the Pope does not believe that (I think there are some orthodox religions that might…bit of a reach).
But pretend they did.
If they exclusively applied it to men then yeah. If they refused to fill any contraceptive prescription, whether for men or women, then they are not discriminating.
Akin to if there was a tax on women but not men. That would be discrimination. If the tax applies to all citizens then it is not discrimination.
In the case before us this CC stuff only impacts women near as I can tell. If you know of it impacting men directly I’d like to hear about it.
It appears that you alone are lost in the definition of discrimination. Let me ask you this, IF a pharmacist refuses to fill a MHC prescription, is that discrimination against males? Because according to your logic, refusal to fill a similar medication for women is discrimination against women.
If this is the case, then we now have a pharmacist who discriminates against people.
Kind of shows how absurd your discrimination claim is, doesn’t it?
I believe that is the most likely case to potentially crop up as regards males but I do not see why any of the other examples can’t involve a moral rejection of what the person is being asked to do.
Perhaps a prostitute is filing a case for police brutality. The clerk figures the whore had it coming.
There are certainly teachers out there who reject evolution and favor creationism. They may not be able to teach creationism but why make them teach evolution if it is against their conscience to do so?
Why would those instances be fundamentally different than the topic at hand?
Where does it stop?
I also think a pharmacist may well oppose medicines made from stem cells. If they oppose contraceptives not sure how they’d skip by that one.