What was your position on absurd hypotheticals again?
Or the neighborhood is safe.
Or that it is even walkable.
Or that she does’t have to pick up a child from school.
Or that she doesn’t have to get back to work.
Or that she doesn’t have a bus to catch.
Or that the other place also doesn’t have a delusional pharmacist.
Although I suspect Bricker thinks any of those scenarios is irrelevant.
Add:
Or that the other place may not accept her insurance.
I think you are right. No ones mind is going to be changed. However, I am curious if it wasn’t for the religious/morality angle, would you and the folks on your side be so impassioned about this.
If may unfairly stereotype you and your side, what if a workers union was claiming that workers should be exempt from a certain aspect of their job if they felt it was “wrong”. Say a teacher* felt grading papers and tests damaged children and that as long as they try they should pass, I’m guessing you would be against the union and essentially using the same “they should do their job” arguments. Am I incorrect here?
(I realize this kind of thing has and is going on, but to avoid a side track, just pretend it is a new concept)
Brilliant factual refutation.
Care to explain, finally, why refusing to serve “uppity negroes” at restaurants is not discrimination?
Or is it just refusing pharmacy service to “impure women” that’s cool?
Are you saying MHC are hypothetical? Then perhaps a doctor who refuses to perform vasectomies could be pointed to as one discriminating against men? After all, if a pharmacist, according to FinnAgain, refuses to provide birth control medication to a woman, is discriminating against women, then the opposite must be true. Failure to provide contraceptive services based on a moral objection is really grounds for a discrimination complaint?
My sides are hurting from laug…never mind…
Morgenstern would likely be ok with literacy tests to vote since it applies to all people. Or a poll tax.
Nevermind that those fall particularly hard on a certain class of citizen. It’s ok because technically no one is being discriminated against.
It would be if they only applied it to men.
As it stands it is only applied to women.
That is discrimination.
If you can show it is being even handedly applied to men and women then go for it. Succeed in that and you have shown there is no discrimination.
- It’s a hypothetical until you provide an example of a doctor doing this for non-medical reasons.
- I find it interesting which side finds the discussion of descrimination to be a big joke. I personally think it’s a damn serious matter.
You’ve defeated your class argument all by yourself, by adding a single adjective. I wondered when you’d slip up.
By the way, not a single person in this thread has indicated, in any way, that refusal to serve based on race is acceptable. In fact, I believe every person has expressed that it most certainly isn’t.
You were doing better when you were basing your arguments on fear.
I would agree, IF it was discrimination, which it clearly isn’t.
Ah, another in a series of brilliant factual rebuttals. Now you can’t even point out what adjective is at issue, or how it falsifies the argument. but, well, it’s bad!
Yet again, got any answer for why refusing to serve “bad women” their prescribed medication is cool, but refusing to serve “uppity negroes” their food is something we should stand against?
I’m sure Bricker will be willing to argue that as long as there’s another restaurant 60 miles away, whether or not someone has a car, then it’s okay. And nyeh nyeh you dirty hippies, Jim Crow is the law of the land, how does that shit grab ya?
So you’ll finally explain the errors in your own logic and why refusing to serve women in a pharmacy is okay but refusing to serve blacks in a restaurant is not?
Or no?
Bonus points though for your Absurd Fear Hypothetical! defense, whereby people who point out what the laws actually allow are just crazed with terror.
Well, if what you meant to ask was if pharmacists routinely exercise discretion to not fill a prescription that they should fill, then no I don’t think so.
Don’t really know why thats a fail but then again, perhaps you are 12 years old and use that word more frequently than adults do.
One is racial discrimination. One isn’t. (The restaurant example is the racial discrimination one)… Racial discrimination is the practice of letting a person’s race or skin color unfairly become a factor in the treatment of that person. We together so far? No one believes that racial discrimination is proper in any circumstance.
Now the difference.
Refusing to fill is a moral decision, and it is not directed at a class, it’s directed at specific members of a class who further fall into an even smaller subset of that class as a member seeking medication that a pharmacist feels an objection to providing. A small number of the total class (women) are insignificantly inconvenienced in obtaining their medication. Insignificant inconvenience in this matter is not discrimination. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
See where you blowing logic all to hell here? Pick up the pieces and return to fear. It was more fun.
According to this 10.7 million women use oral contraceptives (“the pill”). Sounds like a considerable number to me.
You have so far dodged how many it is ok to “inconvenience” before it is not ok.
De Facto Segregation is the same as segregation except it is enforced by the law, it is enforced by the clan. The discriminatory intent is still there.
In any event, doesn’t this mean that you should think about reframing your argument from “this is just like segregation at the lunch counter” to “I think this law has a discriminatory effect that I don’t believe is justified by a pharmacist’s right to exercise their conscience”
I guess not.
This dodge has already been addressed when Bricker used it. This does not say why discrimination at restaurants against “uppity negroes” is bad but discrimination against “immoral women” at pharmacies is bad.
You’ve contended that it’s not discrimination to prevent women from getting their medicine if the pharmacist’s morals are offended, and besides the entire class of women isn’t effected.
By that same logic, it’s not discrimination to prevent blacks from getting food if the Christian Identity folks are manning a Cracker Barrel and think that blacks who are “uppity” don’t deserve food, and they have to show proper deference and know their place in order to be served.
You have yet to explain what actual principles you’re using to differentiate the two, besides the fact that blacks =/= women.
“Refusing to serve food based on Christian Identity beliefs is a moral decision, and it is not directed at a class. It’s directed as specific members of that class who further fall into an even smaller subset of that class as members seeking food who don’t show the proper deference and subservience to whites. But that’s totally not discrimination. And, anyways, a small number of blacks are insignificantly inconvenienced by that behavior as there are other restaurants nearby and, besides, even if they don’t have a car and it’s snowing, they can walk 118 miles round trip, no problem.”
Now, you’ve already gotten your bonus points for the Absurd Fear Hypothetical! gambit, you can’t get them again. You get no more extra-points for claiming that what laws actually allow cannot be mentioned, except out of terror.
Do, however, identify a cogent, coherent logical principle at work here that makes discriminating against “uppity” black people wrong but discriminating against “impure” women into something that’s just fine.
Your arguments remind me of a Twister game. You put your foot here, your arm there and try not to look like you’re about to fall. Your doing the same thing with selective and unrelated facts, however, your arguments lack the balance of a good twister player.
But one more time with the unrealistic hope…
CI is a hate group. Their agenda is against public policy. Their agenda is not protected by law. In fact, under the Idaho law, it is specifically disallowed in a CC context. See post 260 for the link.
Is any of this setting in yet?
An other in a long series of excellent factual rebuttals.
Yet again:
Provide a coherent, cogent principle that explains why one is okay and the other isn’t, please.
Or talk more about Twister, I guess.
One more time. With respect to the law…
I’ll quote the provision I referenced a few posts up.
*
(5) The provisions of this section do not allow a health care professional or employer of the health care professional to refuse to provide health care services because of a patient’s race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin.*
As you can see, your CI example is clearly excluded from the protection of the law. Do you see the patient differences between the two now with respect the the applicable law.
One is legal, one isn’t. Is that enough of a difference, or should we also discuss the public policy behind excluding racial discrimination in a CC law?