Tell me you wouldn’t support waterhosing some hippies? 
Classy.
But try to find us some cites about how states don’t protect gays from discrimination. That’ll make your point, boy howdy.
Gee, I wonder who’s convinced by your hopping up on the cross and claiming that you’ve been called a racist, rather than the fact that you’re utterly unable to identify any actual principles that differentiate your desire to discriminate against women if they dare to violate your religious views with people who would discriminate against “uppity darkies”.
But that’s okay, you’re the victim here Bricker. Not the women who are denied their medicines. It’s you. The victim is you. Because people point out that your rationalizations suck and you haven’t provided even an illusion of a principled stand. You’re the victim.
Lets say there is an independently owned pharmacy that doesn’t have another pharmacy within 100 miles (I don’t think such a place exists but lets just say 'frinstance).
If the owner of the pharmacy suddenly contracted a weird form of religion that didn’t allow him to dispense birth control pills. Should he be forced to carry and dispense the pill?
Under what federal theory would you tell that private citizen that they must carry and sell a product in violation of his conscience without a law saying he must do so.
It’s surely tempting. If I had Ward Churchill in my sights, resisting the temptation to open the valve would be tough indeed.
Again, if you look to the likes of Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests the states that implemented them proclaimed a legitimate interest in doing so. The law applied to all citizens so they could proclaim innocence that the laws had nothing whatsoever to do with race. They could have (don’t know if they did) had laws on the books that proclaimed no one will be denied the right to vote on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age or disability.
You would point to that and proclaim there is no discrimination cuz look! Says so right in the law!
Except of course you would be wrong. Those laws absolutely were discriminatory and have been banned since for that very reason. The states would bashfully bat their eyes and proclaim they don’t know what we’re talking about. It is all very innocent…really! Honest! :rolleyes:
You can cite this law till you are blue in the face but it remains it falls disproportionately (indeed pretty much completely) on a particular segment of our population. A distinct and defined group which is also considered a quasi-suspect class.
I’ll say it. No distance would be so great that I would force a pharmacist to dispense a drug that they could not dispense in good conscience but might if their livelihood depended on it. That is the sort of thing that we liberals (in the ACLU sense) are against.
And at that point, under what authority would you force that pharmacist to carry and dispense a drug that he could not dispense in good conscience.
Then why do they all act like you did.
Poll taxes were eliminated by constitutional amendment. You know – the process by which legislators vote to approve a law?
If state legislators similarly opposed this practice, it too would end.
Your line almost seems as though you imagine some court courageously drew he analogy between poll taxes and lunch counters, as you’ve been urging on readers. But that’s not how it was done. Instead, in keeping with our notions of democracy, our elected officials banned the practice by approving a constitutional amendment.
And the courts are magically unable to reach the same conclusion. What a shame. You, and only you, know The Truth.
Surely you have noticed that comprehension of arguments from their side is… er… not their strongest suit. Rote repetition of racially charged arguments, now – there’s where they shine. But if you leave that comfort zone, they got nuthin.
Seems to me to be equivalent it should be:
Woman in a pharmacy = temporary
Black person at a lunch counter = temporary
Woman = immutable
Black = immutable
Well, states have plenary police authority. So the authority is simply the state’s general sovereign authority.
But woman at a pharmacy buying Lipitor gets served. Woman at pharmacy buying Nasonex gets served.
So the key element is not simply “woman,” is it?
We’ve been through this before.
There are LOTS of laws that have been bad.
Are you suggesting it never happens?
Are you saying you have never seen a law, now or in the past, which you disagreed with and would argue against? Laws that may or may not have been rescinded?
Pretty sure you do not agree with abortion yet a woman’s right to have one is the law of the land. I am pretty sure you have argued Roe v. Wade was decided in error. I am pretty sure you do not just shrug your shoulders and move on figuring it is a done deal.
See above.
So it’s okay for a lunch counter worker to say, “Order what you like, but there is no way a fucking [N-word] can have a slice of my wife’s home-cooked pie!” And he takes the pie out of the display and puts it in the fridge.
As long as they only deny some services it’s okay?
So if the lunch counter consents to giving the black person a cup of coffee it is ok if they otherwise refuse service?
thats government action.
If they are government employees then they cannot preach religion in class. If the teacher is a nun in a catholic school, I think they can teach creationism.
The pharmacist is a private actor, the rules are applied differently to them.
The doctor can do whatever she wants, the patient can do whatever she wants, and so can the pharmacist.
Please don’t paint everyone not on your side with that broad brush. I have avoided the racist stuff and tried to move the debate in other areas. Unfortunately I’m not the most eloquent debater, but even so, I feel your side has really not made a strong case for your position.
I didn’t say it didn’t make it harder. Of course it does. But it doesn’t make it impossible and the government didn’t put those hurdles in place. I don’t have a problem with a state imposing a requirement to dispense birth control, Plan B Latisse or any other drug as a requirement for a license as matter of that state’s public policy . But neither do I have a problem with a state not imposing such a requirement. It appears that you do, and when you magnify the burdens to the extent that a 40 minute walk is an excessive burden, it starts to look like you’re less interested in the prescription being filled and more interested in imposing your morality on the pharmacist or at the very least, ensuring that this mythical woman endures no inconvenience whatsoever. If a 40 minute walk is too much of a burden I can only assume that a 40 minute wait is as well.
Most people probably understood that I am not comparing an abortion to filling a prescription, but rather equating a mandate that a pharmacist fill a morally objectionable ( to the pharmacist) prescription to a mandate that a doctor perform a morally objectionable ( to the doctor) procedure.
He is the funnel through which medical procedures are channeled in our society. If you want those procedures you need to access a doctor. If the only doctors for several states around are shitbag religiously delusional zealots they are inflicting far, far greater a burden on the woman than a single pharmacist not serving her.
See, it works for doctors the same as pharmacists. Or you could substitute “prescriptions for oral contraceptives” for “medical procedures” . Still works, and no one proposes requiring that doctors write the very same prescriptions you want to mandate that the pharmacists fill.
Why should that matter?
People here are claiming you should not be forced to do something against your conscience. Why should the clerk be any different?
I did not say she taught Intelligent Design. I said she refused to teach evolution (even if it is part of the state mandated curriculum).
Pharmacists are licensed by the state and pharmacies are regulated by the state.
Lawyers are private actors too (or can be…certainly some work for the government). Despite that they have a whole pile of laws and ethics that regulate them.