Pharmacists and refusals

Great Debates
681

You mean, like when you made factual claims about a statute, they were all shown to be wrong, so then you quoted the Free Online Dictionary as an attempt to supplant what the actual law said? And when it was further explained that the law itself did not actually support your claims, and in fact opposed them, you declared that you simply could no longer support your position, and it was my fault?

Yeah…

Then, of course, there’s also the fact that you routinely claim that the folks proving you wrong are doing so based on “emotion”. Which, which being a pretty shitty ad hom fallacy, does reveal what you’ve got. People responded with reasoned arguments explaining why it’s a bad law and why we should not have it in force, and you response “Scared! Scared! You’re terrified!” People point out what behavior is explicitly allowed under the law and you response “Absurd! Absurd! Absurd hypothetical!!”
And the “will of the people” is a dodge of epic proportions. During Jim Crow it was the will of the people, too. You’re just substituting a bandwagon fallacy for actual reasoning.

So, caught out on the absurdities of claiming that denying someone the option to fill a prescription isn’t denial, and the absurdity of claiming that something a law doesn’t say is something it really meant to say, and something it does say is “absurd hypothetical” of “fear”, and so on… now you’re simply making things up?

Do show, anywhere, that anybody has said it’s discrimination against “all” women.

You’re making this up too. In fact, when called on the fact that it’s discrimination against women, you specifically said you refused to provide any cites or definitions.

This old dodge.
You start with the Fallacy of Equivocation by pretending that the work involved is not being a pharmacist and use it to mean “one task in the work that the person has agreed to do.” Like a teacher getting off the hook from grading papers because we can’t compel them to do work they don’t want to, despite the fact that they wanted to be a teacher.

And then, of course, you’re utterly unable to explain why denying medicine to “impure women” is fine but food to “uppity darkies” is wrong. In fact, even when all your dodges and obfuscation are pointed out ahead of time, you still go through and use them anyways and refuse to actually put forward a position you’re using to justify discrimination against women… and then you fall back on “It’s the law you dirty hippies, suck it!”

That’s pretty clearly the disagreement. You refuse to give an actual consistent rationale that isn’t based on fallacy, as to why discriminating against “uppity negroes” at a lunch counter (but only at lunch counters and nowhere else in society) is bad but discriminating against “impure women” at pharmacy counters (and only at pharmacy counters and nowhere else in society) is good. The dodge that we don’t make people do work they don’t want to do also doesn’t address the issue, as certainly racists don’t want to serve black people.

682

Well here’s something we can clearly differ on. No one has ever been compelled to be a pharmacist. It’s a choice. The pharmacist can go be a landscaper and refuse to mow the lawns of people he doesn’t approve of.

683

Did you ever bother to address the fact that besides Idaho none of the other laws appear to have exceptions for emergency care?

684

It’s true that all morals are subjective.

Still, there are statements that are grounded in morality that nontheless receive wide, near-universal approbation. There is no scientific law that proves an adult male having sex with a prepubescent female is wrong, yet in this historical period in Western civilization, we might count on enough universal agreement for the proposition that “In my opinion…” becomes unncessary.

To frame all moral statements that way, though, is to vilify your opponents’ stance and is not generally supportable.

685

Which means precisely nothing when the discussion is over whether or not a law is just and right. “A bunch of people support it.” is not an answer, it’s a dodge. Oh, and:

What’s funny here is that although you’re parroting Bricker’s dodge, you evidently don’t grok it. His whole point was that, even without a referendum, the laws that our elected officials make are still the “will of the people”. Even if they make a law, it gets overturned and turned into something completely different, both the action and its diametric opposite are still “the will of the people”… and that means, well, something, but anyways all the dirty hippies who were arguing against him should just shut up and suck it because that’s the law.

Ah, Bricker to the rescue.
"It was not universally established during the Civil Rights struggle that blacks deserved equal rights. Therefore it was wrong for CR supporters to provide their positions and then give reasoned explanations why they were right, rather than meekly saying “In our opinion, blacks should have civil rights… if that’s okay with you sir, and you don’t find my beliefs too offensive.”
Plus, they were arguing against The Law and in the teeth of the very Will Of The People, and you’ve gotta back down when faced with that kind of firepower.

686

Is it that when you see an argument you don’t like, your eyes just refuse to process it?

Let mke try a different way of presenting it.

In Jewish law, the rabbis would often craft a law that was intended to place a “fence” around the Torah. The Torah, G-d’s law, prohibits the steeping of the flesh of the calf in the milk of its mother. If one were to strictly parse that law, we can see there’s no problem in eating a cheeseburger, as long as we’re sure the milk that made the cheese didn’t come from the mother of the cow who was the source of the beef. This is mitzvot d’oraita: law from the Torah.

But Jews are forbidden from eating any dairy and meat together. This is because of mitzvot d’rabbanan: law from the rabbis, and a specific category called gezeirah, a law instituted to ensure that the first law is not violated. It’s called a “fence” because it forbids a much wider range of conduct than the actual mitzvot d’oraita does. If we prohibit eating any meat with any dairy, we can be sure that we won’t transgress the rule against eating the flesh of the kid with the milk of its mother (which is, wholly apart from G-d’s command, kind of icky, yes?)

We can consider the lunch counter in the same way. It’s true that someone may claim that the lunch counter discrimination, if limited to lunch counters and uppity negroes, falls into the category of such a tiny incursion that our notions of freedom suggest the racist lunch counter owner’s rights should triumph.

But we regard racial dsicrimination as such a pervasive wrong that we place a fence around the rule, because we recognize that if a lunch counter is permitted, then why not a cafeteria that serves breakfast and dinner? Why not a fast food restaurant? It becomes impossible to draw a line that makes any particular sense, so we rightly accept the limitations on personal freedom that ensue when all racial discrimination of any stripe is banned.

Here, however, the same slippery slope concerns don’t exist. We do not anticipate that allowing pharmacists to discriminate in this way will lead to other, more pervasive discrimination against anyone. It’s a sui generis issue; it ends where it starts, with the pharmacist.

For this reason, we distinguish racial discrimination at a lunch counter from pharmacy discrimination for certain medications.

687

I hope your use of quote marks was not intended to convey to the reader that you were quoting something I said.

If not, then who were you quoting?

In any event, it would have been a foolish civil rights worker that didn’t acknowledge that the law and the weight of public opinion were against him… until they were no longer against him, of course.

But I didn’t remotely suggest anything along the lines of:

Those were your words, with quote marks around them as though they weren’t.

688

No one person has pointed to a single case where an individual was denied emergency medical treatment, or other care, by a provider due to the moral beliefs of that provider pursuant to a CC law. In fact, the discussion has allowed that the most severe result of the CC laws to date have been a minor inconvenience to the patient.

I find it very hard to accept that there are medical professionals practicing their profession who would knowingly allow a person to die and claim something like “It’s okay, the law didn’t provide that I must save that life under those circumstances.” Yet that’s what the side of fear seem to believe in this thread.

689

No, this is the reason why we argue that one might lead to something more far reaching than the other. This is still not a reason why discriminating against “babykiller women” at a pharmacy is right but discriminating against “uppity blacks” at a lunch counter is wrong.

If it makes it easier for you to finally provide an actual principle at work: There is a new Will Of The People law that lets people discriminate against blacks at lunch counters, and only at lunch counters. Even then, they cannot discriminate against all blacks, but only those who don’t show proper deference to white culture and/or whites who are at the lunch counter that day. The law explicitly names limits it to only a few businesses which are allowed to discriminate in such a manner, and those businesses have to apply for and pay for a license. And we make sure that they’re not allowed to discriminate as long as there’s another lunch counter within 59 miles. There, there a good ol’ fence, and it has a hell of a lot more caveats in place than the laws you’re supporting, as it doesn’t just say that any lunch counter can refuse service to “uppity” blacks, therefore allowing the possibility that every lunch counter will do so.

Now what’s the actual principle at work that says it’s wrong in one case and right in another?

Let me guess, yet again what the laws actually say and permit is an “absurd hypothetical” based out of “fear”?

Bingo. Plus added “side of fear”.
It’s interesting when the people using actual facts are the “side of fear” and you have to ignore the actual laws in order to make your case.

690

FinnAgain, I’m very interested in seeing your response to the quotation that was ostensibly from me.

691

As I’ve provided no quotes that were “ostensibly” from you, and have used quote boxes every time I’ve responded to your direct quotes, I’m going to have to simply reiterate a point that you’ve tried to change the subject from:

692

The principle of due process says that law is wrong, because it has no rational basis. What principle might we imagine to motivate the legislature to single out lunch counters in this way?

This principle is also basic to our notions of self-government: the legislature expresses the will of the people, yes, but its laws must pass basic principles of fairness. In our example, again, the pharmacy is sui generis. But there’s no principled distinction (that I’m aware of, anyway) between a lunch counter and a cafeteria that serves meals around the clock. So the limitations placed by your hypothetical law don’t pass the rational basis test.

Let me guess, yet again what the laws actually say and permit is an “absurd hypothetical” based out of “fear”?

Bingo. Plus added “side of fear”.
It’s interesting when the people using actual facts are the “side of fear” and you have to ignore the actual laws in order to make your case.
[/QUOTE]

693

My mistake, I was referring to this comment:

It’s a long thread and hard to keep track.

694

Yes, you did:

Whose words appear inside the quotes? You say, “Ah, Bricker to the rescue.” And then immediately followed with a quoted passage that suggests my rescue was via saying those words – which, of course, I did not.

695

Very true.

OK – just we’re clear, my one personal objection to the current state of the law is the right to refuse service should belong to the employer, not the employee. The employer’s business is the one that takes a hit when the employee refuses; he should be the one making the decision about refusing. I would allow an owner to fire a refusing pharmacist in almost all circumstances.

696

You haven’t used actual facts, you’ve used a few imagined fears as facts, connected them with wavy lines and opined that dark and dangerous days await women in CC states.
You’ve been asked to present facts showing that any of your previously imagined fears have occurred. You apparently couldn’t find any.

697

Of course I am arguing from a position that I am correct. Why would I argue from a position where I thought I was wrong?

We engage in debate here. If you can persuade me to your way of thinking then great. In this case though your approach has been to take pot shots at me. You are welcome to but it won’t convince me of anything except an indication of your character.

I must’ve missed the part where you granted this to me or others in this thread.

698

There’s as much rational basis for denying food to blacks you don’t like as there is for denying medicines to women you don’t like. But okay.

If it helps you to finally indicate what principle as at work that would make one law good and the other bad, imagine that it’s your standard response to reasoned criticisms of a law so far in this thread, namely that, well, it’s the law already.
If that doesn’t do it for you, figure that the people who made the law legalizing people to refuse service to blacks at lunch counters, and only at lunch counters, and only when there isn’t another one within 59 miles, and only certain blacks who don’t show proper deference to whites… made that law because they feel about blacks who are “uppity” a similar way others feel about women who have abortions.

Fine, in order to get you to finally identify the actual guiding principle at work, “lunch counter” is defined (funny, you were fine with things not being defined when it was the “care and treatment” being given to a woman potentially bleeding to death), the specific lunch counters that the laws apply to must be mentioned by name, address, and owner in the text of the law itself, and changing the law to involve any other lunch counters involves a 3/4 majority vote to amend.
Then again, even then, your objection is somewhat odd as you’re okay with absolutely all pharmacies (subject to owner approval) being allowed to discriminate against women who may have had abortions, so you really should have no problem with a law that would state that “lunch counter is defined as any establishment that serves food between the hours of 10:00 am and 2:00pm, and for the purposes of this law it will only count as a lunch counter during those hours.”

Nope, I didn’t.
If you honestly don’t understand parody and think I provided false quotes of yours, report me to the mods.

Speaking of you making things up, found that quote yet for how Mole or I ever said that this was discrimination against “all” women?
No?

And no, I didn’t use imagined fears. I pointed out what the laws actually say. You were shown to be dead wrong, and yet strangely you refuse to even slightly modify, let alone retract your claims. more to the point, you keep claiming that what the laws actually say and what it actually allows can only be determined out of “fear”. When that’s pointed out, you go for your traditional dodge that what the law says and what it allows doesn’t count unless there are also previous cases, that made the news, that we can cite.

Evidently the facts of what a law says and what it allows aren’t “facts” in your book, because you’re too busy claiming that reality has a well known anti-bullshit bias and that’s just “fear”.

699

Are you denying you (and Whack-a-mole) said it was discrimination against women?

700

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.