Eh… can do but it’s a silly necessity.
Morgenstern is obviously complaining because he isn’t afforded an idiosyncratic definition of “deny” that’s unique in the English language and which means that you not only have to be refused once, twice, or 1,000 times, but universally and for the rest of time. His complaint was because he admitted that the pharmacist did in fact deny the request for the prescription, when he said in his own words that the pharmacist refused to fill it. There’s no real confusion over whether “refuse someone’s request” does or doesn’t mean “deny their request”. It’s just difficult for Morgen’s argument to deal with, so he has to claim it’s some sort of dishonesty or “fear” or “absurdity”, or what have you. * Morgen hasn’t even tried to explain how denying someone’s request to fill a prescription really doesn’t count if someone else then accepts it, he’s just maintained that a denial is somehow erased by the alchemy of a future acceptance. * And he hasn’t because he simply can’t. There is no interpretation of the word “deny” in the English language that even beings to approach his gloss. The “rancor” will still be there because Morgen is arguing in the teeth of the facts. From what the law in question actually says to the truly laughable dodge that refusing to fill a prescription isn’t denying it. Morgen’s argument can’t stand on the facts, so he needs to allege “absurd hypotheticals”, “wild claims”, “fear” and now that the definition of “deny” only applies if someone’s request is refused universally and in perpetuity.
And as being hoisted by one’s own petard seems to be an occupational hazard for those who are arguing that this bit of discrimination is acceptable but others are not, Morgen’s same rationalizations would have fit in very well with the Jim Crow south.
Or as Evil-Morgen, the hypothetical evil-twin who’s time traveled back to the bad ol’ days probably would have said:
"Why, you’re just using absurd hypotheticals and fear! Of course blacks can be refused service under the law, but that proves nothing, you fear-crazed hippie. And besides, we clearly saw that the black man in your example went to a lunch counter and requested food, but you lie when you claim he was denied. Obviously, he was not. What actually happened was that the lunch counter attended refused to serve him under any circumstances and told him to get the fuck out before she called the cops, and then the black man walked across town and found a segregated establishment that agreed to serve him. And, at that segregated restaurant, he finally got served. Which proves that of course he wasn’t denied service and only a fearful lying hippie, like you, would dare impugn our noble system of laws by alleging that anybody was actually denied service. "
Evil-Bricker, Morgen’s partner in crime and Bricker’s evil-twin who’s also time-traveling back to the bad ol’ days would probably add:
“And, besides, there was another place he could get lunch that was less than 60 miles away. And who are we to force people to do work that they find abhorrent, like serving black people? Now, true, we might be engaging in discrimination that’s a little bit too broad, I’m as progressive as the next fellow. So, instead, we won’t allow lunch counter discrimination anymore and instead, only pharmacists can choose not to serve black people. And then, only if their personal morals are threatened and they feel that the blacks are overly uppity. That’ll be left up to individual pharmacists and their employers, but it’s vital that we not constrain pharmacists abilities to refuse service to uppity blacks. And besides, your reasoned arguments as to why this is wrong don’t matter, as it’s the law and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippie.”