Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2016, 05:57 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(19-11-2016 02:24 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Drugstore owners never agreed to follow the rules you are wanting to force on them. Why should they be expected to follow them? Alright then, lets say you don't care about what I would call fairness and disregard that point. Let's take your unicorn example of some poor destitute girl who can only access one drugstore, and it so happens the one accessible drugstore won't provide birth control pills...then you ultimately, through government force, tell the drugstore owner they can either surrender their freedom or provide her the drugs. The owner, not wanting to disobey god, decides to shut down the business. Well shit, now think of all those other unicorns living in the town! They can't get medicine they need to stay alive! What kind of monster are you for killing all of those innocent little old ladies!

I say the store owner can begin using god an excuse the moment that god shows up to testify about his own rules in a court of law. In the flesh.




Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
19-11-2016, 09:29 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2016 10:32 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(19-11-2016 06:09 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I included people like my grandparents to highlight that your stats probably lead you to believe that 7% if Americans cannot get to a pharmacy where they can get their prescriptions, and that is not even close to true. The fact that you recognize people like my grandparents were able to drive where they needed proves my point exactly.

Your last sentence shows exactly how we see this "problem". I'd consider it unethical and morally reprehensible to force someone to stock and sell things that was against their beliefs. Put yourself in their shoes for one second - You want the government to force people to disobey an all-knowing, all powerful, all perfect, creator of everything. You just don't see it that way because you don't believe what they do. If I believed that, I would disobey the government long before my god. When no one intervenes no one is forced to do anything against their will.

So?

What you are saying is that people with imaginary friends get to disobey the laws they want.

That is frighteningly stupid.


[EDIT]

Let me expand upon my point. What if the person with the prescription is part of a religion that is very pro-bodily autonomy? You know, like Satanism. Now you have two different imaginary friends at opposite end of the spectrum. How can the law then respect the right of the pharmacist to cry 'religious freedom' without also respecting the 'religious freedom' of the Satanist? Or the atheist, considering that for the purpose of protection under the law, a lack of faith is considered a 'religion' for the purpose of First Amendment protections. So now we either need the Courts to step in and start deciding who does and does not have 'legitimate' religious beliefs, which is a Pandora's Box worth of trouble. Or we don't give either side special exemption, and make the pharmacy perform it's function; providing legal medications for lawfully obtained prescriptions.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 03:09 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(19-11-2016 02:34 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 01:37 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I want Christians to be able to discriminate against me, and I want to have the right to discriminate against them. Why in the hell would you want to force someone to profit from you who actually hates you for being different?

The problem is the way that bill is written, you won't be able to discriminate against them. You'll have no recourse. And they can sue the government to preserve their religious belief.

If you want to enter a drug program they can legally refuse you. Ditto homeless shelters can refuse. Both can affect atheists if they're forced to sign something that affirms the belief of god. Some drug programs that recieve federal funding already have those forms printed out, they just can't use them until the law goes into effect. Right now if they accept federal money they can't do that.

If you're not married and have children they can legally bar you from public housing. Again, you've got no recourse, because they've taken away your protections.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-mar...a-steroids

I'm not arguing in favor of the bill, because I haven't read it. I'm arguing against the points that people are making to me. If what you say is accurate, of course I oppose it. I even went out of my way to specifically mention in one of my posts that it had to be private businesses with no support in any shape of form from the government (I'd go further to include state, county, city, or other local government support). It's a double-edged sword. In my view that would be supporting a particular religion, and the government should not support an religion. That would also mean no more tax breaks for churches, synagogues, mosques, etc under the the dictatorship of Dark Light.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
20-11-2016, 03:23 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(19-11-2016 09:29 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 06:09 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I included people like my grandparents to highlight that your stats probably lead you to believe that 7% if Americans cannot get to a pharmacy where they can get their prescriptions, and that is not even close to true. The fact that you recognize people like my grandparents were able to drive where they needed proves my point exactly.

Your last sentence shows exactly how we see this "problem". I'd consider it unethical and morally reprehensible to force someone to stock and sell things that was against their beliefs. Put yourself in their shoes for one second - You want the government to force people to disobey an all-knowing, all powerful, all perfect, creator of everything. You just don't see it that way because you don't believe what they do. If I believed that, I would disobey the government long before my god. When no one intervenes no one is forced to do anything against their will.

So?

What you are saying is that people with imaginary friends get to disobey the laws they want.

That is frighteningly stupid.


[EDIT]

Let me expand upon my point. What if the person with the prescription is part of a religion that is very pro-bodily autonomy? You know, like Satanism. Now you have two different imaginary friends at opposite end of the spectrum. How can the law then respect the right of the pharmacist to cry 'religious freedom' without also respecting the 'religious freedom' of the Satanist? Or the atheist, considering that for the purpose of protection under the law, a lack of faith is considered a 'religion' for the purpose of First Amendment protections. So now we either need the Courts to step in and start deciding who does and does not have 'legitimate' religious beliefs, which is a Pandora's Box worth of trouble. Or we don't give either side special exemption, and make the pharmacy perform it's function; providing legal medications for lawfully obtained prescriptions.

I don't think you understand my position at all, nor do I think you understand bodily autonomy, which in no way is incompatible with what I suggested either.

I'm saying, the drugstore owner has the right to carry and distribute whatever products he or she wishes and cannot be forced to carry products that they don't want. Forcing them to do otherwise would be unethical. This has nothing to do with the customers rights, because people don't have a right to your service. They have a right to speak freely, they have a right to privacy, they have a right to not be searched without due cause, etc, but a right to a service from a private business is not covered, nor should it be. Ultimately what you are telling someone is, you sell people what I tell you, or you go to jail. We the people have decided to take away your freedom because you won't violate what you see as a directive from god. That's evil.

As for bodily autonomy, that simply means that you own your body and no one can make you do anything you don't want to do with it. No one can take an organ you don't want to surrender, no one can force you to ingest things you don't want, no one can prevent you from cutting your fingers off - it's your body. Bodily autonomy does not give people the right to demand that other people give them things they have so that they can then do things to their own body with it. That's just silly

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 04:07 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(20-11-2016 03:23 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 09:29 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So?

What you are saying is that people with imaginary friends get to disobey the laws they want.

That is frighteningly stupid.


[EDIT]

Let me expand upon my point. What if the person with the prescription is part of a religion that is very pro-bodily autonomy? You know, like Satanism. Now you have two different imaginary friends at opposite end of the spectrum. How can the law then respect the right of the pharmacist to cry 'religious freedom' without also respecting the 'religious freedom' of the Satanist? Or the atheist, considering that for the purpose of protection under the law, a lack of faith is considered a 'religion' for the purpose of First Amendment protections. So now we either need the Courts to step in and start deciding who does and does not have 'legitimate' religious beliefs, which is a Pandora's Box worth of trouble. Or we don't give either side special exemption, and make the pharmacy perform it's function; providing legal medications for lawfully obtained prescriptions.

I don't think you understand my position at all, nor do I think you understand bodily autonomy, which in no way is incompatible with what I suggested either.

I'm saying, the drugstore owner has the right to carry and distribute whatever products he or she wishes and cannot be forced to carry products that they don't want. Forcing them to do otherwise would be unethical. This has nothing to do with the customers rights, because people don't have a right to your service. They have a right to speak freely, they have a right to privacy, they have a right to not be searched without due cause, etc, but a right to a service from a private business is not covered, nor should it be. Ultimately what you are telling someone is, you sell people what I tell you, or you go to jail. We the people have decided to take away your freedom because you won't violate what you see as a directive from god. That's evil.

As for bodily autonomy, that simply means that you own your body and no one can make you do anything you don't want to do with it. No one can take an organ you don't want to surrender, no one can force you to ingest things you don't want, no one can prevent you from cutting your fingers off - it's your body. Bodily autonomy does not give people the right to demand that other people give them things they have so that they can then do things to their own body with it. That's just silly

That would be great, provided nothing they sell is multipurpose. If they sell a drug used for reason X and reason Y, but they morally object to use Y, they have no business denying it to you. Whether or not you will use it for X or Y is none of their business, and if they stock it at all, it's none of their business what you use it for.

Just saying that if any small pharmacy objects to providing any medication that can possibly be used as birth control, they better not be selling any metal clothing hangers either.


Still, I don't like the 'pro-discrimination' argument. I'm fairly certain that we'd already hashed this out before, and concluded that 'whites only' and 'separate but equal' was not an acceptable solution. Just look at the problems being caused by the Catholic church buying up hospitals. People's medical decisions are being dictated by cardinals, not doctors. The last thing anybody wants is being taken to a Jehovah's Witness operated hospital for an emergency, and then being shit out of luck when you need a blood transfusion that they morally object to.

[EDIT]

Plus, it's not like demanding a right to Coke when all the store has is Pepsi. When a doctor fills out a subscription, it's taken on good faith that it is being taken in the best interest of the patient. It's not a matter of not having it on the shelves, because if they don't have it now, they can still get it; every pharmacy worthy of the title will have access to a distributor that will have it or be able to get it. A pharmacy that refuses to honor that subscription is using their religion as a basis for discrimination, and I don't think that can fly when you are serving the public. That pharmacy is using public water, public roads, and relies upon local police and firemen in case of emergencies. We all contribute to those public works and services, and with that we all expect a certain level of accommodation by any business making use of them and open to the public. If you want to be a business open to the public, then part of that social contract are the non-discrimination polices that come with it. If you cannot remove yourself enough form the picture so that you cannot square your public business dealings with your god? You shouldn't be in that business, full stop. In the same way that a Jewish deli shouldn't be allowed to refuse the law abiding patronage of those of Palestinian descent. A pharmacy that refuses to honor a subscription for birth control is effectively hanging a 'Catholics Only' sign out in it's window. I don't think that is right or acceptable.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 04:27 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(20-11-2016 03:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 03:23 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I don't think you understand my position at all, nor do I think you understand bodily autonomy, which in no way is incompatible with what I suggested either.

I'm saying, the drugstore owner has the right to carry and distribute whatever products he or she wishes and cannot be forced to carry products that they don't want. Forcing them to do otherwise would be unethical. This has nothing to do with the customers rights, because people don't have a right to your service. They have a right to speak freely, they have a right to privacy, they have a right to not be searched without due cause, etc, but a right to a service from a private business is not covered, nor should it be. Ultimately what you are telling someone is, you sell people what I tell you, or you go to jail. We the people have decided to take away your freedom because you won't violate what you see as a directive from god. That's evil.

As for bodily autonomy, that simply means that you own your body and no one can make you do anything you don't want to do with it. No one can take an organ you don't want to surrender, no one can force you to ingest things you don't want, no one can prevent you from cutting your fingers off - it's your body. Bodily autonomy does not give people the right to demand that other people give them things they have so that they can then do things to their own body with it. That's just silly

That would be great, provided nothing they sell is multipurpose. If they sell a drug used for reason X and reason Y, but they morally object to use Y, they have no business denying it to you. Whether or not you will use it for X or Y is none of their business, and if they stock it at all, it's none of their business what you use it for.

Just saying that if any small pharmacy objects to providing any medication that can possibly be used as birth control, they better not be selling any metal clothing hangers either.


Still, I don't like the 'pro-discrimination' argument. I'm fairly certain that we'd already hashed this out before, and concluded that 'whites only' and 'separate but equal' was not an acceptable solution. Just look at the problems being caused by the Catholic church buying up hospitals. People's medical decisions are being dictated by cardinals, not doctors. The last thing anybody wants is being taken to a Jehovah's Witness operated hospital for an emergency, and then being shit out of luck when you need a blood transfusion that they morally object to.

[EDIT]

Plus, it's not like demanding a right to Coke when all the store has is Pepsi. When a doctor fills out a subscription, it's taken on good faith that it is being taken in the best interest of the patient. It's not a matter of not having it on the shelves, because if they don't have it now, they can still get it; every pharmacy worthy of the title will have access to a distributor that will have it or be able to get it. A pharmacy that refuses to honor that subscription is using their religion as a basis for discrimination, and I don't think that can fly when you are serving the public. That pharmacy is using public water, public roads, and relies upon local police and firemen in case of emergencies. We all contribute to those public works and services, and with that we all expect a certain level of accommodation by any business making use of them and open to the public. If you want to be a business open to the public, then part of that social contract are the non-discrimination polices that come with it. If you cannot remove yourself enough form the picture so that you cannot square your public business dealings with your god? You shouldn't be in that business, full stop. In the same way that a Jewish deli shouldn't be allowed to refuse the law abiding patronage of those of Palestinian descent. A pharmacy that refuses to honor a subscription for birth control is effectively hanging a 'Catholics Only' sign out in it's window. I don't think that is right or acceptable.

What is boils down to is I believe people should have a fundamental right to do what they want so long as they aren't harming anyone, or restricting someone else's freedom to do as they please. You believe the government has the moral high-ground and can therefore force people to do things that that think is immoral personally. That's it. I don't see the point in each of us regurgitating the same points over and over. We just disagree.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 04:35 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(20-11-2016 04:27 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  What is boils down to is I believe people should have a fundamental right to do what they want so long as they aren't harming anyone, or restricting someone else's freedom to do as they please. You believe the government has the moral high-ground and can therefore force people to do things that that think is immoral personally. That's it. I don't see the point in each of us regurgitating the same points over and over. We just disagree.

I agree with your sentiment, however I think that opening a public business entails certain obligations. You are no longer just a private citizen, you are now a business owner; and in doing so, you voluntarily subject yourself to certain regulations (among them, nondiscrimination policies). Nobody forces a private citizen to take on the mantle of business owner. That is an important distinction that I think you gloss over.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 05:01 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(20-11-2016 04:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 04:27 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  What is boils down to is I believe people should have a fundamental right to do what they want so long as they aren't harming anyone, or restricting someone else's freedom to do as they please. You believe the government has the moral high-ground and can therefore force people to do things that that think is immoral personally. That's it. I don't see the point in each of us regurgitating the same points over and over. We just disagree.

I agree with your sentiment, however I think that opening a public business entails certain obligations. You are no longer just a private citizen, you are now a business owner; and in doing so, you voluntarily subject yourself to certain regulations (among them, nondiscrimination policies). Nobody forces a private citizen to take on the mantle of business owner. That is an important distinction that I think you gloss over.

Public = Government Owned, Private = Privately Owned. That's a distinction you're misrepresenting.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 05:05 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 05:12 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(20-11-2016 05:01 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 04:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I agree with your sentiment, however I think that opening a public business entails certain obligations. You are no longer just a private citizen, you are now a business owner; and in doing so, you voluntarily subject yourself to certain regulations (among them, nondiscrimination policies). Nobody forces a private citizen to take on the mantle of business owner. That is an important distinction that I think you gloss over.

Public = Government Owned, Private = Privately Owned. That's a distinction you're misrepresenting.

Unless the business owner operates without a license, entirely outside the jurisdiction of the government, and without the benefit of any public infrastructure or beneficial regulations? Your unfettered regulation-free private business owner is nothing more than a Libertarian wet dream.

Quibble over the title all you want, but when you get a license to operate a business, it comes with an acceptance of certain restrictions and regulations; plus the seeking of such a business license remains voluntarily. The core premise is still there, regardless of the label.

"However I think that opening a public business entails certain obligations. You are no longer just a private citizen, you are now a business owner; and in doing so, you voluntarily subject yourself to certain regulations (among them, nondiscrimination policies). Nobody forces a private citizen to take on the mantle of business owner."

Same argument, with the word 'public' removed. It still makes sense, it still stands strong.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 05:10 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(20-11-2016 05:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 05:01 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Public = Government Owned, Private = Privately Owned. That's a distinction you're misrepresenting.

Unless the business owner operates without a license, entirely outside the jurisdiction of the government, and without the benefit of any public infrastructure or beneficial regulations? Your unfettered regulation-free private business owner is nothing more than a Libertarian wet dream.

Laughat


I agree with part of what your saying, there are far too many regulations and government interventions that make it too difficult for small-business owners to be successful.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: