[split] LGBT (sub)section?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2017, 06:29 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 06:12 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 05:52 AM)julep Wrote:  ...
The Scientologist pharmacist believes wholeheartedly that you don't need that medication, that those pills are making your condition worse. Filling your prescription violates his value system. The Catholic pharmacist believes that he is preventing you from murdering any fertilized eggs. Filling your prescription violates his value system. By your reasoning, they get to make those decisions and you have to abide by them.

What's the big deal if you have to drive to another pharmacy to find someone who's willing to serve you?

And therein lies my preferred solution to this double-edged 'freedom' argument...

You get to hold what beliefs you like as long as you are willing to stand by them.

Your front window, your website etc. carries the motif: "We discriminate against x".

Not, "whites only" or "no Jews" but a positive claim of bias.

[Image: russian-store-1496156160.jpeg?quality=0....;width=980]

“We Do Not Serve Faggots”


Alternatively, because that won't ever be legislatable, places that do not discriminate should declare it loudly and proudly and thus shame the rest until this becomes the norm...

[Image: 0f168d38d632cac8a30d0d788352fdc1.jpg]

Interestingly, in one of the states where these bills were passed--before it was ruled to be illegal by the courts--they passed another bill that attempted to prevent businesses from posting signs indicating that they'd serve all customers. Because the humiliation of being refused is an essential part of the intent.

Also North Carolina's original bathroom bill prevented local municipalities from deviating from the policy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 06:35 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 06:24 AM)julep Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 06:07 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  Things normalize with time. I have just as much sympathy towards the racist (being bi-racial myself) to express their views. I'm not saying that this is fair. I'm saying that it is of personal expression. Private businesses and religious officials should not be forced to do anything. You change minds through persuasion, discussion, and argument. Not through forcing people to abide by something in particular. I bet it is quite so that the reason why their children did so without discomfort was because they became more enlightened than those who brought them up.

Again, medical needs are different then personal wants.
Why fill a prescription? Because it is imperative to health. Denying others the right to be healthy is much different then denying people your services in subjective things...

The racial stuff didn't normalize with time; legislation and regulations forced it. I just will never agree that personal expression of bigotry ought to be a greater societal right than the right to dignity and equal service.

The pharmacy examples, by the way, were not hypothetical--at least not the ones regarding birth control. Pharmacists can and do reject prescriptions for birth control meds for conscience reasons and send the women elsewhere. (Sometimes they refuse to give the prescription back to the woman, causing even bigger difficulties) The customer is expected to take the inconvenience in stride, since the pills are still available somewhere else, just harder to get (and maybe more expensive).

And, as I noted in one of my replies, conscience exemptions in some of these bills at the state specifically apply across all industries. Housing. Food. Healthcare. Industries that serve needs, not just wants.

We'll never agree, I think, because we weigh a couple of rights differently. I do hope that both of us, and all humans, will never be denied services we need because of someone else's conscience.


I just support the right of choice. Even if it is at a cost. Free speech and free will are much over convenience to me. Free speech and free will also encompass those you don't have common opinion, or even the preferred one, we have to accept their rights as much as anyone else's even if we disagree. Whenever specific rights are denied in mass and are not related to subjective individuals denying services.

It is unfair but birth control isn't a necessity, I do not deny that it is ridiculous.

I do not think either of us is wrong, even though you may be inclined to disagree. I mean that in a non-condescending way, and I hope that I do not come off as such. I understand and share your feelings towards the dismay of seeing the virtuous fail, in such a way. However, in order to have free speech and free will you must encompass those who disagree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2017 07:08 AM by julep.)
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 06:35 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 06:24 AM)julep Wrote:  The racial stuff didn't normalize with time; legislation and regulations forced it. I just will never agree that personal expression of bigotry ought to be a greater societal right than the right to dignity and equal service.

The pharmacy examples, by the way, were not hypothetical--at least not the ones regarding birth control. Pharmacists can and do reject prescriptions for birth control meds for conscience reasons and send the women elsewhere. (Sometimes they refuse to give the prescription back to the woman, causing even bigger difficulties) The customer is expected to take the inconvenience in stride, since the pills are still available somewhere else, just harder to get (and maybe more expensive).

And, as I noted in one of my replies, conscience exemptions in some of these bills at the state specifically apply across all industries. Housing. Food. Healthcare. Industries that serve needs, not just wants.

We'll never agree, I think, because we weigh a couple of rights differently. I do hope that both of us, and all humans, will never be denied services we need because of someone else's conscience.


I just support the right of choice. Even if it is at a cost. Free speech and free will are much over convenience to me. Free speech and free will also encompass those you don't have common opinion, or even the preferred one, we have to accept their rights as much as anyone else's even if we disagree. Whenever specific rights are denied in mass and are not related to subjective individuals denying services.

It is unfair but birth control isn't a necessity, I do not deny that it is ridiculous.

I do not think either of us is wrong, even though you may be inclined to disagree. I mean that in a non-condescending way, and I hope that I do not come off as such. I understand and share your feelings towards the dismay of seeing the virtuous fail, in such a way. However, in order to have free speech and free will you must encompass those who disagree.

I feel there was a little goal-post shifting there. First the pharmacist was filling a need, not a want, so it wasn't okay for them to deny the prescription, now you're saying, oh, it's birth control, so it's not a necessity, so now that's okay. Also okay, it would seem, from my reading of your position, for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a gay person's prescription, say for antibiotics or a cancer drug, citing conscience, as long as that prescription can be filled somewhere else, no matter how inconvenient. Because free speech.

You're right, I'm inclined to disagree that that tradeoff is morally defensible.

ETA: However, I do understand how precious free speech is and agree that people are correct to value it, even speech that is vile.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
15-06-2017, 07:34 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 07:01 AM)julep Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 06:35 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  I just support the right of choice. Even if it is at a cost. Free speech and free will are much over convenience to me. Free speech and free will also encompass those you don't have common opinion, or even the preferred one, we have to accept their rights as much as anyone else's even if we disagree. Whenever specific rights are denied in mass and are not related to subjective individuals denying services.

It is unfair but birth control isn't a necessity, I do not deny that it is ridiculous.

I do not think either of us is wrong, even though you may be inclined to disagree. I mean that in a non-condescending way, and I hope that I do not come off as such. I understand and share your feelings towards the dismay of seeing the virtuous fail, in such a way. However, in order to have free speech and free will you must encompass those who disagree.

I feel there was a little goal-post shifting there. First the pharmacist was filling a need, not a want, so it wasn't okay for them to deny the prescription, now you're saying, oh, it's birth control, so it's not a necessity, so now that's okay. Also okay, it would seem, from my reading of your position, for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a gay person's prescription, say for antibiotics or a cancer drug, citing conscience, as long as that prescription can be filled somewhere else, no matter how inconvenient. Because free speech.

You're right, I'm inclined to disagree that that tradeoff is morally defensible.

ETA: However, I do understand how precious free speech is and agree that people are correct to value it, even speech that is vile.

It's not goal shifting at all. I made the point that medicine that was needed imperatively would be unethical to refuse to someone. I'd also argue that should a pharmacist really be that against birth control it wouldn't have been too good to hire. "Discrimination" works both ways, I'm aware of its hypothetical inclinations.

Therefore, I imagine you must feel that if unliked speech is a moral right then so is doing something aligns with their own code?
The pharmacist that denies birthcontrol is different then the pharmacist that denies heart medicine.
The person who denies a cake is the same as the person who denies to serve someone.

You can't give favoritism to a group. Even if you aren't religious. It's not right to do. You can't say "If you don't do it I'll force you" because you are negating willpower. A boss could say "if you don't do it then I'll fire you" because the person has options. A person has no options when forced by the law to do things on that scale. They either do it or face fines or jail time. Rather unconstitutional, don't you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 07:55 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 07:34 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 07:01 AM)julep Wrote:  I feel there was a little goal-post shifting there. First the pharmacist was filling a need, not a want, so it wasn't okay for them to deny the prescription, now you're saying, oh, it's birth control, so it's not a necessity, so now that's okay. Also okay, it would seem, from my reading of your position, for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a gay person's prescription, say for antibiotics or a cancer drug, citing conscience, as long as that prescription can be filled somewhere else, no matter how inconvenient. Because free speech.

You're right, I'm inclined to disagree that that tradeoff is morally defensible.

ETA: However, I do understand how precious free speech is and agree that people are correct to value it, even speech that is vile.

It's not goal shifting at all. I made the point that medicine that was needed imperatively would be unethical to refuse to someone. I'd also argue that should a pharmacist really be that against birth control it wouldn't have been too good to hire. "Discrimination" works both ways, I'm aware of its hypothetical inclinations.

Therefore, I imagine you must feel that if unliked speech is a moral right then so is doing something aligns with their own code?
The pharmacist that denies birthcontrol is different then the pharmacist that denies heart medicine.
The person who denies a cake is the same as the person who denies to serve someone.

You can't give favoritism to a group. Even if you aren't religious. It's not right to do. You can't say "If you don't do it I'll force you" because you are negating willpower. A boss could say "if you don't do it then I'll fire you" because the person has options. A person has no options when forced by the law to do things on that scale. They either do it or face fines or jail time. Rather unconstitutional, don't you think?

It may be unethical--or immoral, if you'd rather--to refuse a needed service such as medicine to someone because of their sexual orientation, but it is not illegal in many places, nor is it considered a violation of the practitioner's professional contract. The bills we're discussing would protect and expand these practices. That's why I oppose them.

And it may be unconstitutional in your reading of the Constitution, but the US government already recognizes certain classes of people as meriting and needing special anti discrimination protections. You're a member of at least one of those classes, as am I: female. What you're calling favoritism I call protection, and ideally we wouldn't need it at all, but we do, IMO. It's not clear whether you're opposed to the idea of protected classes at all or whether you don't agree with expanding protected classes specifically to include LGBT. (I'm assuming the former.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
15-06-2017, 08:28 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 07:55 AM)julep Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 07:34 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  It's not goal shifting at all. I made the point that medicine that was needed imperatively would be unethical to refuse to someone. I'd also argue that should a pharmacist really be that against birth control it wouldn't have been too good to hire. "Discrimination" works both ways, I'm aware of its hypothetical inclinations.

Therefore, I imagine you must feel that if unliked speech is a moral right then so is doing something aligns with their own code?
The pharmacist that denies birthcontrol is different then the pharmacist that denies heart medicine.
The person who denies a cake is the same as the person who denies to serve someone.

You can't give favoritism to a group. Even if you aren't religious. It's not right to do. You can't say "If you don't do it I'll force you" because you are negating willpower. A boss could say "if you don't do it then I'll fire you" because the person has options. A person has no options when forced by the law to do things on that scale. They either do it or face fines or jail time. Rather unconstitutional, don't you think?

It may be unethical--or immoral, if you'd rather--to refuse a needed service such as medicine to someone because of their sexual orientation, but it is not illegal in many places, nor is it considered a violation of the practitioner's professional contract. The bills we're discussing would protect and expand these practices. That's why I oppose them.

And it may be unconstitutional in your reading of the Constitution, but the US government already recognizes certain classes of people as meriting and needing special anti discrimination protections. You're a member of at least one of those classes, as am I: female. What you're calling favoritism I call protection, and ideally we wouldn't need it at all, but we do, IMO. It's not clear whether you're opposed to the idea of protected classes at all or whether you don't agree with expanding protected classes specifically to include LGBT. (I'm assuming the former.)

If imperative medicine can be denied based off of principal then I also do not support the bill. I'll do a bit more research on them and see what exactly the specifics are when addressing the medical.

It is the former. I am not anti-LGBT at all. One of my very good friends is homosexual and I attended her wedding quite happily. I've always tried to debate my family, who are homophobic, to try and open their minds a little. I've always considered myself a friend of the LGBT, never an enemy. But, I do not give them "protection" or "special treatment." Discrimination is a part of free speech, and so long as it doesn't interfere with anything substantial like medicine, or become totalitarian, I see no issue with people choosing to be that way. I may not like them as a person but I certainly respect their right to do what they please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 08:49 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 07:34 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 07:01 AM)julep Wrote:  I feel there was a little goal-post shifting there. First the pharmacist was filling a need, not a want, so it wasn't okay for them to deny the prescription, now you're saying, oh, it's birth control, so it's not a necessity, so now that's okay. Also okay, it would seem, from my reading of your position, for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a gay person's prescription, say for antibiotics or a cancer drug, citing conscience, as long as that prescription can be filled somewhere else, no matter how inconvenient. Because free speech.

You're right, I'm inclined to disagree that that tradeoff is morally defensible.

ETA: However, I do understand how precious free speech is and agree that people are correct to value it, even speech that is vile.

It's not goal shifting at all. I made the point that medicine that was needed imperatively would be unethical to refuse to someone. I'd also argue that should a pharmacist really be that against birth control it wouldn't have been too good to hire. "Discrimination" works both ways, I'm aware of its hypothetical inclinations.

Therefore, I imagine you must feel that if unliked speech is a moral right then so is doing something aligns with their own code?
The pharmacist that denies birthcontrol is different then the pharmacist that denies heart medicine.
The person who denies a cake is the same as the person who denies to serve someone.

You can't give favoritism to a group. Even if you aren't religious. It's not right to do. You can't say "If you don't do it I'll force you" because you are negating willpower. A boss could say "if you don't do it then I'll fire you" because the person has options. A person has no options when forced by the law to do things on that scale. They either do it or face fines or jail time. Rather unconstitutional, don't you think?

My wife is prescribed hormonal birth control for a condition where it is used as part of the treatment. It should never be up to the pharmacist to decide that her condition is not going to be treated because he has a religiously-based disagreement with birth control.

And I disagree that freedom of speech also covers "doing something that aligns with their code" when that code includes potential harm to others. If you live in a conservative area with a high percentage of Catholics, then there will be more Catholics doing pharmacy work. I imagine that then it could get quite difficult to find a pharmacy to fill your prescription.

Not to mention that removing those options hurt the poor more than any others. Those who cannot afford to travel or take the time to chase down a pharmacist who will dispense birth control.

I'd agree that the trade-off is morally defensible, but I'd go a step further and say it's a moral imperative, especially in areas of health care. In my mind, it comes down to the paradox of tolerance. While we aim to be tolerant of everyone, including those with whom we disagree- if there is one thing the tolerant cannot tolerate then it is intolerance.

Quote: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Quote:Tolerance and freedom of speech
The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical.[4] Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.

I've brought this up before on these forums because I find it an interesting subject to think about. I find it's a little ambiguous which side of the equation I might be on with regard to these kinds of arguments. You can shut down peoples' free speech through a variety of means- legislation, forcibly with violence, or with shame or bullying, etc.

And to be honest, I often see my uh... "discussions" with earmuffs through this lense on these forums. But, I confess that I don't really know who is the intolerant one because I feel like he wants to be able to say anything without recourse even if it involves shaming people into silence or wearing them down with degrading insults (which I see as also limiting someone's free speech), or if I'm the one hampering free speech because I don't want to tolerate being forced to sit and take such insults or see others taking them... and sometimes I'm the one hurling insults at him. So it goes both ways and quite often I feel like neither of us come own any better for it.

But, that's just an example local to these boards. Free speech issues in the wild of society have a much larger reach and much more important impact and there is not a perfect solution in which someone's free speech is not in some way hampered. But that's what makes paradoxical.

Also, on a side note, I was not under the impression that churches or pastors would be forced to marry same sex couples if they don't want to. The biggest problem comes down to government employees who refuse to provide marriage certificate. Marriage is more than a simple "want" as there are benefits that genuinely help people. Sure it's not "food, air, or shelter"-levels of need, but, for example, my wife and I married at the clerk of courts because she needed to be covered under my health insurance plan and we needed to be married for that. So it's not so simple as saying, "marriage is not a need", in my opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Emma's post
15-06-2017, 08:58 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 08:49 AM)Emma Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 07:34 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  It's not goal shifting at all. I made the point that medicine that was needed imperatively would be unethical to refuse to someone. I'd also argue that should a pharmacist really be that against birth control it wouldn't have been too good to hire. "Discrimination" works both ways, I'm aware of its hypothetical inclinations.

Therefore, I imagine you must feel that if unliked speech is a moral right then so is doing something aligns with their own code?
The pharmacist that denies birthcontrol is different then the pharmacist that denies heart medicine.
The person who denies a cake is the same as the person who denies to serve someone.

You can't give favoritism to a group. Even if you aren't religious. It's not right to do. You can't say "If you don't do it I'll force you" because you are negating willpower. A boss could say "if you don't do it then I'll fire you" because the person has options. A person has no options when forced by the law to do things on that scale. They either do it or face fines or jail time. Rather unconstitutional, don't you think?

My wife is prescribed hormonal birth control for a condition where it is used as part of the treatment. It should never be up to the pharmacist to decide that her condition is not going to be treated because he has a religiously-based disagreement with birth control.

And I disagree that freedom of speech also covers "doing something that aligns with their code" when that code includes potential harm to others. If you live in a conservative area with a high percentage of Catholics, then there will be more Catholics doing pharmacy work. I imagine that then it could get quite difficult to find a pharmacy to fill your prescription.

Not to mention that removing those options hurt the poor more than any others. Those who cannot afford to travel or take the time to chase down a pharmacist who will dispense birth control.

I'd agree that the trade-off is morally defensible, but I'd go a step further and say it's a moral imperative, especially in areas of health care. In my mind, it comes down to the paradox of tolerance. While we aim to be tolerant of everyone, including those with whom we disagree- if there is one thing the tolerant cannot tolerate then it is intolerance.

Quote: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Quote:Tolerance and freedom of speech
The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical.[4] Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.

I've brought this up before on these forums because I find it an interesting subject to think about. I find it's a little ambiguous which side of the equation I might be on with regard to these kinds of arguments. You can shut down peoples' free speech through a variety of means- legislation, forcibly with violence, or with shame or bullying, etc.

And to be honest, I often see my uh... "discussions" with earmuffs through this lense on these forums. But, I confess that I don't really know who is the intolerant one because I feel like he wants to be able to say anything without recourse even if it involves shaming people into silence or wearing them down with degrading insults (which I see as also limiting someone's free speech), or if I'm the one hampering free speech because I don't want to tolerate being forced to sit and take such insults or see others taking them... and sometimes I'm the one hurling insults at him. So it goes both ways and quite often I feel like neither of us come own any better for it.

But, that's just an example local to these boards. Free speech issues in the wild of society have a much larger reach and much more important impact and there is not a perfect solution in which someone's free speech is not in some way hampered. But that's what makes paradoxical.

Also, on a side note, I was not under the impression that churches or pastors would be forced to marry same sex couples if they don't want to. The biggest problem comes down to government employees who refuse to provide marriage certificate. Marriage is more than a simple "want" as there are benefits that genuinely help people. Sure it's not "food, air, or shelter"-levels of need, but, for example, my wife and I married at the clerk of courts because she needed to be covered under my health insurance plan and we needed to be married for that. So it's not so simple as saying, "marriage is not a need", in my opinion.

In my understanding also that it's never been a question of forcing a minister of a particular church to perform a religious ceremony, but of requiring that government employees such as the county clerk in Kentucky to perform their duties for all citizens who present the appropriate paperwork and fees.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
15-06-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 08:49 AM)Emma Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 07:34 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  It's not goal shifting at all. I made the point that medicine that was needed imperatively would be unethical to refuse to someone. I'd also argue that should a pharmacist really be that against birth control it wouldn't have been too good to hire. "Discrimination" works both ways, I'm aware of its hypothetical inclinations.

Therefore, I imagine you must feel that if unliked speech is a moral right then so is doing something aligns with their own code?
The pharmacist that denies birthcontrol is different then the pharmacist that denies heart medicine.
The person who denies a cake is the same as the person who denies to serve someone.

You can't give favoritism to a group. Even if you aren't religious. It's not right to do. You can't say "If you don't do it I'll force you" because you are negating willpower. A boss could say "if you don't do it then I'll fire you" because the person has options. A person has no options when forced by the law to do things on that scale. They either do it or face fines or jail time. Rather unconstitutional, don't you think?

My wife is prescribed hormonal birth control for a condition where it is used as part of the treatment. It should never be up to the pharmacist to decide that her condition is not going to be treated because he has a religiously-based disagreement with birth control.

And I disagree that freedom of speech also covers "doing something that aligns with their code" when that code includes potential harm to others. If you live in a conservative area with a high percentage of Catholics, then there will be more Catholics doing pharmacy work. I imagine that then it could get quite difficult to find a pharmacy to fill your prescription.

Not to mention that removing those options hurt the poor more than any others. Those who cannot afford to travel or take the time to chase down a pharmacist who will dispense birth control.

I'd agree that the trade-off is morally defensible, but I'd go a step further and say it's a moral imperative, especially in areas of health care. In my mind, it comes down to the paradox of tolerance. While we aim to be tolerant of everyone, including those with whom we disagree- if there is one thing the tolerant cannot tolerate then it is intolerance.

Quote: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Quote:Tolerance and freedom of speech
The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical.[4] Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.

I've brought this up before on these forums because I find it an interesting subject to think about. I find it's a little ambiguous which side of the equation I might be on with regard to these kinds of arguments. You can shut down peoples' free speech through a variety of means- legislation, forcibly with violence, or with shame or bullying, etc.

And to be honest, I often see my uh... "discussions" with earmuffs through this lense on these forums. But, I confess that I don't really know who is the intolerant one because I feel like he wants to be able to say anything without recourse even if it involves shaming people into silence or wearing them down with degrading insults (which I see as also limiting someone's free speech), or if I'm the one hampering free speech because I don't want to tolerate being forced to sit and take such insults or see others taking them... and sometimes I'm the one hurling insults at him. So it goes both ways and quite often I feel like neither of us come own any better for it.

But, that's just an example local to these boards. Free speech issues in the wild of society have a much larger reach and much more important impact and there is not a perfect solution in which someone's free speech is not in some way hampered. But that's what makes paradoxical.

Also, on a side note, I was not under the impression that churches or pastors would be forced to marry same sex couples if they don't want to. The biggest problem comes down to government employees who refuse to provide marriage certificate. Marriage is more than a simple "want" as there are benefits that genuinely help people. Sure it's not "food, air, or shelter"-levels of need, but, for example, my wife and I married at the clerk of courts because she needed to be covered under my health insurance plan and we needed to be married for that. So it's not so simple as saying, "marriage is not a need", in my opinion.

I would argue that a pharmacist that was unwilling to give out birth-control should definitely be fired. I do agree that there are things that have valor, for one, I would indeed be pissed if denied birth control by a pharmacist. The thing is that this hypothetical is really silly because a person truly against medicine or birth control would never try to get more involved in medicine. Though, I'm aware that it is a hypothetical and I will treat it as such. In this case I still stand by imperative medicine. It's stupid and unjust but it is freewill, and it would be an obstruction of justice to make someone do something.

I am not tolerant of people who deny these things to people. I think they are stupid. If you meant impartial as tolerance then I'm not sure what I could say to that, because I try not to just campaign for my side. So if I decided that the LGBT was more important than the religious that would be so heavily biased it would be awful, because not every person sees it like you or I might.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 09:02 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
It's possible that i haven't been paying attention, but I haven't seen any instances where a church denied a same sex couple and were sued over it. Churches and pastors have always declined to officiate weddings for any number of reasons- from the couple "living in sin", to not being church members, to requiring that the couple attend marriage classes at that church, etc. etc.

I have a step-grandparent who is a minister and refused to officiate my wedding because we were already living together before marriage. We required that we move out of the same house for a year before hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: