[split] LGBT (sub)section?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2017, 09:05 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 09:02 AM)Emma Wrote:  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.

If I am to be honest I never have either. I was only responding to quotes that I read. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 09:05 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
Quote: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

I don't understand how you can't see that you and/or your cronies are the ones that started/start the insults.
This thread is a prime example of that. The thread this was split from was pretty much dead. What was done was done but nope.. someone had to start to shit up again. I have only ever defended myself. You wanna hurl insults fine but I will hurl them back. And that goes for jumping in to encourage someone hurling insults.

So don't get upset and angry when I'm hurling insults because YOU and your cronies started/start it. If you wanna be against ad hominems fine, but that goes both ways. You don't get too be upset when someone is calling you names when you called that person names first. As I have said in the past, you need to reevaluate how you're looking at this entire situation because you are in no way shape or form smelling like roses here like I think you think you are. You need to go back and read the original thread. Read your 'malicious' posts that started all this, my responses to you etc.. and then look at all your cronies and them jumping in to get their 2 cent dig in at me.

You lot like to talk about bullying... what a joke.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 09:07 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 09:00 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 08:49 AM)Emma Wrote:  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.



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.

Not hypothetical. (To clarify, I said the psych drug scenario was hypothetical. The BC scenario is reality.)

This is from 2015:

"Refusal to Dispense Contraception are Increasing
Reports of pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control—or provide EC—have surfaced in at least twenty-five states across the nation, including: AZ, CA, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI.
These refusals to dispense prescription contraceptives or provide EC are based on personal beliefs, not on legitimate medical or professional concerns. The same pharmacies that refuse to dispense contraceptives because of personal beliefs often refuse to transfer a woman’s prescription or refer her to another pharmacy. These refusals can have devastating consequences for women’s health."

Source: https://nwlc.org/resources/pharmacy-refusals-101/

A couple of other articles for you to read, if you're interested in researching it further (a google search will reveal many more)

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor...ontroversy
https://www.thecut.com/2015/08/yes-pharm...ntrol.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
15-06-2017, 09:10 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 09:07 AM)julep Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 09:00 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  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.

Not hypothetical. (To clarify, I said the psych drug scenario was hypothetical. The BC scenario is reality.)

This is from 2015:

"Refusal to Dispense Contraception are Increasing
Reports of pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control—or provide EC—have surfaced in at least twenty-five states across the nation, including: AZ, CA, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI.
These refusals to dispense prescription contraceptives or provide EC are based on personal beliefs, not on legitimate medical or professional concerns. The same pharmacies that refuse to dispense contraceptives because of personal beliefs often refuse to transfer a woman’s prescription or refer her to another pharmacy. These refusals can have devastating consequences for women’s health."

Source: https://nwlc.org/resources/pharmacy-refusals-101/

A couple of other articles for you to read, if you're interested in researching it further (a google search will reveal many more)

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor...ontroversy
https://www.thecut.com/2015/08/yes-pharm...ntrol.html

I am in the process of reading them. Thank you for gathering them for me. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Larai19's post
15-06-2017, 09:11 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 09:00 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 08:49 AM)Emma Wrote:  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.



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.

I would argue that anyone refusing to do their job should not have that job any longer. If the employer wants it to be a 3 strike policy- fine, whatever, but if that pharmacist refuses birth control repeatedly, they should be gone.

If the pharmacist owns their own private pharmacy, then it's up to the state to decide if it's legal or not for the pharmacist to be able to continue to practice. Sure, you cannot force them to dispense if they are unwilling- but you can require it for them to continue to keep their license. They maintain their own free will, with full knowledge of the repercussions.

Also- it's not just a hypothetical: it actually happens.

People go into medicine for a variety of reasons, and not all medical professionals have the patient's best interest in mind like you'd hope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Emma's post
15-06-2017, 09:18 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
After reading one of the articles I have considered that I was incorrect by not considering emergency contraceptives in the case of rape or accidental mishaps. Which, admittedly was quite short sighted on my part because I was only considering birth control.

However, I do sympathize with the woman, to whom I read, that worked at the pharmacy who genuinely felt the morning after pill was an abortion pill (even though that's ridiculous) and if she honestly felt she was helping "kill" a baby then I cannot choose one or the other because you have the right to your body and you have the right to your conscience.

Perhaps if the pharmacist felt that it was murder someone else could've supplied the woman with the medication. If the entire pharmacy was against it I doubt they'd have the pills there to begin with...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 09:29 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 09:18 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  After reading one of the articles I have considered that I was incorrect by not considering emergency contraceptives in the case of rape or accidental mishaps. Which, admittedly was quite short sighted on my part because I was only considering birth control.

However, I do sympathize with the woman, to whom I read, that worked at the pharmacy who genuinely felt the morning after pill was an abortion pill (even though that's ridiculous) and if she honestly felt she was helping "kill" a baby then I cannot choose one or the other because you have the right to your body and you have the right to your conscience.

Perhaps if the pharmacist felt that it was murder someone else could've supplied the woman with the medication. If the entire pharmacy was against it I doubt they'd have the pills there to begin with...

But not all areas of the country have a plethora of pharmacies to try your luck at. It's not an easy solution in either case. Clearly we need robot pharmacists. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 09:33 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 09:29 AM)Emma Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 09:18 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  After reading one of the articles I have considered that I was incorrect by not considering emergency contraceptives in the case of rape or accidental mishaps. Which, admittedly was quite short sighted on my part because I was only considering birth control.

However, I do sympathize with the woman, to whom I read, that worked at the pharmacy who genuinely felt the morning after pill was an abortion pill (even though that's ridiculous) and if she honestly felt she was helping "kill" a baby then I cannot choose one or the other because you have the right to your body and you have the right to your conscience.

Perhaps if the pharmacist felt that it was murder someone else could've supplied the woman with the medication. If the entire pharmacy was against it I doubt they'd have the pills there to begin with...

But not all areas of the country have a plethora of pharmacies to try your luck at. It's not an easy solution in either case. Clearly we need robot pharmacists. Tongue

There really isn't a clear cut answer to how to solve that issue so I see. I sympathize with both parties and I would think it wrong of me to agree with the woman who wants birth control because I use it and I think the morning after pill isn't murder.

Though, I can imagine feeling like I was helping kill someone... How awful that must feel, you know? If the pharmacist sincerely thinks that they were killing a baby by helping that woman could you think she would be able to live with herself after she handed her the pills?

I'm afraid I have no rebuttal to this. Other than to say to discriminate hard when it comes to hiring your employees. Ask something like "do you have any ideologies that would conflict with you doing your job?"

I still think it's quite stupid that someone against medicine of that sort should work in medicine. Though, until today I was quite ignorant of the fact. Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 04:28 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:01 AM)Emma Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 08:56 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  It's unneeded. It's like celebrating the fact that you're black after the slave trade.

I'm the farthest thing from a bigot that you can get, genuinely. I cheered when the supreme court allowed gay marriage. I'm happy that everyone can be as they are, but it's pointless to draw attention to the fact after the war was fought and won.

I'm not saying you shouldn't remember the slave trade, or remember being oppressed for years and years out of time. All I'm saying is that it is done. Don't confine yourself to just one thing that you are. I also understand that sexuality is quite pivotal to self-realization and development but why should it be, in particular, be one of the major things we should associate with a person?

It's not done though. Marriage equality was achieved in the US, sure. But it's not "done". LGBT people still have to deal with living in a hostile country in the US. People still get beat up for being gay or trans. People still get murdered for it. People still get beat up and murdered for being black, too.

It's far bigger than simply marriage equality.

In Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia you're more likely to be killed for being gay. By in large the only gay people being killed in the West (for being gay) is by Muslims from Muslim-Majority countries, or their children. This isn't some societal issue in the West. This isn't to say the West is perfect. It's not, nor will any society ever be, but this is a community for atheists. There are communities for gay/trans issues. This isn't it. That being said, this is the last place something like this would be warranted. 99.9% of atheists don't give a shit what's between your legs, of what you like to put in you, or put in others. It's a non-issue here. However, if you want to talk about something, you can do so. As you have said yourself, you are already doing so. So why then do you want special treatment?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
17-06-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(17-06-2017 04:28 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:01 AM)Emma Wrote:  It's not done though. Marriage equality was achieved in the US, sure. But it's not "done". LGBT people still have to deal with living in a hostile country in the US. People still get beat up for being gay or trans. People still get murdered for it. People still get beat up and murdered for being black, too.

It's far bigger than simply marriage equality.

In Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia you're more likely to be killed for being gay. By in large the only gay people being killed in the West (for being gay) is by Muslims from Muslim-Majority countries, or their children. This isn't some societal issue in the West. This isn't to say the West is perfect. It's not, nor will any society ever be, but this is a community for atheists. There are communities for gay/trans issues. This isn't it. That being said, this is the last place something like this would be warranted. 99.9% of atheists don't give a shit what's between your legs, of what you like to put in you, or put in others. It's a non-issue here. However, if you want to talk about something, you can do so. As you have said yourself, you are already doing so. So why then do you want special treatment?

You're acting like you know that most of the atheists here wouldn't think an LGBT subforum is a good idea. You don't know that. You're assuming most people would agree with you.

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