On the Threshold of Bigotry

None, if you prefer anarchy.”HM

Pharmacist Phil has the power to deny a woman her legal access to prescribed birth-control medication. Phil should be in the business of filling prescriptions without prejudice toward those who oppose his POV. Phil, by my estimation, is doing exactly what gay-marriage advocates are doing: proselytizing an agenda with the accusation that anyone who opposes it is a bigot.”HM

At street level, at least, the highlighted part is always the case. This suggests to me that the game of bigotry is played out only on a provincial landscape amongst pedestrian players who are the intellectual equivalents of homeless people.”HM

I'm just trying to locate the landscape whereupon bigotry is played out. When special groups impose their agendas on the public-at-large are they treading on a bigotry landscape? I've never heard so much sputtering accusations of bigotry as that which comes from the foaming mouths of gay-marriage advocates. But even they are less vicious than those who would deprive a woman of her rightful access to heath care. I'd say Pharmacist Phil is as much a bigot for denying a woman access to Plan B as Hitler was for denying the Jews access to any health care all.”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

I'm not too concerned with whom it is who applies the coercive pressure to an independent agent. The justification for licensing pharmacists is to assure that they aren't passing out chicken heads to cure lumbago. That seems to be a legitimate function of government. But that the government piles on questionable demands on the grounds that it is a regulated industry is rather circular in its thinking.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Phil only has the power to deny a woman from getting the pill from him. Phil should be in the business Phil decides to be in. It's is called self-determination.Larry, the gay rights advocate, is attempting to remove a restriction placed on him by his own government to limit his peaceful activities. It's called self-determination.So the answer to my question was: "No, I do not recognize that there is a significant difference between forcing others to live by standards not their own and not facilitating their standards."Why do you think it's up to you to decide what everyone is supposed to do? Can I take my mum up to the shops now? Can I tell her it's okay by you for her to buy eggs, extra large eggs?Edited by lyx2no, : Misplaced negation.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Could it be because I have a superior POV? Your mum is probably too old for Plan B, so Pharmacist Phil is no real threat her. But don't take her up to Capitol Hill in Seattle unless she wants to watch unmarried gay men stick their tongues down each other's throat. Might make her gag, if not drop an egg over that.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

All Phil is doing is not keeping it stocked. its against the law in some states to refuse to sell the drug due to personal moral issues, but simply not carrying the drug because you "forget" to order every month is not illegal. Im not calling larry a bigot, but i am calling him wrong.

You have yet to establish that Gay Marriage laws would "effect" anyone who isn't gay. One is not effected by a law unless one is required to act or is permitted or restricted from acting in a way that did not exist prior to the enactment of the law. Unless it is your argument that since straight people will also be permitted to enter into gay marriages it shouldn't be allowed I don't see that you have an argument.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Hi, Artemis. Okay: I also didn't say you said he was a bigot. But, I apologize if I misunderstood you. Still, when you say this... ...you're backing up Phil, whose actions are affecting five people a year, on the basis that his actions aren't affecting as many people as Larry's actions. To me, that sounds like you're playing a numbers game.I disagree with you, though, because I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would affect anybody but gay people.

---

Darwin loves you.

i really wasn't trying to make an argument here. the OP was open ended and asked a couple questions which i have answered.i dont think either are bigots, yet i disagree with what larry is doing. if larry lived in my community i would peacefully act in opposition to him, like two americans excersizing thier abilties to disagree on an issue. Though in my community Larry would not have much support.

i know you didn't. no harm no foul. i dont call anyone a bigot, that word is basically not in my vocabulary. yeah phil affects maybe 5 people one year, then word gets out that Phil's Pharmacy does not sell that drug, nobody goes to phil for that drug, they go elsewhere.Larry wants to change a law for his benefit, that will affect everyone to whom it applies.yeah i guess numbers have some issue in it for mereally trying to stay away from the same gender marriage thing, because that thread was closed. whats the point of opening a new thread that is the same as the last one that was closed?Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Whatever our differences you are obviously not an idiot. As such this comment is beneath you.Ommitting ideology from law making whilst promoting rationality, reason and pragmatism as the basis for the rule of law is obviously not advocating anarchy.Do you really think that ideology rather than rationality, reason and pragamatism should be the basis of law?
I doubt it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

On what rational grounds, as opposed to ideological grounds, should homosexual couples be denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?
Are there rationalgrounds on which to deny polygamists the same rights as couples?
These are the questions to ask.
What are your answers? I don't think asking the question alone makes you a bigot. Not accepting an answer to this question that you do not like on ideological grounds would however make you a bigot. A definition very convenient to your argument.
However a definition of the term 'bigot' that ignores the practical aspects of inflicting irrational restrictions on the freedoms and actions of others seems to be somewhat lacking in practical terms. No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Mr. Straggler, I'm sorry to have to tell you that all forms of government except anarchy impose their ideologies on the people they rule.
”HM