On the Threshold of Bigotry

Do you not recognize that there is a significant difference between forcing others to live by standards not their own and not facilitating their standards?Phil isn't requiring anyone to do anything other than doing it outside of his establishment, something he should have the right to do.Larry isn't forcing anyone to do anything either.Those who insist on being left to their peaceful activities are innocent.Those who insist upon interfering with the peaceful activities of others are bigots.

---

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

The size of the town is not Phil's problem. You're putting the onus of action on the wrong party. Being forced to provide a service against ones will is called slavery. I oppose slavery.

---

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

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.‘—

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.‘—

If the Pharmacist was preventing the patron from getting the drug anywhere then you would have a point, but no free person should be forced to act against their own will. If a mechanic suggested someone get new tires but the tire salesmen wouldn't sell tires for 14 inch rims would he be a bigot? (Would he be in business?)

---

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

The pharmacist has standing as a person being required to act. This is as lame as the "they can move to another state" crap. One has the right, if capable, to work in ones chosen occupation. What is the consideration give by the State in return for requiring the pharmacist for acting against his interests? Allowing him to ply his trade? Coercion does not a valid contract make.The Oath is show, and has no standing in law. It's not even made to the State.Are there other tradesmen you think that the State should be able to relegate to servitude? Free fridays for electricians if they want a contractors license?The reasonable interest for government regulation is assurance of competence. Not enforcement of compliance to the social will. Aside from your definition for for bigotry being totally bogus, you are now playing, in reverse, the semantics game that Hoot Mon has been playing when he says Gays have every right he has. The patron has the right to get the pill, but not from a specific pharmacist via governmental coercion. (Assuming the Pharmacist to be a free agent. If he is an employee he has an obligation to act in his employer's best interests.)Bigotry requires no action. It is the belief that only ones own ways and opinions are valid. I abhor the ways of life of the Inuit ” all that freezing and blubber chewing ” but they clearly are not invalid ways. My hair cut is right and yours is wrong is bigotry. Even if I only express it as an opinion. However, I hate 14 inch rims. If you want 14 inch rime you're welcome to them, but you'll not get them from me.(This in no way excuses the nonsense of those thinking that the rejection of oppression is bigotry against the oppressor. I find it hard to believe those arguing that position aren't just trying to get a rise out of us.)

---

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

He's not stepping in, he's stepping out. Were he stepping in I would agree with you.Your whole line, "when you work for the public trust" is nonsense. Ones need is not a lien on another man's life. Firstly, it's irrelevant.Secondly, I didn't assume, I counted them. I didn't count them all, of course. Once I got as high as two .

---

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

While we're defining word . This idiomatic use of the word "owned" is meant to imply "You have been presented a devastating circumstance to which you are unable to respond."You seem to think it means "I'm to dim to see my way around this supposed obstacle so you must be too."Problem is, when Rrhain does step around it as if it wasn't there, you'll not notice. So he'll have to do it over and over and over. You are the obstacle reason cannot surmount.Edited by lyx2no, : Misspelling.

---

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

No, it's not. The insurance companies can rely on the incorporation of spouses in a court of law from coast to coast and most of the world. They can not rely on domestic partnerships in neighboring jurisdictions.

---

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

Sucks even more to live in a small town, San Diego (say hi to my brother) for instance, where there is only one pharmacist. You realize, of course, that the Dr. could have supplied the RU 486, the medicine in question. Not that it's relevant, people aren't public utilities. Unless one hires oneself out as one. Your public defender is an example. It's his job to do his job as decided by his employer. "In the public trust" applies to government EMPLOYEES. Not to self-employed pharmacists. So, by my logic, no. Maybe the Dr. will prescribe moving to a town bigger then San Diego. Then the pharmacist will have to vend a lorry.Self-determination comes at the price of having to give it to others as well. Even pharmacists.

---

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

Employee; their duty is to the employer who, generally, has a municipal contract. A private contractor has a duty to his contract (a description of his job). Our pharmacist is refusing a contract. There is no job description. If he feels it to be in his best interests not to contract with others based upon race he has that right. (Remember, this "has that right" is in the same vein as Gays having the right to marry. Just because it is currently denied does not mean the right doesn't exist.) And before you head off to the 14^th Amendment, the protection is "under the law". The Constitution was meant to restrict the government, not control private individuals.This is so going where I don't want it to go, so let me cut to the chase: When I was a child, my imaginary friend was Howard Roark. Now I hang with Hank and dagny. Who said the pharmacist had to know diddly?

---

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

Yes, I know the law currently coerces people by withholding business licenses so that they will accommodate the social will; how tedious. The law also currently doesn't allow Gay marriage. Should I stop arguing for that too?No person is the tool of another person. I am not willing to force people into doing things my way by violating their right to self-determination. And, furthermore, there are many, less odious ways to make it unprofitable for them to act unsociable: denying government contract and low cost loans to businesses the discriminate against Women or minorities would likely start and finnish the solution. No one has a right to government contracts or loans. I'll assume you meant "ones private desire"; otherwise, you'd be calling me a prick. A right to another man's services is called slavery. And you rightly surmise I'm against it. They are bogus. The government should not be in the business of regulating niceness ” competence, fraudulent practices . fine. Violating the right of free association to enforce niceness . no.There are legitimate ways to encourage the public will. Try some of those. I don't know for what reason he refuses to dispense a medication. Maybe It is an objectionable shape. Maybe it reminds him of the UFO that beamed him up. It's not mine to say. A self-employed contractor should only have to answer to competence and good faith.Let us all go else where.(let me guess: "Some of us don't have an elsewhere to go to." To this I say "boo hoo". That's hardly a reason to press people into slavery.)Let's not play slave master.

---

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

When I ask for two volunteers to help fold up the chairs after a council meeting, then yes, man + man = man + woman = woman + woman. The distinction is completely irrelevant so any grouping of two is equal. Under the law, and it is under the law that we are talking about, there is no distinction between the parties in a marriage contract; therefore, under the law, man + man = man + woman = woman + woman.As for the rest of us, I suggest we all agree never to use the word marriage while at Hoot Mon's house so we can get on to fixing NJ.Sound good to you, Hoot Mon?

---

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

They are related In that both are currently the law. If one is going to apply the standard "the law say" then that ends both conversations. Libertarians are pikers. Don't play dumb, we have been discussing government intervention into the peaceful pursuits of our fellow man. The generic "you" is spelled differently. One leaves off the "y" and the "u" and adds an "ne".When I was seven or eight I read London's Martin Eden. The pre-literate Martin, while talking to Ruth (Morse), comments (paraphrase), "You know how it is when you drink too much." Whereupon, Ruth corrects his second use of "you" because it implies direct experience. I've been a prick about it ever since. I couldn't say that "justified" is the right word. I think it foolish socially and economically, but I think so long as I am not the owner of that restaurant then it's not my call. I'll not be eating there either, which is my right ” and, frankly, duty. I would hope that our common ground was that neither of us wants a government that enforces the social will upon the individual without considering whether there is a less coercive way of doing so then violating property rights, rights to association, rights to self- determination, right to free expression, rights to . Other then that ” we're cool.

---

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