On the Threshold of Bigotry

The issue with Phil has nothing to do with bigotry. Bigotry is generally defined as holding a negative view or imposing a restriction on an individual or individuals based on aspect(s) of those individuals that have nothing to do with the relevant issue(s) at hand. Not placing urinals in the ladies bathroom is not an act of bigotry; it is an act based on relevant anatomy. Not placing them in a 'coloreds only' mens room is an act of bigotry, since urination has nothing to do with skin color. Phil denies the particular service to all his customers, irrespective of race, creed, color, religion, ethnicity, etc.Phil's transgression is that in order to practice pharmacy, he has obtained a legal license for which he has promised to provide certain services to his community. If he refuses to comply with the conditions of his license, he is at risk of losing that license. I believe that the general way that the courts and licensing agencies have handled this is that if their is a reasonable alternative for the customer, e. g., an alternative readily accessible pharmacy, then Phil must inform the customer of this option; if there is no such reasonable alternative, then Phil must provided the service or surrender his license.Some interesting special cases have been discussed for this issue: if, due to Phil's refusal to provide the requested service the customer, having no reasonable alternative, sees her pregnancy go to completion and has a baby, is Phil obligated to child support. Also, is a licensed gynecologist or gynecological clinic (of a Catholic hospital, for example) who/which morally objects to abortion required to perform such an abortion if requested? Again, my understanding is that the doctor or hospital is obliged to aid the client in finding a reasonable alternative source of abortion services. For the most part, almost all clients, doctors, hospitals, licensing agencies, and courts have tried to avoid the nuances of this issue like the plague and so there is still a lot of unsettled details of the legal landscape.The point is that your example has nothing to do with bigotry.Your example of gay marriage is also off base as an issue of bigotry. A marriage is just a legal contract formulated, endorsed, and enforced by each state. That is why both parties to the marriage must sign the marriage contract, agreeing to assume the obligations of the contract under threat of legal sanction. (Now, doesn't that sound romantic.) In no state, does the law code formulating the marriage contract explicitly state that a marriage must be between two members of different genders. On the other hand, none of these codes explicitly state the the marriage must be between members of the same species (although, until recently, many codes did explicitly state that the marriage must be between members of the same 'race'). However, all such codes to set age and sanity restrictions. So, the remaining issue is whether their is an implied restriction. The conservatives have pretty well shot themselves in the foot on this one by trying to forced through a Federal constitutional amendment restricting same sex marriage, essentially substantiating that current codes do not offer that restriction.

Please read my previous post. Phil is not being forced to do anything. He has petitioned to obtain a legal license to practice as a pharmacist. He is obliged (and fully agrees to this in accepting the license) to serve his community in that capacity.