faith, msg 268, still trying to dodge writes:
I'm afraid that's more like logic-chopping or nitpicking than logic.
Really?
Let's look at the definition of "just" and "unjust" - as a legal term:
FROM:
Dictionary.com: JUST(click)just
adj.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
AND
just
adj 1: used especially of what is legally or ethically right or proper or fitting; "a just and lasting peace"- A.Lincoln; "a kind and just man"; "a just reward"; "his just inheritance" [ant: unjust] 2: implying justice dictated by reason, conscience, and a natural sense of what is fair to all; "equitable treatment of all citizens"; "an equitable distribution of gifts among the children" [syn: equitable] [ant: inequitable] 3: free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming with established standards or rules; "a fair referee"; "fair deal"; "on a fair footing"; "a fair fight"; "by fair means or foul" [syn: fair] [ant: unfair] 4: of moral excellence; "a genuinely good person"; "a just cause"; "an upright and respectable man"; "the life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous"- Frederick Douglass [syn: good, upright, virtuous]
Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
AND FROM:
Dictionary.com: UNJUST(click)UNjust
adj 1: not fair; marked by injustice or partiality or deception; "used unfair methods"; "it was an unfair trial"; "took an unfair advantage" [syn: unfair] [ant: fair] 2: violating principles of justice; "unjust punishment"; "an unjust judge"; "an unjust accusation" [ant: just] 3: not equitable or fair; "the inequitable division of wealth"; "inequitable taxation" [syn: inequitable] [ant: equitable] 4: not righteous; "`unjust' is an archaic term for `unrighteous'"
Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University (bold added at the end for emphasis).
This means it is
impossible for a right to be unjust. And thus when I wrote what you were replying to:
RAZD, msg 267 writes:
faith, deep in spin cycle, msg 247 writes:
...I support businesses rejecting the business of anyone for any reason; nevertheless I may think their choice unjust...
Sorry, if it is a right for business to make this kind of decision then it is
de facto a
just decision. Period. It
cannot be unjust.
Your position is clearly a contradiction: you cannot allow an action as a right AND claim that it is unjust.
Now, lets review these two different cases further, which only
seem to be similar on the surface:
(1) a bank refuses to accept an account with a group because of their extreme homophobia: because the
group is publicly and blatantly biased, not the bank.
(2) a pharmacist refuses to honor a prescription written by a doctor because of {HIS\HER} bias and {HIS\HER} assumption of the use of the medicine. The pharmacist is biased not the patient.
One of the basic principles of the issue of rights is where people have the right to do {whatever} so long as it causes no harm to others.
In case (1), the extremist homophobic group is not harmed by not having a bank account beyond anything more than the inconvenience of (a) using cash or (b) getting an account with someone else (easy to do on the internet). Certainly there is no pain inflicted, and whatever temporary inconvenience is inflicted on the group is much less than the discomfort if not pain they inflict on others with their messages of hate.
In case (2) there are a number of medical conditions where the use of contraceptives are prescribed to ease pain, cramps, excessive bleeding and the like, and there are also women who medically are at extreme risk of death if they get pregnant. In these cases refusal to provide the prescription causes direct, unavoidable and imminent harm.
AND FURTHER, Because of the confidentiality between the patient and the doctor the pharmacist has no legal, moral or ethical basis for assuming any (let me repeat:
ANY) reason for the prescription OTHER than the health and happiness of the patient.
Case (1) is no different than refusing to do business with Neo-Nazi groups or the KKK.
Case (2) is no different than refusing to serve African Americans at a soda counter in
1960. (Frankly, the talk of this kind of bigoted discrimination being incorporated into new laws shows how little we have truly progressed since those days.)
All kinds of petty injustices occur all day long between people. If we prosecuted them all, we'd all be in prison.
Well, speak for yourself.
Personally I think you want to claim a right to discriminate willfully against the rights of people to be who they want to be,
and then to holler "UNJUST" in some kind of false righteous indignation when someone calls your position biased and ignorant.
And saying that pharmacists have a right to discriminate while calling the action by the bank "unjust" is doing just that.
You have no more right to be homophobic than you do to be racist -- it is only another form of being sexist.
Hate is not an American value.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2
