On the Threshold of Bigotry

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

So that license requires no obligation? The licensing board has no power to actually indicate what it is that pharmacists are supposed to do in order to maintain the license?Hmm...here's part of the Arizona statutes regarding pharmacists: The practice of pharmacy requires following the doctor's orders.Inserting himself between the doctor and patient is the practice of medicine without a license.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Query: Should a pharmacist be allowed to deny treatment based upon the race or sex of the person asking? If not, why are they allowed to deny treatment based upon the medication?

---

​

If he feels it to be in his best interests not to contract with others based upon race he has that right.

---

So all those laws that prohibit public accomodations from refusing service on the basis of race are out of line?

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh? Since when did your private desire to not associate with people of a certain type turn into a public right to deny service? A hotel cannot refuse to rent you a room on the basis of your race. A restaurant cannot refuse you a table on the basis of your sex.Are you saying they should be able to do so?

quote:

---

And before you head off to the 14th Amendment, the protection is "under the law". The Constitution was meant to restrict the government, not control private individuals.

---

So legal regulation of public services that prevent discrimination are all bogus? A bank does have the right to refuse to give a loan to someone based on race, sex, religion, disability, etc.?

quote:

---

Who said the pharmacist had to know diddly?

---

What part of his "conscience" is being violated by the act of dispensing of a drug? Surely you're not saying that someone isn't dispensing mifepristone because of concerns about phenyl groups, are you?Let's not play dumb.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

You seem to think that a pharmacist is required to carry every drug that is available.

---

Where did I even hint at such a thing? Given the pharmacopeia that exists, it is impossible to carry every drug.But let's not play dumb. This isn't about carrying the drug. This is about dispensing it. Carrying the drugs is a different question.

quote:

---

What if the demand is too low? Or they don't have the money to stock up on a particular drug?

---

And if you could show that that was the reason why, you'd have a point, but let's not play dumb. The refusal to stock certain drugs has nothing to do with demand. It has to do with what the drugs are used for. The pharmacist is simply assuming that the drugs will be used for certain treatments and is deciding that no, certain treatments will become unavailable.But again, this isn't about carrying the drugs. This is about dispensing it.The question about carrying a drug is a different question entirely.

quote:

---

How much experience do you actually have with pharmacists?

---

How much do I need?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

By suggesting that a pharmacist is "stepping in between" the patient and the doctor. If the pharmacy simply does not buy and sell a particular drug, that is up to them. By suggesting that the pharmacist must provide a paticular drug, you are saying that they must buy and sell that drug. If they don't want to, then they don't have to. If nobody is going to buy it in their region, then they are not obligated to buy and sell it.They do not have to buy and sell any drug that they don't want too. Why? They can simply not carry the drug, then they don't have to dispense it. You always accuse of "playing dumb" when your refuted. What about deeply religous regions where most people wouldn't take the drug. The pharmacy is not required to stock drugs if they don't want to, whether or not it will sell or not. Its up to the pharmacy what drugs they sell and don't.The demand for the drug decides whether or not the pharmacy would benefit from carrying it or not. If they don't want to dispense it then they don't have to carry it. Enough to realize that saying that a pharmacist must provide a drug is wrong.Now, if a pharmacist works for, say Walgreens, that stocks a drug that they don't want to dispence, and Walgreens employee policy states that the pharmacist must provide every drug on the shelf, then they'd be violating their employment policy.But if they own their own pharmacy and simply decide to not carry a particular drug, they are not obligated to carry it. They don't have to buy and sell every drug that exists.

Have I done anything to deny you your "opinion"? Have I ever stated that you cannot hold that opinion? Have I tried in any way to prevent you from stating your opinion? Anywhere...at any time?Golly gee, since the answer to ALL of the above is a resounding "NO", then I fail to see how I have been intolerant of your opinion. Admittedly, I do vehemently disagree with it, but I am quite tolerant of your opinion. See above.What strikes me as odd though, is why you can see no difference between our two positions, as they relate to bigotry. You want to call me a bigot because, at least according to you, I do not tolerate or respect your opinion.I, on the other hand consider you a bigot..not because of you have an opinion that differs from mine, an opinion that I happen to disagree with, but rather because of what your opinion states or means or does. Your opinion, when put into practice (as it is now) denies homosexuals the right to marry. It's a bigoted opinion. Something is done...something happens...one group is treated as inferior to another...one group is denied something that you yourself are not.And yet you see our two positions as equal. You want to deny a group of people the right to marry, and yet somehow or another you put this on a equal footing with me simply stating that you are a bigot. WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that gays are somehow or another physically prevented from marrying...that it is impossible in nature for two guys to get married...that there's some physical restriction preventing two guys from getting married? Again, I have to ask...WTF? They whole problem boils down to WHY they cannot get married..why they do not, as you say, have the RIGHT to get married. That's the whole crux of the argument.Perhaps you will enlighten me now, as to why this right does not exist for homosexuals. It's a simple question. Racism and bigotry are two different things, CS, otherwise we wouldn't need two words to describe them. It's quite possible to be a racist and not a bigot.Edited by FliesOnly, : typos

If you actually think a 'popular vote' is objective, then I am unable to educate you.If you really think that a national referendum on gay marriage has anything to do with what you and I have been discussing, then you are not attempting to engage in our conversation.Anytime you can come up with a reasonable response to Message 62, I'll get back into the discussion.

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.‘—

Rrhain, have you been circumcised? I have, although they never asked for my permission, since I was a newborn when they did it. But, if I followed your logic to the T, all females should be circumcised at birth, too. What bigoted country's medical institution would discriminately issue circumcisions to boys and not girls? Who could be so bigoted as to suggest that what's good for males is not good for females? Could it be that, somehow in the strange workings of our legal system, males are considered different from females? Is that legal? Is it even moral?Rrhain, this is a blatant case of sexual inequality. You need to jump on it right away.”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Stile, again, it's your awkward play on subjectivity. How would you objectively resolve the issue? By calling "marriage" a civil union between same sexes when it objectively is NOT? How could anyone be so subjective? And should we elect a POTUS by some other means than a vote? A fiat, perhaps? Would that be anymore objective?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

I said that I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. If you are utterly intolerant of the people who are utterly intolerant of homosexuals, would you be proud or ashamed of it? Show me, somewhere other than your mind, where this qualifier can be found anywhere in the English language next to the word "bigot," and then maybe we can talk. What part of "due process" has anything to do with bigotry? Stop conflating things that have nothing to do with one another. A Klansman is a bigot. Do we agree on that? How is it then that even the Klansman is afforded due process, even though you might argue that he would restrict from someone else? You are using a legal term to try and define an opinion. Like it or not, bigotry is nothing more than an extreme aversion to someone else's beliefs or opinions.You're rrrrrrrrreaching..... Ssssssstrrrrrrretch. Write it down while you're at it.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

And gosh darn it, where would we be without those barbs?! Well, hang on now... If the word intolerant was already specific to an irrational detesting, then to be utterly intolerant of something would be a tautology.

quote:

---

1: unable or unwilling to endure
2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

---

We are not in disagreement that to deny people freedoms irrationally would certainly qualify as both intolerance, and utter intolerance, and therefore would summarily qualify as bigotry. Where we disagree is that the abrogation of freedoms is the sole qualifier, as Flies and Straggler are now suggesting.Perhaps a scenario will elucidate my point better.When someone comes up to you in the street and makes some nasty remarks about your sexual proclivities, would you not say they were a bigot? I think in all honesty you would. And you would be right to say as much, I should think.In fact, lets say that in lieu of said conversation, you two have a debate. He says to you that he doesn't want to stop something like gay marriage, but just thinks that homosexuality is a disgusting perversion of nature. You calmly explain your position, but he persists, saying that you will never change his mind and that you are going to hell for it. Now, he doesn't want to take away any of your rights. Does he now cease to be a bigot in light of that?Conversely, lets say there is someone riding the fence about homosexuality. And he says, "Gosh, you know, I'm just not 100% about this homosexuality stuff. I've been reading a lot about it and I haven't really come to a solid decision yet. But wouldn't it make more sense to have marriage for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples? Wouldn't that be the most equitable to make all parties involved happy."Clearly the first man is hostile and won't even listen to anything to the contrary -- in essence, he is utterly intolerant. The other guy is just being honest, and is not trying to hurt anyone. He is just trying to be fair.Which of the two is a bigot? Because according to Flies, Straggler, and now you, the second man is a raving lunatic, while the first guy is just expressing his opinion. Rational people would clearly say the first is the bigot.Hope that clarifies my position. If not, we'll haggle some more. Why thank you! Yes, happy belated birthday to you as well. I turned 31 and nearly had a mid-life crisis. Eh... All in all it was a good day, though I had to work on my birthday. Kinda ruined plans with the family, and we had to come up with some impromptu plans instead. But all in all it worked out great. Thanks for asking.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

It's not hard.Here, again, from Message 62, we see that I've already answered your 'question':

quote:

---

1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.

---

It's step #5. We correct the issue by granting gays and straights the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.Again, no mention of the words "marriage" or "civil union".Again, when you're ready to move on, please do. We've gotten up to message 203 and you're still not past message 62.

That's right NJ...he is not a bigot (at least in regards to homosexuals and gay marriage). He may be a lot of things, but in this instance he is not behaving as a bigot. He is denying homosexuals nothing. He may hate them, he may be homophobic, but unless he actually does something that shows intolerance (which is not the same as disliking or disagreeing) then why would you call him a bigot? Hell, he wants them treated the same as heterosexuals. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, behaving as a bigot? Well, I would explain to him why our Constitution does not allow "Separate but Equal". I would go on to explain that since "marriage and civil unions are treated differently under the law, they are not equivalent. Those in homosexual marriages are denied the rights afforded to those in heterosexual marriages, and as such, are being treated unfairly solely based on their sexual orientation."If, after having this all explained to him, he persisted with wanting to treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals, then, NJ, as per the definition of bigotry that you keep supplying to us, the person in the above example would be a bigot. The first individual is not being intolerant. He hates gays, but he is doing nothing to advance that hatred except in expressing how he feels.Seriously, can you see no difference? Look, you keep picking on how I apply the word intolerance. But if we go by your standard, then everyone on the entire planet is bigoted towards everyone else on the entire planet, because all of us disagree with some else about something (i.e.,are intolerant of their position). And it's because you keep applying "intolerance" as if it means that same thing as "disagreement". Did I say that the second man was a raving lunatic? I only ask because I can't seem to find that little tidbit anywhere. But anyway, to answer your question...the second man is more likely to be a bigot. No...people that do not understand the meaning of the word "bigot" would see the first person as such.

Let me see if I can clean up this mess. We disagree on what is objective and what is subjective in lawmaking. I'm saying that changing the legal definition of "marriage" for the convenience of a minority group of homosexuals is subjective. I'm saying that preserving the meaning of "marriage" for the vast majority of heterosexuals is objective; you're saying it is not. Is it objective to call a bicycle a bicycle? Yes! And it is objective to call a tricycle a bicycle? No! (Why is this so goddamn difficult?) I'm not against DPs for gays. I don't oppose legalized civil unions for them. I only oppose what they call it, because calling a "tricycle" a "bicycle" doesn't make it a bicycle. But I have, and you have rejected it on subjective grounds. You can't see objectively that I do not oppose legalizing gay DPs. I only oppose the obvious thorn in the claw of this monster: "Marriage" does not mean anything you want it to mean. In all objectivity, "marriage" means a civil union between a man and a woman. How much more objective can that be? If you go fishing a catch a cod, but you wanted to catch a bass instead, then you can go ahead and call your cod a bass you want to. Won't bother me a bit...until you insist that the law should change its wording to make bass out of cods. That would be a very subjective thing to do. No? Dah...I don't think so. And I'm an objective thinker, too. I agree. But do they need to call it a "marriage" to do that? No. You have it completely in reverse. Raw subjectivity is bad enough, but inverted raw subjectivity is an abomination. But I don't oppose legalizing gay DPs.Stile, in truth, we're both subjective in each other eyes. But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is about which one of us deserves to be call a "bigot." I've even gone so far as to suggest that maybe God was a bigot for His discriminatory treatment of Job. My point there was that any accusation of bigotry is a subjective act. Can't people have differing POVs without being called bigots?So, we're back to my propose Rule #1 from Message 44: You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Hi, long time browser first time poster. After browsing this topic with earnest i decided to come out of hiding and perhaps contribute if i may since all of you seem to be running around in the same circle you were at the start, no offence meant to anyone.Hoot Mon, i gather from your posts that you don't mind if homosexual couples can have civil unions, you also don't mind if they get all of the rights that heterosexual people get, so essentially you want to give them the legal side that comes with a marraige but just not the name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet perhaps?
If it has all the exact same privilages, since denying them any legal privilages that you have for no reason other than the fact that they are gay would be bigotry, would it not just be the exact same? In essence what i am trying to say is; is it not you that wants to call a "bicycle" a "tricycle"?

I'm not talking about the definition of the word 'marriage'.
I'm not talking about any subjective definition of the word 'marriage'.
I'm not talking about any objective definition of the word 'marriage'.
I'm not even using the word 'marriage'. Message 51

quote:

---

But we're not talking about the meanings of words. We're talking about objective regulations. The rest of your post is about the meanings of words... this is not the issue.

---

Of course not. We can call it anything you'd like. The first thing to do is to make sure the regulations are equal. Then you can go about attempting to change the names of things all you'd like. Good luck. Of course we can have different points of view and not call each other bigots. The name 'bigot' starts being tossed around when someone starts refusing to allow equal rights to equal people. In order to not be a bigot, you have to prioritize equal rights for equal people above definitions of terms describing those rights.When you prioritize the simple definitions of words over the equal rights of fellow humans... you then become a bigot. You are now 'intolerant' of those fellow humans having equal rights.No one cares about the definition of the word marriage, the problem is prioritizing the definition of a word over allowing equal rights for fellow human beings.It is akin to arguing the use of 'toMEHto' vs 'toMAHto' while holding the tomato in your hand and not allowing a starving fellow human to eat it until you get your vocabulary straight.It's ridiculous.