This law in no way forces them out of business. They have a choice.
This is a mean trick.
Either follow the law or go out of business. It's their choice.
This is no different than saying it's a slaves choice to be whipped. It's his choice, work or be whipped.
It is forced because which ever option they select it is forced, meaning forced against their will.
Friggin' libertarians, there should be some sort of pesticide to get rid of them.
Slaves did not have a vote. Slaves did not have laws protecting them against abuse. Slaves did not have the right to organize. Slavery was not regulated. There were no slave ship inspectors.
Thereis no insecticide known to man that is effective against libertarians.
Lois
This law in no way forces them out of business. They have a choice.
This is a mean trick.
Either follow the law or go out of business. It's their choice.
This is no different than saying it's a slaves choice to be whipped. It's his choice, work or be whipped.
It is forced because which ever option they select it is forced, meaning forced against their will.
Friggin' libertarians, there should be some sort of pesticide to get rid of them.
Slaves did not have a vote. Slaves did not have laws protecting them against abuse. Slaves did not have the right to organize. Slavery was not regulated. There were no slave ship inspectors.
I'm not a Libertarian. Lois said the pharmacists weren't being forced out of business.
I was pointing out that they were.
Yes we are forcing people out of business when they don't comply with rules that protect all of us. I don;t see why you feel we need to make a big statement to that effect.
No big statement required. Just to be straight about it. I think it matters a great deal because we have a tendency to cheat over this just as Lois did.
Yes we are forcing people out of business when they don't comply with rules that protect all of us. I don;t see why you feel we need to make a big statement to that effect.
No big statement required. Just to be straight about it. I think it matters a great deal because we have a tendency to cheat over this just as Lois did.
OK I think I see the issue here and perhaps its not what you meant at all, but the implication is that we are doing something unfair when we force someone out of business if they don't treat everyone fairly. As long as we all understand that forcing people to do things they don't want to do (forcing a business to close because its feeding unsafe food to people, forcing someone to go to jail because they committed a crime, forcing people to go to law school if they want to practice law or medical school if they want to practice medicine) is sensible and not unfair or unethical in any way.
By having secular laws that protect people from other people’s various interpretations of religious “laws”, we are setting up conditions for people to behave more rationally and humanely toward each other.
I suppose you could say that the pharmacies are being “forced” out of business, but you could also say it is because the pharmacy owners are “forcing” others, to some extent, to behave in accordance with the pharmacy owners religious interpretations.
So it seems to come down to “Who gets to do the “forcing”?” a) the pharmacy owners who want themselves and their customers to abide by superstitious dogma, or b) the government that is attempting to set up conditions in which its citizens are not subjected to other citizens choosing to behave according to their superstitious dogma.
OK I think I see the issue here and perhaps its not what you meant at all, but the implication is that we are doing something unfair when we force someone out of business if they don't treat everyone fairly. As long as we all understand that forcing people to do things they don't want to do (forcing a business to close because its feeding unsafe food to people, forcing someone to go to jail because they committed a crime, forcing people to go to law school if they want to practice law or medical school if they want to practice medicine) is sensible and not unfair or unethical in any way.
I can agree with that. The denial that they were being forced was the only issue. I think it's bad to deny it because it can easily be used to treat people unfairly.
All I'm saying is it's a clear case of being forced to comply or go out of business against their will.
I'm not saying I disagree with it.
But why would you say that? What are you implying? When I hear it, I hear that witch doctors were forced out of business a long time ago, and they are still forced to not even bother getting into business. The concept of being licensed to do a certain thing seems so simple and straight forward to me. You seem to understand that there is no place for a religious argument that results in choosing not to follow the agreement of that license. But you brought it up? Why? My guess is, you think there is a religious argument for having a business that has special rules, that doesn't have to follow the agreement that everyone else does.
No. I really did only bring it up because Lois was saying they are not being forced against their will.
I think one should be straight about this. We should say yes we are forcing you against your will because we believe we are justified in doing so.
That's pretty much what they are saying. The owners of the business can keep it open if they follow the law, just as a bakery, say, can stay in business if they follow the law and clean up the place so it passes health department muster. If a potential business owner can't follow the law because of his religion, why would he open a business in the first place--and then cry that he's being shut down and it isn't FAIR!
LL
This law in no way forces them out of business. They have a choice.
This is a mean trick.
Either follow the law or go out of business. It's their choice.
I
This is no different than saying it's a slaves choice to be whipped. It's his choice, work or be whipped.
It is forced because which ever option they select it is forced, meaning forced against their will.
Friggin' libertarians, there should be some sort of pesticide to get rid of them.
Slaves did not have a vote. Slaves did not have laws protecting them against abuse. Slaves did not have the right to organize. Slavery was not regulated. There were no slave ship inspectors.
I'm not a Libertarian. Lois said the pharmacists weren't being forced out of business.
I was pointing out that they were.
Would you say that a restaurant is being forced out of business because it is dirty and doesn't pass health inspection and the owner doesn't think he should have to clean up because it's against his religion? He's only being forced out because he won't comply with the law. That's not being forced out unfairly.
Yes we are forcing people out of business when they don't comply with rules that protect all of us. I don;t see why you feel we need to make a big statement to that effect.
No big statement required. Just to be straight about it. I think it matters a great deal because we have a tendency to cheat over this just as Lois did.
How did I cheat?
Lois
Yes we are forcing people out of business when they don't comply with rules that protect all of us. I don;t see why you feel we need to make a big statement to that effect.
No big statement required. Just to be straight about it. I think it matters a great deal because we have a tendency to cheat over this just as Lois did.
How did I cheat?
Lois
You said "in no way are they being forced out of business".
What you were doing is pretending it was their free choice (something you say you disbelieve in any way).
Would you say that a restaurant is being forced out of business because it is dirty and doesn't pass health inspection and the owner doesn't think he should have to clean up because it's against his religion? He's only being forced out because he won't comply with the law. That's not being forced out unfairly.
A much better comparison would be a vegan restaurant being forced to sell meat or go out of business.
Or a doctor being forced to do post birth abortions or go out of business.
It's being forced to abandon your moral principles or go out of business that we are talking about.
And I've not argued anybody is being forced unfairly. I just commented because you pretended they weren't being forced at all.
OK I think I see the issue here and perhaps its not what you meant at all, but the implication is that we are doing something unfair when we force someone out of business if they don't treat everyone fairly. As long as we all understand that forcing people to do things they don't want to do (forcing a business to close because its feeding unsafe food to people, forcing someone to go to jail because they committed a crime, forcing people to go to law school if they want to practice law or medical school if they want to practice medicine) is sensible and not unfair or unethical in any way.
I can agree with that. The denial that they were being forced was the only issue. I think it's bad to deny it because it can easily be used to treat people unfairly.
By the same token, untrained doctors and lawyers are forced out of business, too. Is that fair?
Lois
OK I think I see the issue here and perhaps its not what you meant at all, but the implication is that we are doing something unfair when we force someone out of business if they don't treat everyone fairly. As long as we all understand that forcing people to do things they don't want to do (forcing a business to close because its feeding unsafe food to people, forcing someone to go to jail because they committed a crime, forcing people to go to law school if they want to practice law or medical school if they want to practice medicine) is sensible and not unfair or unethical in any way.
I can agree with that. The denial that they were being forced was the only issue. I think it's bad to deny it because it can easily be used to treat people unfairly.
How?
Lois
Yes we are forcing people out of business when they don't comply with rules that protect all of us. I don;t see why you feel we need to make a big statement to that effect.
No big statement required. Just to be straight about it. I think it matters a great deal because we have a tendency to cheat over this just as Lois did.
How did I cheat?
Lois
You said "in no way are they being forced out of business".
What you were doing is pretending it was their free choice (something you say you disbelieve in any way).
When they opened up shop and got a business license they were, by implication, agreeing to follow the law concerning how such businesses operate. They also agree that if they fail to comply with the law that their business will be forced to close. If you want to focus on the word "force," go ahead, but the force is legal and fair, just as we are all "forced" to obey traffic laws or risk being cited and fined or to have driving priveleges revoked. When you get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you are agreeing to follow the rules. If you wish to call this force, go ahead, but it changes nothing. We live in a democracy where the rules are placed democratically, whether we like them or not. When you act, your agreement with the rules and the enforcement are implied. If you don't like them you are free to try to change them. What you are not free to do is ignore or avoid them because you think you are above the law. If that's force, ok, call it force. You still have to comply or face the legal consequences of non-compliance. That's how an ordered society works. If you don't like it, move to a place that has no laws you disagree with. If you can't find one, you are stuck obeying laws whether you like them or not.
Lois
OK I think I see the issue here and perhaps its not what you meant at all, but the implication is that we are doing something unfair when we force someone out of business if they don't treat everyone fairly. As long as we all understand that forcing people to do things they don't want to do (forcing a business to close because its feeding unsafe food to people, forcing someone to go to jail because they committed a crime, forcing people to go to law school if they want to practice law or medical school if they want to practice medicine) is sensible and not unfair or unethical in any way.
I can agree with that. The denial that they were being forced was the only issue. I think it's bad to deny it because it can easily be used to treat people unfairly.
How?
Lois
By treating people unfairly and pretending you're not because it's their choice.
I think this is common.
If you want to focus on the word "force," go ahead, but the force is legal and fair, just as we are all "forced" to obey traffic laws or risk being cited and fined or to have driving priveleges revoked.
I focused on it because you made a point of saying in no way are they being forced, presumably as part of your argument for why it is fair.
Secondly no we are not all forced to obey traffic laws. Most of us willingly obide by the rules. Again you are abusing the meaning of forced and not forced to make it seem like it's the same for everybody.
It's not, if you're a pharmacist who agrees with birth control, you're in a very different position than someone who doesn't. One persons freedom is restricted and the others isn't.
If you want to focus on the word "force," go ahead, but the force is legal and fair, just as we are all "forced" to obey traffic laws or risk being cited and fined or to have driving priveleges revoked.
I focused on it because you made a point of saying in no way are they being forced, presumably as part of your argument for why it is fair.
Secondly no we are not all forced to obey traffic laws. Most of us willingly obide by the rules. Again you are abusing the meaning of forced and not forced to make it seem like it's the same for everybody.
It's not, if you're a pharmacist who agrees with birth control, you're in a very different position than someone who doesn't. One persons freedom is restricted and the others isn't.
I think it's you who is playing with the words Stephen. You used the words "forced unfairly" and that's nonsensical, because fair means "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate." You can say the rules themselves were arrived at in some unfair manner, or you can say someone is ignoring the principle of fairness and just forcing someone, but there is no "fair forcing" by definition, when we are talking about legitimate laws. You are avoiding the moral discussion by redefining all laws to equal "force", that's why I called you a libertarian. That's what they do.
I say, having a consistent law about filling prescriptions that is based on science, not religion, is the fair, right and moral thing to do. If you don't want to participate in that, either don't, or break that law. I would consider the person breaking that law to be immoral, wrong, and unfair.
I think it's you who is playing with the words Stephen.
That is his standard method of operation. Notice he said we are not forced to obey traffic laws? One could argue that is true because so many people get away with breaking the laws, but that is a function of numbers. People do get traffic tickets. Also, traffic laws are not the same as professional services licenses.
I try to interpret whatever Stephen says, in the light of what I think is his fundamental belief and persistent message: that each of us does whatever we do as a result of all of the mega-myriad of factors that has lead, inevitably, to each of us doing whatever we do; and that, therefore, anyone of us who does anything, is not, in actuality, “deserving” of either praise or blame for that action.
At the same time, he seems to accept the social necessity of assigning praise or blame, but I think that he wants us to be rigorously honest about the underlying reality, in which we do so.
I think it's you who is playing with the words Stephen.
That is his standard method of operation. Notice he said we are not forced to obey traffic laws? One could argue that is true because so many people get away with breaking the laws, but that is a function of numbers. People do get traffic tickets. Also, traffic laws are not the same as professional services licenses.
Rubbish. What I said is some are forced and some aren't. I'm not forced because I willingly comply. Others are forced because they don't want to comply. It's very straight forward.
If you were a doctor and told you had to carry out post birth abortions against your moral principles or lose your job you'd be forced and you know it.
The point is be consistent with what is meant by forced.