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.Thank you Tim. Yes that's it. That's the way to treat everybody as fairly as we can.
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. And you're not (being consistent). Force is not a question of willingness or want. You can be unwilling and have a choice. It is a free choice to be a pharmacist and the choice includes following the rules of pharmacy. Very straight forward. Your example has too many "ifs" to be relevant. Even if it was legal somewhere to fire someone for not doing an immoral procedure, they still could choose to go work somewhere else. Your analogy only works in some fantasy world in your head where aliens come down and tell all doctors everywhere that they must do this or not be doctors at all. That qualifies as forcing, and it's immoral and wrong. You're still avoiding the question of the wrongness of a pharmacist to not fill birth control or abortion pill prescriptions. I don't know the details, but apparently doctors can refuse to do abortions, FYI. A pharmacist is different, because they aren't diagnosing or providing care, they are carrying out something prescribed by someone else. They knew that before they became a pharmacist.
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."Forced means forced against your will. That's it. Whether it's fair to force somebody against their will depends on why you're doing it. Are we right to force pharmacists to sell birth control pills against their will or go out of business? I suspect we are actually. If we're right to do it, it's fair. That's what I mean by fair.
And you're not (being consistent). Force is not a question of willingness or want. You can be unwilling and have a choice. It is a free choice to be a pharmacist and the choice includes following the rules of pharmacy. Very straight forward.Force is a question of willingness or want because what forced means is forced against your will. Yes the pharmacist has a choice in a sense. But only like a slave has a choice to work or not. The point is it's a forced choice meaning forced against his will. People nastily twist the meaning of free choices and forced choices to suit their purposes which is a major cause of human suffering. So its well worth straightening it out.
Your example has too many "ifs" to be relevant.No. My example was of being forced to comply against your moral principles or lose your job. It is relevantly the same.
And you're not (being consistent). Force is not a question of willingness or want. You can be unwilling and have a choice. It is a free choice to be a pharmacist and the choice includes following the rules of pharmacy. Very straight forward.Force is a question of willingness or want because what forced means is forced against your will. Yes the pharmacist has a choice in a sense. But only like a slave has a choice to work or not. The point is it's a forced choice meaning forced against his will. People nastily twist the meaning of free choices and forced choices to suit their purposes which is a major cause of human suffering. So its well worth straightening it out. And we're back to slaves. You're hopeless. I was about to let you off the hook, but no, you don't want to face the actual underlying issue, that we can't let everyone choose their own morals. You have offered no subtlety or any reasoning behind a moral choice. Given your reasoning, it's wrong to force a baby to eat it's vegetables.
And you're not (being consistent). Force is not a question of willingness or want. You can be unwilling and have a choice. It is a free choice to be a pharmacist and the choice includes following the rules of pharmacy. Very straight forward.Force is a question of willingness or want because what forced means is forced against your will. Yes the pharmacist has a choice in a sense. But only like a slave has a choice to work or not. The point is it's a forced choice meaning forced against his will. People nastily twist the meaning of free choices and forced choices to suit their purposes which is a major cause of human suffering. So its well worth straightening it out. And we're back to slaves. You're hopeless. I was about to let you off the hook, but no, you don't want to face the actual underlying issue, that we can't let everyone choose their own morals. You have offered no subtlety or any reasoning behind a moral choice. Given your reasoning, it's wrong to force a baby to eat it's vegetables. Utter rubbish. I have not said it's wrong to force anybody to do anything. What I've said is we shouldn't force people to do things and say we aren't. If we force someone against their will it's a forced choice. Yes the same as the choice a slave has. The slave example is to show choices can be forced or free and what distinguishes them is whether the choice is forced against a person's will or not. It matters not to play the trick that the slave "has a choice" same goes for the pharmacist. When you say I'm hopeless what you mean is let you allow the meaning of "forced" to move around to suit you. .
When you say I'm hopeless what you mean is let you allow the meaning of "forced" to move around to suit you.I mean exactly the opposite. You want a meaning that has no meaning. If force is defined only by willingness or not, then it has little use, especially in this context where we are talking about the rule of law. Laws are meaningless if they are not enforced. They are meaningful for a free and fair society that promotes humanity if they are arrived at in a manner that is fair. Enforcing laws does not require force when they are reasonable and fair. Force is only necessary against those who are unresaonable, in other words those who would attempt to force their values on the rest of us. It's not a simple matter of who is stronger, who is more forceful, it's a matter of the best argument for the best idea. If I can convince of my point of view using reason, then I don't need to force you.
I mean exactly the opposite. You want a meaning that has no meaning. If force is defined only by willingness or not, then it has little use, especially in this context where we are talking about the rule of law.The meaning is clear to all. A slave is forced to work, forced meaning forced against his will.
Laws are meaningless if they are not enforced.Now you're talking about forced as in rules backed up by force, quite different.
If I can convince of my point of view using reason, then I don't need to force you.That's right. But we're talking about a case in which reason failed and force is advocated.
Wow, well, I guess we are further apart on this than I thought. I asked you way in the beginning to explain what you are thinking about this case. It would have saved us a lot of time if you would have said this back then. Or, you could have said it when I said that I think the law is just and moral and reasonable. If you are going to continue to take this long to say what you think, I'll continue to lose interest.I mean exactly the opposite. You want a meaning that has no meaning. If force is defined only by willingness or not, then it has little use, especially in this context where we are talking about the rule of law.The meaning is clear to all. A slave is forced to work, forced meaning forced against his will.Laws are meaningless if they are not enforced.Now you're talking about forced as in rules backed up by force, quite different.If I can convince of my point of view using reason, then I don't need to force you."That's right. But we're talking about a case in which reason failed and force is advocated." Stephen
A retail store is private property and the owners of that property can choose not to serve anyone they choose not to serve. If they choose to not sell a particular line of product, that is also their choice. In this case it appears that their choice is to either sell prescriptions to whoever has a prescription, or to stop filling prescriptions altogether. In other words they can shut down their pharmacy.Is that entirely accurate? If you own a business and open it up to serve the public, you in fact are not private property. When one goes and obtains a business licence, and open a store/pharmacy, that is antithetical to society to then turn and say we can ask anyone to get off the property for any unlawful reason. Also, medical ethics are different than deciding what brands to carry.
Also, from a medical perspective, hormonal pills (contraceptives being one use) can serve many persons. I work for a facility that prescribes “birth control” pills to treat conditions that women experience such as Polycystic ovarian syndrome and other endocrine disorders. Some people are on antidepressant medications for seizures. Some people are on medications that are widely known to be prescribed for patients with HIV, but there are in fact other uses. You CANNOT judge a medication based on what YOU believe it is for. Last time I filled prescriptions, unless there is some medical contraindication, it’s not the pharmacists business what my medicine is actually for and the doctor does not have a duty to let her know either. Anyone of this ilk is arguably not intelligent enough to be a part of the medical community. So one of the more alarming components of this story is the lack of intelligence of this pharmacist.
It’s just like all this bakery fuss over same sex marriage–ok, what if two gay men walk in and say we want a “white-three tier BIRTHDAY cake.” See…the control the baker think he has is just a joke, it is in no way feasible for a business to think it can meddle in the personal lives of people whether it be medical or baked goods.
A retail store is private property and the owners of that property can choose not to serve anyone they choose not to serve. If they choose to not sell a particular line of product, that is also their choice. In this case it appears that their choice is to either sell prescriptions to whoever has a prescription, or to stop filling prescriptions altogether. In other words they can shut down their pharmacy.Is that entirely accurate? If you own a business and open it up to serve the public, you in fact are not private property. When one goes and obtains a business licence, and open a store/pharmacy, that is antithetical to society to then turn and say we can ask anyone to get off the property for any unlawful reason. Also, medical ethics are different than deciding what brands to carry. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe FinallyDecided is asking the right question. On the one hand, a business owner can arbitrarily kick someone out of his store, just because they feel unsafe, or the person is violating a rule he made up for his establishment. But, if it can be demonstrated that his intention was to discriminate against a protected class, like he shows a consistent pattern of doing that to certain types of people, then he's broken a law.
A retail store is private property and the owners of that property can choose not to serve anyone they choose not to serve. If they choose to not sell a particular line of product, that is also their choice. In this case it appears that their choice is to either sell prescriptions to whoever has a prescription, or to stop filling prescriptions altogether. In other words they can shut down their pharmacy.Is that entirely accurate? If you own a business and open it up to serve the public, you in fact are not private property. When one goes and obtains a business licence, and open a store/pharmacy, that is antithetical to society to then turn and say we can ask anyone to get off the property for any unlawful reason. Also, medical ethics are different than deciding what brands to carry. Yes it is, I owned a retail store, and in the process verified the legal status of that property. On very good authority (a Lawyer) I was informed that it was private property, my private property in the same sense that my home was my private property. Being open to the public was the same as inviting someone into your home.
Yes it is, I owned a retail store, and in the process verified the legal status of that property. On very good authority (a Lawyer) I was informed that it was private property, my private property in the same sense that my home was my private property. Being open to the public was the same as inviting someone into your home.You need a better lawyer. Have You Reserved Your Right to Refuse Service?]
As places of public accommodation, private businesses are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. These statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation. And others, well they outlaw even arbitrary discrimination.Business and private residences are not the same. You have the right to arbitrarily decide who can enter your home, but you do not have that right in your place of business.
A retail store is private property and the owners of that property can choose not to serve anyone they choose not to serve. If they choose to not sell a particular line of product, that is also their choice. In this case it appears that their choice is to either sell prescriptions to whoever has a prescription, or to stop filling prescriptions altogether. In other words they can shut down their pharmacy.Is that entirely accurate? If you own a business and open it up to serve the public, you in fact are not private property. When one goes and obtains a business licence, and open a store/pharmacy, that is antithetical to society to then turn and say we can ask anyone to get off the property for any unlawful reason. Also, medical ethics are different than deciding what brands to carry. Yes it is, I owned a retail store, and in the process verified the legal status of that property. On very good authority (a Lawyer) I was informed that it was private property, my private property in the same sense that my home was my private property. Being open to the public was the same as inviting someone into your home. Indeed it is not. There are laws that protect people in true public accommodations. It is against the law tell someone to leave your place of business because you hate____(insert race here). In your private home, you can discriminate all you want. Find a new lawyer. Of course there are exceptions in the sense that you owned the property and if someone in your retail store was disturbing the peace, loitering, or some other deed that warranted you asking them leave, but it sounds like your lawyer gave a very poor analogy likening a store to a private home. The nature of a business is that you do not need to ask permission to enter, while in a private home, you do. Simple minded lawyers are bad.