The Right To Serve

[imind]

And no body here is advocating this either that I have read and surely not I. This whole thing has nothing to do with discrimination at all, except as in the baker case, lesbians discrimating against the baker because he/she is a Christian.

??? no they're not...i don't think you understand what discriminate means here...

You are right we are all sinners in this world and any discrimination against a sinful group is well sinful. But you cannot force people to violate their religious convictions

define 'religious conviction'...i'm serious. i can of course understand not making someone do something personally that would violate their religious beliefs, but baking a cake, by itself, is not against any religious beliefs. that is all the baker is being asked to do.

Let me give you a few examples here. Let us say we have a group approach a hotel manager and wants to rent their conference hall to have a huge orgy. If that manager refuses, due to his religious and moral principles, are you ok with that?

lol, this would be illegal, to have an orgy in a conference hall. i cannot get past that. a better example here would be the manager denying a homosexual orgy while allowing heterosexual orgies.

What if a woman goes to her gynecologist and tells him, she wants an abortion and she wants him to do it. If he is pro-life, should he be forced to do so?

another bad example, as this doctor more than likely doesn't provide abortions to anyone. if he provided abortions to heteros i would expect him to provide an abortion to homos.

...and so it goes for the rest of your examples...they are bad examples in that none of them provide examples of a company denying service to someone or some group that they would normally provide to another. that is the heart of the issue here.

I got even a better question for you. Why are there so many Christians who have no problem violating their beliefs to get along in this world? Who feel that secular morality trumps their Christian morality?

in this instance, nobody is asking anyone to anything they don't already do.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

It really this simple:

You can refuse service to anyone as long as the refusal is not based on skin color, religion, race, creed or country of national origin and in some locales sexual orientation.

It's interesting to note that the only people seem to want to have the the right to refuse service to (at least on this thread) is based on creed and sexual orientation.

(Creed in this case would include someone who wanted a legal product which is morally offense to the person selling it - in the case birth control pills)

This is why I'm convinced that there is more to the story of all those bakers, photographers and such are that are being sued by various state civil rights offices.

All ya gotta do is say: I'm sorry, but I'm just all booked up right now I just don't have the time. There's really not recourse for the potential buyers at that point.

 

[mark46]

To suggest otherwise is simply to state US law.

Private businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they feel like.
To suggest otherwise is to say that the government has the right to regulate a business when it has not taken on any of the risk, skill, or investment involved in maintaining a business.

 

[mark46]

Birth control pills is a slightly different situation from flowers and cake. Flowers and cake are offered for sale to all except homosexual couples, a clear violation of law.

The failure of a pharmacist to carry for sale the product of birth control pills is a different situation. Is this conceptually/legally different that the pharmacist choosing not to sell cigarettes or magazines?

(Creed in this case would include someone who wanted a legal product which is morally offense to the person selling it - in the case birth control pills)

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Birth control pills is a slightly different situation from flowers and cake. Flowers and cake are offered for sale to all except homosexual couples, a clear violation of law.

The failure of a pharmacist to carry for sale the product of birth control pills is a different situation. Is this conceptually/legally different that the pharmacist choosing not to sell cigarettes or magazines?

Not in my opinion because of the specific nature of a pharmacists job and the fact that they are licensed by the state.

A pharmacists is a licensed control point. Some drugs need to be controlled, the pharmacist is the person who controls them.

They do NOT get to decide whether or not they are needed or how they should be dispensed (imo).

I've run into pharmacists who have refused to sell prescription grade vitamin A supplements to young women (12-19) on the grounds that there is some limited evidence that large amounts of Vitamin A given to women of pre-child baring years can cause high rates of mis-carriage later in their lives.

Consequently, this pharmacist refused to fill the prescription on the grounds that she (it was a she) would be participating in something that could lead to abortion.

OK, what in tarnation is the person who's only job it is to control the dissemination of medication doing make a decision like that on a drug prescribed by a physician ?

Just fill the script properly and shut up.

(In case you're wondering, I

1) Complained the prescribing doctor and made him hand write an new script so I could find a pharmacy that would fill it. The hand written script caused his office some extra work - They complained to the health insurance company)

2) I then complained to the health insurance company and forced them (intentionally so were clear) to certify that I could get the script filled out of network. (which I'm sure cost them a couple of bucks)

3) Told the manager that I was going to do both of the above before leaving the store.

I got a call back in less the 30 hours from the pharmacy apologizing and saying they would be happy to filling script in the future.

I don't take the kind of thing well. These people need to be made to understand - they're not just jerking me around, they're playing with their livelihoods. )

 

[mark46]

So, for you the heart of the matter is the licensing. So, let me clarify.

1) Is part of the license of the pharmacist an agreement to carry and sell any and all drugs requested by doctors in prescriptions?

2) Is part of the license to also sell ALL non-prescriptions drugs, clearly impossible?

3) What about other "medical" products" canes, cough drops, vitamins and so forth.

Do all states have similar requirements?

BTW, does the pharmacy have the responsibility to tell the customer about drug interactions?

Not in my opinion because of the specific nature of a pharmacists job and the fact that they are licensed by the state.

A pharmacists is a licensed control point. Some drugs need to be controlled, the pharmacist is the person who controls them.

They do NOT get to decide whether or not they are needed or how they should be dispensed (imo).

I've run into pharmacists who have refused to sell prescription grade vitamin A supplements to young women (12-19) on the grounds that there is some limited evidence that large amounts of Vitamin A given to women of pre-child baring years can cause high rates of mis-carriage later in their lives.

Consequently, this pharmacist refused to fill the prescription on the grounds that she (it was a she) would be participating in something that could lead to abortion.

OK, what in tarnation is the person who's only job it is to control the dissemination of medication doing make a decision like that on a drug prescribed by a physician ?

Just fill the script properly and shut up.

(In case you're wondering, I

1) Complained the prescribing doctor and made him hand write an new script so I could find a pharmacy that would fill it. The hand written script caused his office some extra work - They complained to the health insurance company)

2) I then complained to the health insurance company and forced them (intentionally so were clear) to certify that I could get the script filled out of network. (which I'm sure cost them a couple of bucks)

3) Told the manager that I was going to do both of the above before leaving the store.

I got a call back in less the 30 hours from the pharmacy apologizing and saying they would be happy to filling script in the future.

I don't take the kind of thing well. These people need to be made to understand - they're not just jerking me around, they're playing with their livelihoods. )

 

[mark46]

Silly me.

If a pharmacist refused to sell me Vitamin A or fill any other prescription, I would simply go to another pharmacy and indicating to the manager that I would no longer shop at the first pharmacy.

If this were a long-term prescription need, I would use the mail in prescription company my insurance company uses.

Insisting that a retailer sell a particular product wouldn't have occurred to me.

Not in my opinion because of the specific nature of a pharmacists job and the fact that they are licensed by the state.

A pharmacists is a licensed control point. Some drugs need to be controlled, the pharmacist is the person who controls them.

They do NOT get to decide whether or not they are needed or how they should be dispensed (imo).

I've run into pharmacists who have refused to sell prescription grade vitamin A supplements to young women (12-19) on the grounds that there is some limited evidence that large amounts of Vitamin A given to women of pre-child baring years can cause high rates of mis-carriage later in their lives.

Consequently, this pharmacist refused to fill the prescription on the grounds that she (it was a she) would be participating in something that could lead to abortion.

OK, what in tarnation is the person who's only job it is to control the dissemination of medication doing make a decision like that on a drug prescribed by a physician ?

Just fill the script properly and shut up.

(In case you're wondering, I

1) Complained the prescribing doctor and made him hand write an new script so I could find a pharmacy that would fill it. The hand written script caused his office some extra work - They complained to the health insurance company)

2) I then complained to the health insurance company and forced them (intentionally so were clear) to certify that I could get the script filled out of network. (which I'm sure cost them a couple of bucks)

3) Told the manager that I was going to do both of the above before leaving the store.

I got a call back in less the 30 hours from the pharmacy apologizing and saying they would be happy to filling script in the future.

I don't take the kind of thing well. These people need to be made to understand - they're not just jerking me around, they're playing with their livelihoods. )

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

So, for you the heart of the matter is the licensing. So, let me clarify.

1) Is part of the license of the pharmacist an agreement to carry and sell any and all drugs requested by doctors in prescriptions?

2) Is part of the license to also sell ALL non-prescriptions drugs, clearly impossible?

3) What about other "medical" products" canes, cough drops, vitamins and so forth.

Do all states have similar requirements?

BTW, does the pharmacy have the responsibility to tell the customer about drug interactions?

I don't have a clue what the particulars of the license is beyond that the phamacist is a control agent for controlled drugs. They are not arbiters of what makes good drugs and what makes bad drugs.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Silly me.

If a pharmacist refused to sell me Vitamin A or fill any other prescription, I would simply go to another pharmacy and indicating to the manager that I would no longer shop at the first pharmacy.

I live in America, land of the free and home of the for profit health insurance company. I don't know about your plan but mine doesn't allow me to just "go to another pharmacy". If the pharmacy I get my drugs at refuse to fill a script, I have a problem

hIf ts iwere a long-term prescription need, I would use the mail in prescription company my insurance company uses.

See above comment.

]Insisting that a retailer sell a particular product wouldn't have occurred to me.

Well, your welcome for the new idea in you life.

Don't let yourself be pushed around by health care people Mark, too many Americans do. It's your body and these guys work for you.

My wife (an RN) taught me that.

 

[Erose]

??? no they're not...i don't think you understand what discriminate means here...

I know perfectly well what discrimination is, I am questioning whether you do or not.

define 'religious conviction'...i'm serious. i can of course understand not making someone do something personally that would violate their religious beliefs, but baking a cake, by itself, is not against any religious beliefs. that is all the baker is being asked to do.

Are you as a Christian want me to define what a religious conviction is, or are you asking how what the baker did violates his/her convictions?

lol, this would be illegal, to have an orgy in a conference hall. i cannot get past that. a better example here would be the manager denying a homosexual orgy while allowing heterosexual orgies.

Nope not a better example. The story said the baker would not supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It did not say that the baker refused to supply the lesbian couple with anything. So my example still matches.

another bad example, as this doctor more than likely doesn't provide abortions to anyone. if he provided abortions to heteros i would expect him to provide an abortion to homos.

No you are still wrong here.

...and so it goes for the rest of your examples...they are bad examples in that none of them provide examples of a company denying service to someone or some group that they would normally provide to another. that is the heart of the issue here.

Again I ask you have you really read my posts, for it sure doesn't seem to be the case. I have already agreed if the baker refused to sell them anything due to who they were, then yes the lesbian couple has a case for discrimination. That is not what we are discussing.

What we are discussing is should the baker be forced to support something that violates his/her reasonable moral convictions. Let me rewrite this one more time so hopefully you get what we are debating here. WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IS SHOULD THE BAKER BE FORCED TO SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES HIS/HER REASONABLE MORAL CONVICTIONS.

in this instance, nobody is asking anyone to anything they don't already do.

In this instance you obviously have no problem forcing someone to throw their faith in the trash to get along.

 

[Erose]

It really this simple:

You can refuse service to anyone as long as the refusal is not based on skin color, religion, race, creed or country of national origin and in some locales sexual orientation.

It's interesting to note that the only people seem to want to have the the right to refuse service to (at least on this thread) is based on creed and sexual orientation.

(Creed in this case would include someone who wanted a legal product which is morally offense to the person selling it - in the case birth control pills)

This is why I'm convinced that there is more to the story of all those bakers, photographers and such are that are being sued by various state civil rights offices.

All ya gotta do is say: I'm sorry, but I'm just all booked up right now I just don't have the time. There's really not recourse for the potential buyers at that point.

You may be right, but if you are not then this definitely sets a bad precedence does it not? That gay marriage trumps religious rights, do you think this would be a good or bad thing? Also let us not forget that anyone can sue anyone else over anything. Doesn't mean that they will win or not.

 

[mark46]

I understand your situation and why what you did was very reasonable.

I have never had the insurance issues you speak of. Whenever I have had drug coverage, almost every pharmacy was included, certainly including CVS and Walgreen's. I have live primarily in mid-sized towns (around 30-130K). I have always had lot of choices.

QUOTE=Cosmic Charlie;63781620]

Silly me.

I live in America, land of the free and home of the for profit health insurance company. I don't know about your plan but mine doesn't allow me to just "go to another pharmacy". If the pharmacy I get my drugs at refuse to fill a script, I have a problem


See above comment.


Well, your welcome for the new idea in you life.

Don't let yourself be pushed around by health care people Mark, too many Americans do. It's your body and these guys work for you.

My wife (an RN) taught me that.

 

[Erose]

I don't have a clue what the particulars of the license is beyond that the phamacist is a control agent for controlled drugs. They are not arbiters of what makes good drugs and what makes bad drugs.

This point I believe is not true. At least in some states the pharmacist is required to either provide at least a document outlining the possible side effects, and with some medications are required to counsel the buyer of those side effects.

Another point that should be made is that the pharmacist has many more years of training than medical doctors do concerning drugs and their effects.

A few years ago a doctor prescribed a family member of a friend of mine two drugs that if used concurrently would cause seizures and in some cases even death. The pharmacist informed that this was the case and refused to prescribe the medicine. He counseled the friend to go back to the doctor for a different prescription. The doctor blew a gasket about it, but when he went to prove that he was right, he discovered very quickly that he was wrong. Needless to say that pharmacist saved a life. I guess he should have shut his mouth and do what he is told huh?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

One as a business-owner reserves the right to refuse or to provide services to whomever he desires. It smacks of totalitarianism to force or mandate against his will to provide his service offered out of his own free will to whomever he wishes. As long as he is acting and carrying about his business in a morally and ethically upright manner, there is no problem.

Furthermore, if an establishment or shop or business doesn't like or wish to serve a particular organisation or group; folks that support such a group reserve the right to refuse to patronise such a shop. It is voluntary and free transaction. If one does not like or wish to purchase a product or pay for a particular kind of service at a business, then one is NOT forced to patronise them. One can always patronise businesses with whom one is moral, religious, or political agreement.

For example:

As a faithful Roman Catholic, I do not patronise Starbucks or Planned Parenthood as they both support causes or business practises that I cannot in good conscience support. In the case of the former it is indirect with their funding of pro-Antitraditional Marriage groups and pro-Abortion organsations; whereas, the later provides a direct morally offensive and a vice, essentially an evil service, abortion or the murder of the preborn children whilst still in the womb of his or her mother.

Hence, I do not patronise these businesses; nor should I be forced to do so. I do not agree with them; ergo, I do not support them.

 

[LoAmmi]

Hence, I do not patronise these businesses; nor should I be forced to do so. I do not agree with them; ergo, I do not support them.

Well, yes, you are never forced to go to any business, however a business would be restricted in putting up a big sign that said "No Roman Catholics". Businesses don't get that right.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

You may be right, but if you are not then this definitely sets a bad precedence does it not? That gay marriage trumps religious rights, do you think this would be a good or bad thing? Also let us not forget that anyone can sue anyone else over anything. Doesn't mean that they will win or not.

This whole thing about religious rights is something that has to be stepped back from and looked at with some objectivity.

Who's rights and what discrimination ?

The Methodist Church, as well as some minor Christian sects, claimed that their rights were being taken away during the civil rights movement.

The general consensus of the courts and the general society was that if you're actually going to serve the public and had to service all the public.

You have every right to do anything you want to do within the realm of your religious practice.

Mormons for example weren't forced to stop their discriminatory practices against blacks in their own churches.

But Mormons couldn't take those practices and extend them to the general society.

The precedent has already been set for some time already. You don't get to enforce your religious views on the society at large. If you're offering a service to the public you have to serve the public.

BUT....

...the US isn't hard guys about it. They can't and don't try to interpret the moral import of actions (unless your REALLY being obvious about it)

Do black, for instance, get discriminated in housing ?

All the time

Every day.

But housing seller just know how to respond to any question that gets asked.

All the baker has to say is, nope, can't meet your schedule, sorry.

And that would be that

I guess is they just can't help but add, "Because you're an abomination before the Lord..."

and now they're cooked.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I don't get this whole racism bit. If a shoppe in our present era refuses to serve whites or blacks, couldn't folks just boycott them? If they got any business it'd only be like-minded persons to them. And if enough folks boycott a business with unjust or disreputable practices, wouldn't they go out of business? Why get the government involved?! Usually, they take a problem and then make it many times worse than it was to begin with . . .

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Here's an Example of what happens when the government tries to 'fix' things and make things 'better': Forced busing with desegregation in the South. Now, institutionalised or legal segregation isn't right. However, one cannot force folks to be among whom they refuse to live around or whom they despise. Did they seriously think forcing many blacks and whites together in the same schools, many whom despised one another, was a brilliant or bright idea? That they animosity would abate instead of increase due to resentment of being forced to do so?! Higher crimes, more distrust in the community, etc.



What happens then? Many whites flee the now-mixed school district. Some either don't like blacks or some of the blacks increase the crime rate in the local areas; hence, they move to an area with less racial tension and less crime.

I don't advocate any unjust or immoral practices regarding any one due to one's colour. However, One cannot force another man's heart to change or destroy racism by legislating it out of existence. It only forces it underground. It still exists. It's just more subtle. It more a spiritual thing; we need to convert hearts, minds, and souls. Forcing folks to these things which they weren't and aren't ready for, causes far more tension, violence, and tumult than it is worth. Society needs to gradually change. You cannot put a band-aid on a deep flesh wound and declared it fixed. It must be addressed and fixed, but it must been given time to heal.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

As a side-comment, I generally have found the more racially mixed areas tend to get more far more violent and with higher rates of crime than racially homogenous areas. It is a basic matter, that one tends to get along better with those whom one shares basic ethnicity, skin colour, and culture. The rate of distrust in more heterogeneous communities tends to be very low. One naturally has a disposition towards' one's own kind. Less trust and higher crime rates result in these areas as racial tensions flare up and are far more prevalent than elsewhere.

It might be a lamentable fact or situation, but it's true. One tends to look at others outside of one's skin colour or ethnicity as an outsider. One tends to be form more comfortable and feel safer around one's own groups.

Can this be overcome? Yes; however, the answer would probably have to be the blending (to a great extent) of ethnic groups and assimilating of them into a common group. Without such blatant differences and with common culture, tensions and prejudices decline. How long does this take? Decades and centuries. Look at Latin America (e.g. Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Columbia) how harmonious is the interaction between those diverse societies and have they eliminated racism? No, I don't believe they've eliminated it, but what if they've managed to mitigate it?? If they've been able to successfully mitigate racism and live peaceable alongside one another, perhaps, that is something we in the United States and in Europe could learn to embrace? And use towards creating a more ethnically harmonious society and mitigate racism?

 

[WarriorAngel]

In the US, there has often been a debate on who must be served by those who are licensed by the state to provide services. I am including pharmacists, florists, motel owners, bakers, all manner of retail stores and professionals.

On what basis should we have the right to refuse service? In some states, the answer is quite clear. In others, not so much.

Would be the right of the client to demand a roasted pig be prepared from a Muslim catering service? Even if its not on the menu?