Trans Woman Denied Service at AZ CVS

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-07-24T11:21:03.785Z

Drawz:

Smyrna:

I understand but what I’m proposing is to keep this from happening again.

Would that mean that every pharmacist at a particular CVS would have their own sign and post it at the window when they’re working? What would keep this from happening again is for pharmacists who object to a particular medication to simply ask the customer to wait for a moment and then pass them on to a co-worker.

somebody needs to start a religion that is very similar to Christianity but says that Jesus returned to each and added an 11th Commandment. “Republicanism is evil”.

then, just use their religion to discriminate against republicans in all sorts of ways. i think a little real world pay back would go a long way in showing some Christians/Republicans what they’re really doing.

Smyrna · 2018-07-24T11:24:26.806Z

CaughtInTheMiddle:

somebody needs to start a religion that is very similar to Christianity but says that Jesus returned to each and added an 11th Commandment. “Republicanism is evil”.

then, just use their religion to discriminate against republicans in all sorts of ways. i think a little real world pay back would go a long way in showing some Christians/Republicans what they’re really doing.

May you receive what you desire to give.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-07-24T11:32:28.546Z

Smyrna:

CaughtInTheMiddle:

somebody needs to start a religion that is very similar to Christianity but says that Jesus returned to each and added an 11th Commandment. “Republicanism is evil”.

then, just use their religion to discriminate against republicans in all sorts of ways. i think a little real world pay back would go a long way in showing some Christians/Republicans what they’re really doing.

May you receive what you desire to give.

that’s exactly what i’m suggesting for those who use religion to treat people bad.

not surprised that you missed that.

WildRose · 2018-07-24T23:39:30.997Z

Drawz:

WildRose:

It doesn’t matter, you still don’t have a lawful use of force in that situation. You notify the manager to resolve it and failing that the police.

One doesn’t have a right to use force to prevent theft?

You only have a right to use force to recover property if there is no other means by which it can be recovered.

Drawz · 2018-07-25T00:08:00.094Z

WildRose:

Drawz:

WildRose:

It doesn’t matter, you still don’t have a lawful use of force in that situation. You notify the manager to resolve it and failing that the police.

One doesn’t have a right to use force to prevent theft?

You only have a right to use force to recover property if there is no other means by which it can be recovered.

Aren’t there hypothetical other means in any situation?

WildRose · 2018-07-25T00:16:47.445Z

Not in all cases but in this one there clearly are many starting with a complaint to the store manager and failing that police.

A doc for example would have no problem writing a new script in such a case since there’s no narcotics involved.

MidwestIndy · 2018-07-25T00:51:39.319Z

I hate this scenario which is why I’m generally against it. Look I get that religious freedom is important and there are many cases where I support it. When it comes to business interactions with a public serving business though that support is not nearly as strong?

Why you may ask? Because I dont want this country devolving into a situation where on any given block of any given street, a patron has to search around and read signs on every business to find out what they can and cant utilize from that business based on what they believe and practice personally. We’ve managed to address most of the major issues, race, national origin, gender, age. But for some reason so many people keep fighting back against sexual orientation as if that is some big leap from the aforementioned.

To whit I believe there are still plenty of people who would readily refuse service to any of the already protected classes if they had the chance. The people responsible for passing the protected classes to date knew this to be true and did something about it.

It doesnt stop there though, if we allow people to discriminate based on sexual orientation, what comes after that?

WildRose · 2018-07-25T00:53:48.136Z

MidwestIndy:

I hate this scenario which is why I’m generally against it. Look I get that religious freedom is important and there are many cases where I support it. When it comes to business interactions with a public serving business though that support is not nearly as strong?

Why you may ask? Because I dont want this country devolving into a situation where on any given block of any given street, a patron has to search around and read signs on every business to find out what they can and cant utilize from that business based on what they believe and practice personally. We’ve managed to address most of the major issues, race, national origin, gender, age. But for some reason so many people keep fighting back against sexual orientation as if that is some big leap from the aforementioned.

To whit I believe there are still plenty of people who would readily refuse service to any of the already protected classes if they had the chance. The people responsible for passing the protected classes to date knew this to be true and did something about it.

It doesnt stop there though, if we allow people to discriminate based on sexual orientation, what comes after that?

Public accommodation laws violate the entire premise of the Bill of Rights.

MidwestIndy · 2018-07-25T00:57:51.919Z

According to you.

Far as I can remember going all the way back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no court has agreed with you.

WildRose · 2018-07-25T00:59:07.941Z

MidwestIndy:

According to you.

Far as I can remember going all the way back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no court has agreed with you.

What the courts have ruled is that they were “necessary”, not that they didn’t violate the BOR.

MidwestIndy · 2018-07-25T01:03:52.591Z

Then you have made up a conjecture not supported by any case law. Hard to say something violates a law when the law itself doesn’t support the claim.

WildRose · 2018-07-25T01:06:46.912Z

MidwestIndy:

Then you have made up a conjecture not supported by any case law. Hard to say something violates a law when the law itself doesn’t support the claim.

I don’t need a court decision to understand when a law violates our rights so blatantly. I also don’t worship at the feet of the courts.

The courts ruled that the public accommodations laws were necessary under the “interest balancing” school of thought.

Arguably there was a time when they very well were but we’re long past that time.

MidwestIndy · 2018-07-25T01:10:19.210Z

And a WHOLE lot of people with a far better understanding of the law aka lawyers, judges, legal scholars don’t support your conclusion.

Next you will be telling me you are some sort of expert on the mechanics of railroad locomotive operation.

WildRose · 2018-07-25T01:13:53.539Z

MidwestIndy:

And a WHOLE lot of people with a far better understanding of the law aka lawyers, judges, legal scholars don’t support your conclusion.

Next you will be telling me you are some sort of expert on the mechanics of railroad locomotive operation.

You can get a good lawyer to argue any side of any issue, that doesn’t make them right.

Any law which forces us to forfeit our protect rights is violating them and that’s exactly what PA laws do.

MidwestIndy · 2018-07-25T01:24:51.513Z

WildRose:

MidwestIndy:

And a WHOLE lot of people with a far better understanding of the law aka lawyers, judges, legal scholars don’t support your conclusion.

Next you will be telling me you are some sort of expert on the mechanics of railroad locomotive operation.

You can get a good lawyer to argue any side of any issue, that doesn’t make them right.

Any law which forces us to forfeit our protect rights is violating them and that’s exactly what PA laws do.

Great, find an institution aka a court specifically tasked in the constitution, you claim to have such wonderful knowledge of, that agrees with you according to their duties as prescribed in said document.

You wanna be an army of one, fine with me, but you are woefully wrong in more ways than one, both public opinion wise, legally wise, and every other wise. Keep trying, you’ll still be wrong.

Furthermore, go ahead and commit some crime no matter how petty, then walk into a court and try and assert a defense similar to the argument you have presented here. “Your honor, I believe based on my own limited knowledge and ignorant interpretation of the law that …” See how far that gets you.

Bodecea · 2018-07-25T01:35:32.927Z

Call_me_Ishmael:

Yeah. I can.
Libs say trans woman is an xy who feels like a woman.

But-because I can read and apparently you can’t- this creature is carrying a child.

So xy can carry a child now?

Tell me, genius reader.

Well, now we know for sure you CAN’T read. The OP was referring to two different cases…it was quite clear.

Bodecea · 2018-07-25T01:36:30.924Z

Call_me_Ishmael:

And so, because you openly oppose Trump, secretly inside you love Trump…but hate yourself for doing so .

Look at you…deflecting to the fake president.

Drawz · 2018-07-25T08:47:58.390Z

Bodecea:

Look at you…deflecting to the fake president.

Not a fake president, unfortunately.

Smyrna · 2018-07-25T09:20:30.615Z

MidwestIndy:

I hate this scenario which is why I’m generally against it. Look I get that religious freedom is important and there are many cases where I support it. When it comes to business interactions with a public serving business though that support is not nearly as strong?

Why you may ask? Because I dont want this country devolving into a situation where on any given block of any given street, a patron has to search around and read signs on every business to find out what they can and cant utilize from that business based on what they believe and practice personally. We’ve managed to address most of the major issues, race, national origin, gender, age. But for some reason so many people keep fighting back against sexual orientation as if that is some big leap from the aforementioned.

To whit I believe there are still plenty of people who would readily refuse service to any of the already protected classes if they had the chance. The people responsible for passing the protected classes to date knew this to be true and did something about it.

It doesnt stop there though, if we allow people to discriminate based on sexual orientation, what comes after that?

If you walked into a business, read their sign of religious discrimination and even though it didn’t apply to you…you disagreed with their position, would you do your business there? I wouldn’t. I also think that enough wouldn’t that the business owner either has to change their way of doing business or go bankrupt. The idea is that by posting their sign, the problem will take care of itself by the potential market who does their business there.

mobulis · 2018-07-25T09:39:40.997Z

WildRose:

MidwestIndy:

Then you have made up a conjecture not supported by any case law. Hard to say something violates a law when the law itself doesn’t support the claim.

I don’t need a court decision to understand when a law violates our rights so blatantly. I also don’t worship at the feet of the courts.

The courts ruled that the public accommodations laws were necessary under the “interest balancing” school of thought.

Arguably there was a time when they very well were but we’re long past that time.

No we’re not.