Blogcritics Comments on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Comment by Alec on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:03:17 EDT

Abel - A great article! It's clear that you would also agree with these examples: A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind passenger because her guide dog was "unclean". Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni told Jane Vernon she could not get into his car with the dog because of his religion. This even though the law requires all licensed cab drivers to carry guide dogs. (London Daily Mail, October 6, 2006) Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis-St. Paul have issued a "jihad" against customers who carry alcohol. The cabbies refuse to transport anyone carrying alcoholic products. (Reuters October 2006) For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control. (USA Today, 11/09/04) In a truly free society, consumers would realize that there is no "right" to emergency contraceptives, birth control pills, or taxi cab rides. Hell, there should not even be any licensing boards. Or an American Medical Association. Or Medical Boards. Or food and drug laws. Anyone should be able to call himself or herself a doctor and treat patients. And people should be able to write up their own prescriptions, or even make their own drugs at home and sell them to others. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Comment by Douglas Mays on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:35:26 EDT

Nancy, #29, thank you for clarity, I love you! Yeah, I thought they may have leaked in from Idaho (east state border) or something... best, DM

Comment by Nancy on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:34:18 EDT

I never thought of it like that, DM, but you're right. It is sexist. I guess otherwise the bars would only be full of guys & bull dykes...?

Comment by Douglas Mays on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:32:13 EDT

Clavos #13, STM #20, as a sidebar to this thread, you brought up the concept of outlawing "ladies nights" at bars. I'll get back on subject by the end of this comment. Here is my deal on that. Back in the spawning days of punk rock in Seattle (proto-grunge) in my scene management and promotion, with my band, X-15 (Cornell loves these guys)I made a policy that we would never play a ladies night anywhere. The scene was so happening that bars that actually had ladies nights hired a lot of the punk/wave bands. But our trip was that 'ladies night' is some really SEXIST pig assed promotional tool and it is ubelievable that such an idea still exists in this day and age. Of course, we would have fun with it sometimes since in an alternative scene you definately meet alternative people. So it was fun to invade some club's ladies night by organizing the tranvestites and overweight, chopped haired black leather coat women and just throw our own scene down and mess up the Sexist pigs taking advantage of women on ladies night. And mess things up for the women who partook also.... HHHMMM...how to make the concept of alternative protest-business hijacking to work with this pharmacy issue here in our state now...Any ideas people??? Maybe create a line of people at the pharmacy trying to fill their ER Contaceptives, but have each person play the roll of rightous maniac of every religion. The Mormon behind the Baptist behind the Bhuddist, etc. All getting pissed off in each religious form? Bhudda call!!!! No Booty call nights at bars.... best, DM

Comment by Nancy on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:12:58 EDT

DM - the same way they infiltrated everywhere: by front-loading the voting booths with idiot church sheeple who buy their dogmatic bombast, & by thinking voters staying home.

Comment by Douglas Mays on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:09:19 EDT

Yeah, I live here in Washington State. Or a State of Confusion... Seperation between State and Religion? How about Medicine and Religion? Since medical practice is very much regulated by state and federal law, that line is being crossed again.... This issue is so damn stupid that it is unbelivable that such idiot level morons of political and medical services have even made it into office. Great, just go to another pharmacy. Sometimes that pharmacy is 100 miles away in this state. Unlike the eastcoast, out west you can actually drive 100 miles and not even see a gas station or rest stop. If you live on limited income, too bad... The option is to have your doctor fill the script at whatever outrageous price the nearest hospital pharmacy will nail you for. Then again, that hospital might be 100 miles away... I am trying to figure out how the religious Nazi's infiltrated our generally liberal state of mind in Washington. best, DM

Comment by Clavos on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:25:40 EDT

Thank you very much, Chris. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that my contribution, according to the leaderboard, is approximately 1%.

Comment by Christopher Rose on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:08:53 EDT

Thanks to the two of you for your part in us reaching such a figure! With apologies to Abel Keogh for the hijack, I've written a few words to mark the occasion - Blogcritics Comments - Half A Million Strong!.

Comment by troll on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:00:50 EDT

like I said - Statism...rule of law and all that

Comment by Clavos on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:57:40 EDT

You're right about the Oath, troll, but gonzo's point was that the laws which deal with pharmacist licensing require that they must fill ALL legitimate and legal prescriptions presented to them. And Chris, don't they always?

Comment by Christopher Rose on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:19:29 EDT

This is the 500,000th comment on Blogcritics, so I think my rights should prevail!

Comment by troll on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:16:55 EDT

so...here's the oath (with commentary) nothing about having to sell everything and anything this is just another example of Statism vrs a free market of products and ideas

Comment by Nancy on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:51:27 EDT

Unless a prescription endangers the patient's life, no pharmacist has the right to second guess the physician; certainly not on personal moral/religious grounds that don't involve actual danger to the patient.

Comment by STM on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:33:57 EDT

Clav: "Ladies nights" at bars should be illegal too." Ooh, I dunno Clav. I reckon it's a great excuse to gather up all your mates and go to a different bar.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Wed, 1 Aug 2007 03:55:44 EDT

Some of our participants find the artilce writing and ignoring the comments route to be a good one. I know I've considered it from time to time when beset by particularly annoying commenters, but it's in my nature to never run away from a scrap, I fear. I do tend to take the best ideas that come to me in the comment section and eventually turn them into articles with the thoughts more completely worked out, though. dave

Comment by gonzo marx on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:28:43 EDT

not what, but the HOW sometimes it's not about you, per se...more about the medium, and me as i said, much to ponder...how is it that good people can be so at odds at times over small details, when agreeing in basic principle, how is it i can get very angry/upset over it at times...frustrated that what appears clear to me, is completely not Understood even after careful explanation... would i be better served just stating my Thoughts, then never looking at a Thread afterwards...writing my thinking as an Article and ignoring the discourse? not certain, but a lot to consider, imo Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:21:34 EDT

Was it something I said?? :>)

Comment by gonzo marx on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:24:38 EDT

i do know that this conversation is making me rethink my propensity for discussion around here... much to ponder Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:04:35 EDT

As you've seen, I agree. I just carry it further. And, after two years intense experience with at least three hundred medical "professionals," including nurses, physicians and patient care specialists I have a VERY low opinion of them as a group, so am not surprised to hear about the pharmacist. I think the day's not far off when you'll see the same kinds of things from physicians - look at those guys in London. "First, do no harm" my ass.

Comment by gonzo marx on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:52:40 EDT

i tend to Agree, in principle but i also Recognize that folks running their business have certain leeway to run it as they see fit (such as ladies night, a dress code and so on) but i ain't touching all of that right now i'm talking very specifically about the case in point raised by the Article...pharmacists not filling a prescription nuff said... Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:45:20 EDT

"again, i stand behind the age old "management reserves the right..." I don't. No one should have the right to discriminate against anybody for religious, racial, national origin or sex reasons. No one and nobody. Period. And if a restaurant can have a dress code that has nothing to do with the healthfulness of the place, why should a hospital not be able to do so, too? "Ladies nights" at bars should be illegal too.

Comment by gonzo marx on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:29:54 EDT

/sigh again, i stand behind the age old "management reserves the right..." but also state that when it comes to healthcare, and the VERY specific licenses involved (doctors, nurses, pharmacists)..a much more stringent standard is inherent a restaurant is within it's rights to enforce a dress code....a hospital is not can't make it any more clear Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:58:47 EDT

Actually, car selling is state licensed activity (at least here, as are boats - I have to have a yacht sales license); in fact most businesses must have licenses of some kind to do business. It is ILLEGAL to refuse to sell ANYTHING to ANYONE for racial, religious, or national origin reasons, which is why I set up that hypothetical. Therefore, it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what the laws specifically applying to pharmacists say; the pharmacist can't refuse to sell anything (even Playboy, except to a minor in some states) for religious reasons, it's religious discrimination.

Comment by gonzo marx on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:29:40 EDT

a suit or a car are NOT state licensed activities involving healthcare your analogy fails thew test of basic logic, same as this Article see..cigarrettes, a car,a suit...that's one thing but healthcare is another...a consumer product falls under "management reserves the right to refuse service" i have no problem with that but healthcare providers who NEED a state license to operate HAVE TO follow the provisions of said license just...that....fucking....simple Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:23:57 EDT

How would you feel about a Muslim not selling a suit to an infidel? Or a car?