 | | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) Well, right now we *nominally* live under the laws of America--if the Spawn of Satan is re-appointed in November, then we'll see what happens to those laws. Anyway, I completely agree with the meat of your post. The guy's welcome to believe (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) From a libertarian perspective, I'll grant the pharmacist the right to discriminate. What I don't grant him the right to do though is interfere. Refusing to fill a prescription is discrimination. Refusal to forward the prescription to someone (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) Actually, the doctor-to-pharmacy direct link hadn't occurred to me. My family doctor usually still gives us a script and we take it to the pharmacist, though she sometimes calls in the prescription directly, with our permission. That would (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps force is too strong, though I'm comfortable with anything the government requires as being forced in that ultimately, if you refuse, the government could escalate to use of force. I agree that the pharmacist's contract may very (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) I'm not so sure. If the individual citizen enters into and then defaults upon the social contract, then that's not initiation of force--it's enforcement of terms. (...) Now that's interesting. In a true market of options, then a choice to (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
