On the Threshold of Bigotry

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Is it bigoted to ask: Why can't gays be happy with a DP (domestic partnership) status if it does everything legal for them that a civil union does for married heterosexuals?

---

In the sense of robotically asking the question? No. That's because the answer is quite simple:"Domestic partnership" can never "do everything legal for that a civil union does for married heterosexuals." The law is quite clear on this matter: There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By making a second contract that is called something different from the current contract, you necessarily create a distinction between the two. If they were the same thing, you would use the same name. Because you are not using the same name, you are necessarily indicating that the two are not the same. And if they are not the same, you necessarily indicate that they can be treated differently.We see this in practice: In every state that has tried to "keep the name" of marriage but provide for same-sex couples, the contract that has been drawn up has always been different from the contract for mixed-sex couples. Even in Vermont where the courts there told the legislature that they had to come up with a solution that provided identical rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples that are provided for mixed-sex couples, the legislature came up with a "civil union" contract that was not identical to marriage.In California, where the legislature was trying to do the same thing, the "domestic partnership" arrangement they came up with did not provide identical rights and responsibilities that "marriage" provided.Since it is impossible to treat different things the same, the only solution that guarantees equality at all levels at all times is to have only one.That's the robotic answer to the robotic question. But, people aren't robots. The reason you keep getting tagged as a bigot is not because you ask the question. It's because despite knowing the answer to the question, you still persist in claiming that there is something different all the while insisting that you're not trying to denigrate anybody despite your specific descriptions of groups of people in disparaging terms.That is, you are asking the question not because you actually want to know the answer but because you want to find some sort of justification for denying to others that which you demand for yourself.And that's what bigotry is.

quote:

---

My new definition of a bigot: Anyone who is so indisposed by his or her beliefs that he or she must invoke the term "bigot" against holders of an adversarial opinion.

---

Ah, yes...the silly claim that refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

If the Pharmacist was preventing the patron from getting the drug anywhere then you would have a point, but no free person should be forced to act against their own will. If a mechanic suggested someone get new tires but the tire salesmen wouldn't sell tires for 14 inch rims would he be a bigot? (Would he be in business?)

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

And even if you think abortion is right, nobody is going to make you have one. So what?This whole diddy of yours, Rhain, is that gays would suffer somehow if they couldn't call their domestic partnership or their legal civil unions "marrriages." You're all atwitter over a single word that means a civil union between a man and a woman. I'll give you everything you want except the word, simply because a tricycle isn't a bicycle (please see Message 132).So go ahead and call me a bigot for that if you need to.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because the pharmacist is denying to others that which he would demand for himself, that makes him a bigot.

---

​

If the Pharmacist was preventing the patron from getting the drug anywhere then you would have a point, but no free person should be forced to act against their own will.

---

And if the pharmacist were being forced to be a pharmacist, then you would have a point. But he is not being forced to act against his own will, so he must comply with the oath he took as a pharmacist when he got licensed. If he cannot handle the requirements of being a pharmacist (which is to assist the doctor and patient who are the ones who decide what the treatment is going to be), then he should find another line of work.

quote:

---

If a mechanic suggested someone get new tires but the tire salesmen wouldn't sell tires for 14 inch rims would he be a bigot?

---

Out of a deliberate act, yes. The salesman, we presume, would expect that the decision he and his mechanic made regarding his need for new tires would not be foiled by a third party who has no standing.Denying to others that which you demand for yourself is bigotry.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you think abortion is wrong, nobody is going to make you have one.

---

​

And even if you think abortion is right, nobody is going to make you have one. So what?

---

That's the point. The act of bigotry is denying to others that which you demand for yourself. Whether or not you think abortion is right or wrong is immaterial.If you don't want the pharmacist contravening the decision you and your doctor made regarding your medical treatment, then you can't be that contravening agent with regard to someone else.

quote:

---

This whole diddy of yours, Rhain, is that gays would suffer somehow if they couldn't call their domestic partnership or their legal civil unions "marrriages."

---

Since every single attempt to create a "civil union" has resulted in a contract that is not identical to marriage, you're going to have to justify your claim that no harm is being done.

quote:

---

You're all atwitter over a single word that means a civil union between a man and a woman.

---

(*chuckle*)Nice try, but that's my argument to you. I don't care what the contract is called. Whether the sole legal contract is called "Red" or "Blue" is immaterial. The only thing that is important is that there is only one contract.Now, given that there are literally thousands of laws written that refer to a contract that is called "marriage," it would be a nightmare trying to change them all. And this raises the question of what to do with all of those people who have "marriage" licenses. Do they need to turn it in to get a "Red" license?Contrary to your claim, it is not I who is "all atwitter over a single word." If you're so insistent on keeping it separate (see...you think there's a difference, which means they're not the same, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that they are), then you are the one who needs to come up with a new word for your contract. If you want to call your relationship a "special friendship," you go right ahead. It's your relationship.

quote:

---

I'll give you everything you want except the word

---

And so who's the one going into apoplexy over the word?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

I understand all that.

---

Strange, you understand it yet you keep asking the same already answered questions over and over again.

quote:

---

But have you considered the possibility that, for example, the gay-marriage advocates are trying to make a bicycle out of a tricycle,

---

I'd say it's more like gay marriage advocates are being given a tricycle and are being told it's a bicycle, if they're given anything at all.Also, should I take it that, since you didn't reply to my critique, you accept that the definition of bigotry you've been trying to pawn off on this thread is completely useless and tantamount to saying "bigotry is having thoughts"?

No, they were fighting a war against the Japanese on that island, one where Japan had decided to make a stand, and war seems to necessarily involve killing people (I've not heard of a war fought that doesn't).They were bigoted when they categorically called them "Nips" or "Slants" in a derogatory way, and they were bigoted when they mistreated other Japanese that were NOT fighting the war.The US interred japanese americans during the war as a precaution against subversive wartime spying. They also used popular bigotry to confiscate all their property in the process, whether they were guilty of espionage or not, and they also exercised bigoty when they kept them impounded without any trial or investigation to see if they were in fact involved in espionage, rather than just act on the assumption that because they were japanese that they would. No, it's about fairness in treatment of groups of people. Why should a member of group A be treated differently from a member of group B solely on the basis of group membership?Rrhain has a good point: when you treat someone else in a manner you do not want to be treated yourself, this is unfair and when you do it solely because they are a member of group A, it is bigotry. Thus the "golden rule" applied to groups can be used as your "threshold" definition.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : englissssssssss

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Because of my interest in the subject, I recently read my insurance policy on domestic partnership for same sex couples. Take my word for it, it is far from being equal to the status of marriage.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

The pharmacist has standing as a person being required to act. This is as lame as the "they can move to another state" crap. One has the right, if capable, to work in ones chosen occupation. What is the consideration give by the State in return for requiring the pharmacist for acting against his interests? Allowing him to ply his trade? Coercion does not a valid contract make.The Oath is show, and has no standing in law. It's not even made to the State.Are there other tradesmen you think that the State should be able to relegate to servitude? Free fridays for electricians if they want a contractors license?The reasonable interest for government regulation is assurance of competence. Not enforcement of compliance to the social will. Aside from your definition for for bigotry being totally bogus, you are now playing, in reverse, the semantics game that Hoot Mon has been playing when he says Gays have every right he has. The patron has the right to get the pill, but not from a specific pharmacist via governmental coercion. (Assuming the Pharmacist to be a free agent. If he is an employee he has an obligation to act in his employer's best interests.)Bigotry requires no action. It is the belief that only ones own ways and opinions are valid. I abhor the ways of life of the Inuit ” all that freezing and blubber chewing ” but they clearly are not invalid ways. My hair cut is right and yours is wrong is bigotry. Even if I only express it as an opinion. However, I hate 14 inch rims. If you want 14 inch rime you're welcome to them, but you'll not get them from me.(This in no way excuses the nonsense of those thinking that the rejection of oppression is bigotry against the oppressor. I find it hard to believe those arguing that position aren't just trying to get a rise out of us.)

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

quote:

---

One has the right, if capable, to work in ones chosen occupation.

---

Well it appears as though these pharmacists are not capable of performing their job since they aren't doing it. Their job is to give people the medicine they need, they aren't, therefore they aren't doing their job.See here's the problem, if I see machines as evil and patently refuse to touch them, becoming a car mechanic is probably a bad idea. In fact I probably should have thought about that before becoming a car mechanic.If I was a Jehova's Witness could I become a surgeon, but refuse to allow blood transfusions?

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

a third party who has no standing.

---

​

The pharmacist has standing as a person being required to act.

---

But not as a medical practitioner. The course of treatment was decided by the doctor in concert with the patient. For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license. When he became a licensed pharmacist, he took an oath to behave in a certain way. If he cannot live up to that requirement, then he needs to find another line of work.People's lives are at stake.

quote:

---

This is as lame as the "they can move to another state" crap. One has the right, if capable, to work in ones chosen occupation.

---

Indeed. And if the pharmacist wants to play doctor, then he can become a licensed physician. But he's not a doctor...he's a pharmacist. For him to insert himself between the doctor and the patient is for him to practice medicine without a license.And even if he does decide to become a doctor, he still has no business interfering with the decisions made by the patient in consultation with his doctor. He may be "a" doctor, but he is not "the" doctor that the patient consulted with.That is what being a pharmacist requires.

quote:

---

What is the consideration give by the State in return for requiring the pharmacist for acting against his interests? Allowing him to ply his trade? Coercion does not a valid contract make.

---

"Coercion"? What coercion? If you wish to be a pharmacist, you have to become licensed. You're dealing with potentially lethal chemicals. One of the requirements is that you will behave in an ethical manner.Which means that as a pharmacist, you will not insert yourself between the doctor and the patient. That's not your role. You are not there to practice medicine upon the patient. Not only is the pharmacist not a doctor, but he is also not the patient's doctor.

quote:

---

Are there other tradesmen you think that the State should be able to relegate to servitude?

---

Plenty. Doctors, nurses, emergency personnel, lawyers, etc. When you work for the public trust, you are being charged with assisting those who are in need of help. If a person does not wish to help the public, then jobs involving the public trust are not the ones to enter.

quote:

---

The reasonable interest for government regulation is assurance of competence. Not enforcement of compliance to the social will.

---

Huh? There is more involved with medical treatment than mere assurance of competence. You're dealing with people's lives. When a doctor and patient have decided upon a course of action, it is not for the pharmacist to second guess them. Now, a competent pharmacist will keep track of the medications being taken so that if there is a contraindication, the pharmacist can consult with the doctor to verify treatment. The pharmacist will also be charged with ensuring that the drugs that are prescribed are not being used for illegal purposes. The job of a pharmacist is not just filling bottles.But a pharmacist is not a doctor. He is not the patient's doctor. It is not his place to insert himself between the doctor and patient.

quote:

---

The patron has the right to get the pill

---

Who's he going to get it from if not from the pharmacist? Why are you assuming that there's another one to go to?You have to justify where the pharmacist gets off inserting himself between the doctor and the patient. Since they have decided upon a course of treatment, who is the pharmacist to delay or deny it?That's practicing medicine without a license.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Owned Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

He's not stepping in, he's stepping out. Were he stepping in I would agree with you.Your whole line, "when you work for the public trust" is nonsense. Ones need is not a lien on another man's life. Firstly, it's irrelevant.Secondly, I didn't assume, I counted them. I didn't count them all, of course. Once I got as high as two .

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

While we're defining word . This idiomatic use of the word "owned" is meant to imply "You have been presented a devastating circumstance to which you are unable to respond."You seem to think it means "I'm to dim to see my way around this supposed obstacle so you must be too."Problem is, when Rrhain does step around it as if it wasn't there, you'll not notice. So he'll have to do it over and over and over. You are the obstacle reason cannot surmount.Edited by lyx2no, : Misspelling.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

But I don't care what an insurance policy says about gay DPs. That's a private affair between you and your insurance company. What I do care about are public laws that affect me personally, as all public laws are likely to do. And I am against any language is a public law that amounts to a blatant oxymoron, such as "gay marriage."”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.