Wal*Mart Pharmacy Forced to Carry Drug

[Danoff]

Here in Canada, the pharmacy department of a grocery or department store is controlled partly by forces other then the store itself. Due to drug administration, products they carry, the way they are handled, as well as other things are all controlled by the federal government. Even the people hired are not considered employee's of the store, but of the pharmacy itself, meaning if the employee's went on strike or took time off for a company event, the pharmacy would still stay open.
Although the store would determine what products they carry in other departments, the government could make it their obligation and duty as a pharmacy to carry those products that the FDA has made available to the public. If Walmart doesn't want to adhere to those guidlines, then they shouldn't have a pharmacy available to the public.

In the US, the FDA has authority over what products are available to the public and the way they have to be handled to be considered "safe" for consumption (though the FDA should not exist).

That is fundamentally different from telling a business that they have to carry a certain product. The FDA doesn't make anything "available" to the public, they only make things unavailable. Companies, entrepreneurs, medical researchers, etc., these are the people that make the product "available".

How does one's government get the power to force them to sell a certain product? I don't see how it's my "duty" to sell anything - whether it's lifesaving medicine, birth control, or pizza. If the people absolutely must have it (like a military, or police, or a fire department), then the government can provide it directly.

 

[Keef]

Exactly, danoff.
My state, Ohio, has a policy of tearing down 1 of the 4 gas stations at every intersection and replacing it with either a CVS or a Walgreens.:sarcastic: It's a 43 year project. So it doesn't really matter that Wal Mart or Kroger or Wherever even has a pharmacy; there are plenty already.
The only things that entice people to sell their products (or should entice them) are the possiblity of making money and/or common sense, like if they were a kind person and wanted to share. If I cooked the most amazing pizza ever created by mankind I wouldn't keep it to myself, I'd sell it underground. Not only to make money, but so I didn't have to go to business school. Just kidding, I wouldn't share it with you guys, are you crazy?!

 

[Kylehnat]

I didn't mention religion once and neither did Wal*Mart.

Sorry, I made a big leap there. Let me clarify: There was a segment on the Daily Show not too long ago about one pharmacist who refused to give anyone the morning after pill because of his religious beliefs.

Wal-Mart was founded in the Bible Belt, and they have some weird policies about selling "corruptive" materials such as Grand Theft Auto and new Ludacris CD's. I don't feel it is such a strech to assume that they don't carry the morning after pill for these same reasons.

If it is offically considered a "moral" reason, fine, but where have those "morals" been instilled? Church is a good starting point. I'm not religious at all, but I do consider myself moral. That said, I've never thought that the morning after pill was murder, abortion or a ticket to Hell. The only people I ever hear protesting this are generally those who just left church and have nothing better to do with their Sunday afternoon (if they aren't NFL fans).

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, I made a big leap there. Let me clarify: There was a segment on the Daily Show not too long ago about one pharmacist who refused to give anyone the morning after pill because of his religious beliefs.

Wal-Mart was founded in the Bible Belt, and they have some weird policies about selling "corruptive" materials such as Grand Theft Auto and new Ludacris CD's. I don't feel it is such a strech to assume that they don't carry the morning after pill for these same reasons.

If it is offically considered a "moral" reason, fine, but where have those "morals" been instilled? Church is a good starting point. I'm not religious at all, but I do consider myself moral. That said, I've never thought that the morning after pill was murder, abortion or a ticket to Hell. The only people I ever hear protesting this are generally those who just left church and have nothing better to do with their Sunday afternoon (if they aren't NFL fans).

Of course, none of that matters because Walmart is a private company and should be able to refuse to carry whatever products they want to regardless of their reasoning. Only the government has to avoid doing things for religious reasons.

 

[Canadian Speed]

I also understand how the morning after pill works. I am only complaining about government interference with a private company.

It's a private business, but it borders on a healthcare provider... Basically if they weren't in the pharmacy business in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue... I'm also pretty sure the only reason they were able to become a pharmacy is because the government okayed it in the first place... If WalMart felt strong enough against it, they would have simply left the field...

 

[Danoff]

It's a private business, but it borders on a healthcare provider...

Heathcare providers are private businesses. Are you saying it borders on government?

Basically if they weren't in the pharmacy business in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue...

uh... so? They are and it is

I'm also pretty sure the only reason they were able to become a pharmacy is because the government okayed it in the first place...

The government shouldn't have to okay a business before it gets to exist. It should set laws and enforce them. That's it.

 

[Keef]

The government doesn't okay the new company, say, a cadaver dealer, but the company has to make sure they follow all laws, right? I'm not a business person, so I don't know how that works. If you are in the business of killing ex-criminals or something and selling them for dissection doesn't somebody have to make sure your practices are safe? Isn't the inspector guy a government employee? I don't really know how that works.(All this assuming that killing people and selling their bodies is legal. Just an example.)

 

[Kylehnat]

Of course, none of that matters because Walmart is a private company and should be able to refuse to carry whatever products they want to regardless of their reasoning. Only the government has to avoid doing things for religious reasons.

That's true, but there are certain standards that certain businesses have. For example: grocery stores. All major supermarkets have the exact same stuff. You expect them to have Freschetta pizza, Windex glass cleaner, and Sprite soda. Nobody is forcing them to carry those specific items, but they do because they know people want to buy them. Now, if a particular chain said "we're against bread" and stopped carrying it, people would say "screw it, I'm shopping somewhere else." Now what if you were in desperate need of bread right this very second? You'd go into that store and have a rude surprise waiting for you, and you would be absolutely baffled as to why a grocery store would not carry bread.

That's kind of a contrived example, but we can carry this over to pharmacies. People expect pharmacies to have certain things. If you went to one and they didn't carry your particular medicine out of a moral dilemma, you would be absolutely baffled as to why a pharmacy would not carry [insert medication here].

Of course, how Wal-Mart was granted a pharmacy license is beyond me...

 

[xcsti]

Well I go to college in a town that has two pharmacies. One is in walmart and one is in wegmans (regional supermarket). I'm not sure whether wegmans carries morning after pills but my gut tells me they don't. That leaves walmart. The town is kinda considered one of the bigger ones in the direct area so I can see it being a problem there. If I really needed to I could drive up to rochester but I dno't know what I would do if I didn't have a car.

 

[194GVan]

The government doesn't okay the new company, say, a cadaver dealer, but the company has to make sure they follow all laws, right? I'm not a business person, so I don't know how that works. If you are in the business of killing ex-criminals or something and selling them for dissection doesn't somebody have to make sure your practices are safe? Isn't the inspector guy a government employee? I don't really know how that works.(All this assuming that killing people and selling their bodies is legal. Just an example.)

lol, something tells me that particular example would be a government operation. Hell, it probably already is.

The government shouldn't have to okay a business before it gets to exist. It should set laws and enforce them. That's it.

Exactly, and the government should also not force you to provide a service. As long as you are running your business legally, the government should have no right to interfere, even if it is an inconvenience to someone.

That reminds me of an audio clip I heard of a lady calling the police because a Burger King kept giving her the wrong burger. And in a nutshell the dispatcher told her to stop wasting her time and hung up on her.

 

[Keef]

Why didn't she go to the other Burger King, you know the one, it's about 3 miles down the road. Of course, she might not be able to speak english.
Anyway, when you start a business, don't you have to get some sort of liscence? That's an OK by the government, isn't it? I know congress doesn't have a personal sit-down with you, but someone has to make sure your business is legal before you start it. After that, they enforce the laws they've created.

 

[Canadian Speed]

Heathcare providers are private businesses. Are you saying it borders on government?

The government shouldn't have to okay a business before it gets to exist. It should set laws and enforce them. That's it.

So then there shouldn't be a set standard as to what a business wants to do... If Walmart wanted to start selling hired killers or body guards, they should be allowd to?

There are always set standards and statutes/acts in place to govern what is allowed and what isn't, what is expected and what should be in place at certain kinds of busineses. That's how it is here, certainly it must apply in the US as well I would think...

It's not like some hospitals can choose to use substandard equipment or offer substandard treatments if they have a choice. Could you imagine, "We ellect not to do blood transfusions". People would say that there aren't any reasons why they shouldn't do that and in the end it's and expected funtion of the business... Could you imagine if, at an extream comparison, if some business only decided to preform it's services to white Christians? You have to cater to everyone... more so if you're a pharmacy due to the "public" nature of the job description... We aren't talking about some simple corner store here, and that's where the problems being I think. People see Walmart and think "Glorified Grocery Store and Retail" so they think they can do what they wanted, so no one cares if they don't carry a certain thing like boxer shorts. Or even if people talk about what was purchased by a customer. All I'm saying is that when they got into pharmacies, they crossed into another area that isn't the same as what they started off as. People expect that if something they need to live their lives normaly and that should be offered, would be offered. Further more, there are also confidenciality rules for pharmacies... (confidenciality rules... this wasn't a topic in this thread, I'm only using it to show how pharmacies can differ and how there are ceratin rules/standards they must meet).

But in the end I think my reason for thinking is because of our system here in Canada and the fact that we have health care and health care providers governed by our Feds... Which I still think is the way to go, as you get standardized services where ever you go.

 

[niky]

I actually believe in standardized or federalized health care... which is strange, since I'm part owner of a private hospital...

Exactly, and the government should also not force you to provide a service. As long as you are running your business legally, the government should have no right to interfere, even if it is an inconvenience to someone.

A pharmacy is not just a business... it's a public health service, and as such, they have a duty to their clientele. The strange thing in this case is that the government shouldn't have to tell people how to run a pharmacy, there should be guidelines in place regarding what a pharmacy should stock. There are guidelines for the minimal amount of equipment/facilities a hospital should have, shouldn't this apply to pharmacies, too?

It's weird to me, when I looked this up, that pharmacists actually have a right, in the US, to NOT give out the "morning after" pill (or any other medicine), even if their store stocks it... on ethical grounds.

It's mind boggling that you could go to a pharmacy in the US, ask for cough syrup, and the pharmacist wouldn't give it to you, because his religion is against it.

Next thing you know, they'll refuse to give out condoms. This actually used to be a problem at pharmacies here.

Simply mind boggling.

 

[FoolKiller]

A pharmacy is not just a business... it's a public health service, and as such, they have a duty to their clientele. The strange thing in this case is that the government shouldn't have to tell people how to run a pharmacy, there should be guidelines in place regarding what a pharmacy should stock. There are guidelines for the minimal amount of equipment/facilities a hospital should have, shouldn't this apply to pharmacies, too?

It's weird to me, when I looked this up, that pharmacists actually have a right, in the US, to NOT give out the "morning after" pill (or any other medicine), even if their store stocks it... on ethical grounds.

It's mind boggling that you could go to a pharmacy in the US, ask for cough syrup, and the pharmacist wouldn't give it to you, because his religion is against it.

Why is it everyone who thinks that Wal*Mart should have to stock this drug act as if it is a life-saving medicine? It isn't. Some would define it the other way before you could consider it life-saving. At most it prevents an life-altering inconvenience. Where is my magic pill for paralysis or any other long-term medical condition? <-sarcasm

This is neither a life-saving nor a prescription drug. It is an over-the counter medication. For those who don't understand pharmacy terms enough to understand what that means it is that it is regulated like Tylenol or aspririn in that you don't need a prescription. Would anyone have a fit if Wal*Mart didn't carry Sudafed because of the pseudophedrine (used to make meth)? No. Would a court force them to carry it? No. So, why is this different? What makes this so special that the government can step in and force Wal*Mart to carry it?

Next thing you know, they'll refuse to give out condoms.

And?

Other pharmacies don't carry other drugs. Personal story time: I take an antiarrythmic drug because I developed an atrial flutter (irregular heartbeat) back in August. Thsi flutter can cause a bloodclot to form in my heart chambers that could then break loose and get lodged God only knows where, possibly killing me. It is a life-threatening condition. I went to Rite-Aid and they didn't have the drug I was prescribed. Fortunately the pharmacist was nice enough to call around for me. ONLY Wal*Mart carried it in my home town despite having two Rite-Aids, two Krogers, a Walgreens, and a mom and pop shop.

Should I sue everyone else? No. I thought it might just be my one drug, but my wife's grandfather had the same problem when his lung condition (that eventually killed him) got worse. Did they sue everyone else? No. Now I use Wal*Mart. I have since learned they are the fastest and best stocked pharmacy in town. However, if they choose not to carry a controversial over-the-counter drug then it is lawsuits and government interventions.

 

[Danoff]

So then there shouldn't be a set standard as to what a business wants to do... If Walmart wanted to start selling hired killers or body guards, they should be allowd to?

See the part where I said that they should enforce laws. Businesses cannot act illegally, obviously. That's what the police are for.

There are always set standards and statutes/acts in place to govern what is allowed and what isn't, what is expected and what should be in place at certain kinds of busineses.

Yup, we have laws too. What's your point? We also have a constitution that says certain laws can't be passed.

It's not like some hospitals can choose to use substandard equipment or offer substandard treatments if they have a choice. Could you imagine, "We ellect not to do blood transfusions". People would say that there aren't any reasons why they shouldn't do that and in the end it's and expected funtion of the business...

...and they should go somewhere else if it bothers them - which is why a business that wants to make money won't make that decision. But it's their decision to make since it's their business. Walmart isn't owned by the government, it's a private company owned by private shareholders (even if those shares are traded publicly).

Could you imagine if, at an extream comparison, if some business only decided to preform it's services to white Christians? You have to cater to everyone...

Yes I can and why should you have to cater to everyone? You own the business. You start it, you put your money and work into it, it belongs to you. As long as you're not violating someone else's rights you should do with it as you please.

more so if you're a pharmacy due to the "public" nature of the job description...

A pharmacy is a private business just like a car wash or a lemonade stand.

We aren't talking about some simple corner store here, and that's where the problems being I think. People see Walmart and think "Glorified Grocery Store and Retail" so they think they can do what they wanted, so no one cares if they don't carry a certain thing like boxer shorts. Or even if people talk about what was purchased by a customer. All I'm saying is that when they got into pharmacies, they crossed into another area that isn't the same as what they started off as.

What's your point? What if they'd started out as a pharmacy? Why should what they start as have anything to do with this dicsussion?

People expect that if something they need to live their lives normaly and that should be offered, would be offered.

Of course they do, because they know that it's in a company's best interest to offer them products that they want to buy in order to live their lives "normally". But just because they "expect" those items doesn't mean they get to FORCE other people to provide those items to them.

Further more, there are also confidenciality rules for pharmacies... (confidenciality rules... this wasn't a topic in this thread, I'm only using it to show how pharmacies can differ and how there are ceratin rules/standards they must meet).

Totally beside the point.

But in the end I think my reason for thinking is because of our system here in Canada and the fact that we have health care and health care providers governed by our Feds... Which I still think is the way to go, as you get standardized services where ever you go.

"Standardized services" is not good for development. That can work in a country like Canada where you feed off of the technology and cost savings driven by a larger close market like America, but if America did it you'd see no improvement in services and things would go down the crapper fast. Can you imagine if no new technology were allowed to come out until it was cheap enough to be installed in ever hospital across the country??? We'd never invent a damn thing! It would be entirely too expensive!! You'd see medical research companies here in America drop like flies.

Standardized services is crap. It means that even if you want better care you can't even buy it. You should be able to buy anything other people are willing to sell (so long as you don't violate anyone's rights).

A pharmacy is not just a business... it's a public health service, and as such, they have a duty to their clientele.

When did it become a public service? When did pharmacies become a government sponsored entity? What makes it so? When did birth control pills become as essential (and unprovidable by a free market) as police?

Just because you think that a pharmacy has a duty to their clients doesn't make it true. Just because you claim that it should be part of the government doesn't make that true either.

The strange thing in this case is that the government shouldn't have to tell people how to run a pharmacy, there should be guidelines in place regarding what a pharmacy should stock.

Not only should it not have to, it doesn't have to and it shouldn't be allowed to. Why you ask? Because the government doesn't own the pharmacy - people do. And those people should be able to run their business however they want. If people want a certain product the business will either cater to that demand or lose business. That's America Niky, that's the reason this country kicks ass.

It's mind boggling that you could go to a pharmacy in the US, ask for cough syrup, and the pharmacist wouldn't give it to you, because his religion is against it.

No that's freedom. You don't have the right to force people to give you products.

 

[Swift]

No that's freedom. You don't have the right to force people to give you products.

The liberals in the USA need to realize that.

 

[Canadian Speed]

The fact that they weren't a pharmacy has everything to do with it, as does the confidentiality issue... If my business started out as a car wash, should I be allowed to simply jump into the heart transplant business without having to go along with the industry's standards? They started off as one kind of business and have now branched off into the pharmacy department. They have two choices as far as I'm concerned 1. Conform to the industry's standards, or 2. Get out of the business. As you can see, they lack to conviction of their views...

As for the racial preference in business thing... That's a rather odd view I would think for someone who's on the side of "human rights". I would expect that you would have jumped in and said that "All people are equal in the eyes of the law". And that discremenating against any group of people is far worse then one business' right to do as they will... But maybe that's just me?

As for the comments on standardized organizations being crap... I don't agree at all... As developments are made in development areas... No one stops people from developing new tech, nor do they not encourage people to develop new things to help people. Your point on this is moot as in the world of meds, the US does make advancements, but is not the industry leader on a global scale...

 

[Danoff]

The fact that they weren't a pharmacy has everything to do with it, as does the confidentiality issue... If my business started out as a car wash, should I be allowed to simply jump into the heart transplant business without having to go along with the industry's standards? They started off as one kind of business and have now branched off into the pharmacy department. They have two choices as far as I'm concerned 1. Conform to the industry's standards, or 2. Get out of the business. As you can see, they lack to conviction of their views...

They need to comply with the law, that's it. If they're not violating someone's rights, it's none of my business.

As for the racial preference in business thing... That's a rather odd view I would think for someone who's on the side of "human rights". I would expect that you would have jumped in and said that "All people are equal in the eyes of the law". And that discremenating against any group of people is far worse then one business' right to do as they will... But maybe that's just me?

Yea, I stand for human rights - that includes the rights of racists. Unlike you, who are willing to yank people's rights the moment you disagree with them, I'm willing to stand up for people's right to discriminate.

And I do agree that the government should see all people equal. But you keep confusing private industry with government. Government is bought, paid for, and owned by ALL people. Private industry doesn't belong to anyone but the business owner.

As for the comments on standardized organizations being crap... I don't agree at all... As developments are made in development areas... No one stops people from developing new tech, nor do they not encourage people to develop new things to help people. Your point on this is moot as in the world of meds, the US does make advancements, but is not the industry leader on a global scale...

I was speaking about the contribution of the US as a whole. That includes purchasing high tech equipment and the latest medicines as well as developing them. Markets with little regulation spur development.

 

[Canadian Speed]

At most it prevents an life-altering inconvenience. Where is my magic pill for paralysis or any other long-term medical condition? <-sarcasm

Does this mean that if one existed you'd withhold it from people because the paralysis was God's will? How many babies are found dumped or dead in dumpsters across America every year? If this pill stops even one of these babies from dying this way... so be it.

 

[FoolKiller]

The fact that they weren't a pharmacy has everything to do with it, as does the confidentiality issue... If my business started out as a car wash, should I be allowed to simply jump into the heart transplant business without having to go along with the industry's standards? They started off as one kind of business and have now branched off into the pharmacy department. They have two choices as far as I'm concerned 1. Conform to the industry's standards, or 2. Get out of the business. As you can see, they lack to conviction of their views...

There is no industry standard that says you must carry a certain drug, especially when it is over-the-counter. As was pointed out earlier a pharmacist in a mom and pop type pharmacy refuses to carry it for religious reasons. No one is suing him and forcing him to carry it.

And from my personal example earlier should all pharmacies in my town, except Wal*Mart, shut down because they don't have my life-saving drug?

You are appointing an industry standard where there isn't one. You are either confused about how American pharmacies, and businesses in general, work or you are purposely being difficult.

Does this mean that if one existed you'd withhold it from people because the paralysis was God's will? How many babies are found dumped or dead in dumpsters across America every year? If this pill stops even one of these babies from dying this way... so be it.

You are attempting to argue with me about whether it is valid to use the drug. I have no problem with the use of this drug. You missed my point.

My point is that it isn't life-saving, there is no reason to guaranetee that you can get this wherever and whenever you want. You have the right to use this drug but you do not have the right to demand that everyone with the ability to give it to you has to.

 

[Danoff]

Does this mean that if one existed you'd withhold it from people because the paralysis was God's will?

Does he not have a right to refuse to provide others with services?

How many babies are found dumped or dead in dumpsters across America every year? If this pill stops even one of these babies from dying this way... so be it.

I love these arguments. "If it saves even one life, no matter the cost" (or in this case, prevents suffering). Whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death"? We already have a law against murder - that should be sufficient to stop people from dumping infants.

These pills are available for consumers. Why? Because the government forced others to provide consumers with the pill? No! Because there is a demand for it. People with open wallets provide a demand that ensures that those pills will be available - even if not from Walmart.

 

[194GVan]

Based on these arguments, I conclude that Walmart was not "forced" to carry this drug like the media is portraying it, rather they chose to carry it to "save face" and prevent any bad publicity from these abortion activists that may tarnish the reputation of their business.

Sure, they carry the drug now, but like mentioned before, that doesnt mean the pharmacist has to fill the prescription. I would not be suprised if Walmart sent out some sort of memo to its pharmacy employees that "suggests" that they not fill the prescriptions. To cover themselves Im sure it would only be implied that that is how they could be handled, not a direct "order" to not fill them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Based on these arguments, I conclude that Walmart was not "forced" to carry this drug like the media is portraying it, rather they chose to carry it to "save face" and prevent any bad publicity from these abortion activists that may tarnish the reputation of their business.

There is a court order telling them that they have to carry and provide it. They lost a lawsuit.

Sure, they carry the drug now, but like mentioned before, that doesnt mean the pharmacist has to fill the prescription. I would not be suprised if Walmart sent out some sort of memo to its pharmacy employees that "suggests" that they not fill the prescriptions. To cover themselves Im sure it would only be implied that that is how they could be handled, not a direct "order" to not fill them.

It isn't gotten through a prescription. It is over-the-counter. That means no prescription needed, just like aspirin.

 

[194GVan]

I guess it pays to be informed huh? Which I am not, but thank you for informing me sir. 👍 I realize its not that hard to actually read an article myself but of all the stories, I had skipped over reading this one, the one I have to go and throw my $.02 in on.

That said, I think the results of the situation are typical of the US. God forbid we upset anyone. And since its not a prescription, then why is it even a pharmacy issue? Im going to start a lawsuit because Walmart doesn't carry pornography, and I want to buy it when I go to Walmart. How DARE they inconvenience ME!!!

 

[Swift]

That said, I think the results of the situation are typical of the US. God forbid we upset anyone. And since its not a prescription, then why is it even a pharmacy issue? Im going to start a lawsuit because Walmart doesn't carry pornography, and I want to buy it when I go to Walmart.

Two very good points!

 

[Canadian Speed]

They need to comply with the law, that's it. If they're not violating someone's rights, it's none of my business.

Yea, I stand for human rights - that includes the rights of racists. Unlike you, who are willing to yank people's rights the moment you disagree with them, I'm willing to stand up for people's right to discriminate.

I think you can see the contradiction here, but as it's not directly related... it dosen't matter... But if you support this view, or this kind of thinking, you may as well say down with all rules and laws. Because if the basic human rights go by the way side (rights of equality)... Nothing matters. You might as well support peoples rights to kill people or people's rights to sell drugs... After all, rules basicaly stop people from doing various things a society deams are bad or wrong. But again, perhaps this comes down to another difference between Canadians and Americans... We beleive in co-habitation and acceptance, not assimelation.

 

[Danoff]

I think you can see the contradiction here, but as it's not directly related... it dosen't matter... But if you support this view, or this kind of thinking, you may as well say down with all rules and laws.

I don't see any contradiction at all. You stand for some people's rights, I stand for all of them. All people, with equal rights under the law.

Because if the basic human rights go by the way side (rights of equality)... Nothing matters.

Oh I totally agree - which is why people must be allowed to discriminate. Once we lose our freedom (equal freedom for everyone of every color), nothing matters. You're the one sacricificing equality, not me.

You might as well support peoples rights to kill people or people's rights to sell drugs... After all, rules basicaly stop people from doing various things a society deams are bad or wrong.

"...society deams"? Since when did society get to tell me what's bad or wrong when it doesn't affect them? Civilization doesn't exist if you don't protect people from others - but that includes protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Human beings have rights in a civilized society - which means that they must be prevented from harming each other. Society breaks down if you don't prevent people from killing each other or stealing their property. But how is it my right for someone else to not be able to sell drugs to yet a third person? They're not harming me with the drugs (or sex) they're selling. That's a consentual transaction between two free adults that I don't have anything to do with. I don't see why I should have any say over that.

But again, perhaps this comes down to another difference between Canadians and Americans... We beleive in co-habitation and acceptance, not assimelation.

Acceptance means accepting people you don't agree with. That means racists as well. Co-habitation means agreeing to live side by side and tolerate racists or prostitutes or drug dealers. Assimilation means forcing others (example racists, prostitutes etc.) to do or not do what you don't want them to. Everything you've posted in this thread suggests that you're all about assimilation and none about acceptance.

When did I ever suggest that we force people to confrom to my standards of morality? I only said that people should NOT be forced against their will. I'm the one promoting co-habitation, you're the one promoting assimilation.

 

[Canadian Speed]

When did I ever suggest that we force people to confrom to my standards of morality? I only said that people should NOT be forced against their will. I'm the one promoting co-habitation, you're the one promoting assimilation.

Favoring one person over another because of their race is wrong... Yes or No? Society says, at least mine says, that it's wrong... You aren't allowed to. Not because I want to take away the right of people to descriminate, but because I want to protect people from being descriminated against... I'd rather protect the rights of all people equaly and ensure that those views are maintained over protecting those that society deams bad... racists, killers, rapist... Like the right of somebody to kill another human isn't around because it retracts from anothers right to live their life unaffected. Racism and decrimination do the same things...

There's already a thread on prostitution...

Please disreguard these last bits of squable between Danof and I... I didn't mean to hijack the thread... I'm sure he didn't either... I brought it up. He contributed... Sorry, please back on subject...

 

[Danoff]

Favoring one person over another because of their race is wrong... Yes or No? Society says, at least mine says, that it's wrong... You aren't allowed to. Not because I want to take away the right of people to descriminate, but because I want to protect people from being descriminated against... I'd rather protect the rights of all people equaly and ensure that those views are maintained over protecting those that society deams bad... racists, killers, rapist... Like the right of somebody to kill another human isn't around because it retracts from anothers right to live their life unaffected. Racism and decrimination do the same things...

Here's the deal. People have rights and are free. You don't get to force them to do anything other than leave you alone. That means you can't force them to hire you, you can't force them to sell you something, you can't force them to operate on you, you can't force them to not discriminate against you, you can't force them to do anything - aside from leave you alone.

If you try to force people to do what you want (including selling you birth control), you're trying to prevent society from being free.

 

[FoolKiller]

OK, I will bring all this rights of racists and rights of Wal*Mart thing back together.

Basic human rights grant you the ability to live your life. This includes thinsg such as breathing, eating, etc. We also have right such as freedom of speech and freedom to run a business.

Now if a racist wants to call people names he is expressing his freedom of speech. The person he is name calling may be offended, but none of their rights have been violated. The right to not be offended does not exist. The same goes if the racist owns a store. He has the right to run the store in any way he sees fit because he owns the store, no one else. So if he wants to discriminate against who he serves in his store, that is his right. Those he turns away and even other customers may be offended, but they haven't had their rights infringed upon. They have the right to shop elsewhere. Eventually another store that is not discriminatory will have more business and the racist will lose money over time.

Candaian Speed, you seem to have this idea that being offended vioilates a basic human right. You are confusing rights with social norms. Just because society says that is bad to do does not mean that the rights of anyone have been violated. Society says I shouldn't fart in public, but it doesn't violate anyone's rights if I do. I believe you have confused social norms with rights.

Now, to bring the whole Wal*Mart occasion into this. Wal*Mart runs a store with a pharmacy and for whatever reason chose not to sell a particular product. Has anyone's rights been violated? Well, do they have the right to buy that drug? No, they have the PRIVILEGE. Wal*Mart chose to not serve that privilege to people. Unfortunately three women decided that they were offended because they were denied a privelege by Wal*Mart and so they sued. A judge decided that the three women shouldn't be offended in such way and ruled against Wal*Mart. Does that make it right? No. As a capitalist society the judge has overstepped his bounds, but since he is the final decision in the matter Wal*Mart has no choice other than to stock the product or shut down the pharmacy.

So, just as the racist has the right to not grant a minority the privelege of shopping in his store Wal*Mart has the right to not grant a woman, who thinks she made a mistake, the privelege to buy the morning after pill.

Noiw, you may say it is her right to buy that drug. Well is it my right to buy aspirin, cough syrup, Sudafed, syringes, vacuum cleaners? If I sued Wal*Mart for not carrying these things you would laugh at me.

How about this? I use a particular brand of cat food and not everyone carries it. Should I be allowed to sue the stores that don't?

Or, as in my previous example (post #44), can I sue all the other pharmacies that don't carry my life-saving antiarrythmic drug?



A judge may have told Wal*Mart that in Massachusetts that they have to carry a drug, but that just makes it a social norm in liberal Massachusetts because if they brought that case to conservative Kentucky it would eventually get thrown out, if not laughed out. So is that a basic right in Massachusetts and not in Kentucky? No, it is a social norm which a judge has enforced from the bench.