Blind man's guide dog barred from restaurant for offending Muslims

**wilbur** · 12-16-2008, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Gingersnap

So we abrogate everybody's rights because of a potential scenario? Prescriptive legislation is almost always horrific eventually. How about we admit we can't save everyone from everything and get back to the dogs?

oh alright, alright...

**Phillygirl** · 12-16-2008, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by wilbur

If say... a rape victim ended up impregnated against her wishes after a pharmacist prevented her from receiving the pill then yes. A little different than maxi pads and restaurants.

A rape victim became impregnated against her wishes because of the rapist.

See that, a clear causal connection.

**wilbur** · 12-16-2008, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Phillygirl

A rape victim became impregnated against her wishes because of the rapist.

See that, a clear causal connection.

Rest assured I have a nice response to this in my brain... but I don't like frustrating Ginger so much;P Back to the dogs.

**RobJohnson** · 12-17-2008, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by wilbur

Although, I didn't realize the drug is available over the counter w/ out a prescription... so the pharmacists role in the whole ordeal would simply be as a cashier.. it seems like this point should be mostly moot these days.

Correct, no Rx needed as long as the person purchasing it is over 18.

**Arroyo_Doble** · 12-17-2008, 09:39 AM

At first I thought it was similar. After reading the thread I am inclined to think it is exactly the same.

**FlaGator** · 12-17-2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

At first I thought it was similar. After reading the thread I am inclined to think it is exactly the same.

The difference seems to be that there are laws that bar someone from disallowing a seeing eye dog and its owner from entering a place of business and there are no such laws telling pharmacists that they must keep in stock and fill every potential prescription.