madshark

First, I would like to welcome all of our new friends of the Constitution on the left. I do have a couple of questions though.

Most folks have seen or heard about CVSs decision to stop selling tobacco products by October. I have seen mixed responses from talking heads on TV and radio and the people on the blogs I frequent. Those on the right seem split in their opinions, while those on the left universally celebrate CVSs decision. The argument I hear from the left is taht it is CVSs right to decide what product they choose to sell or not to sell. I would like to congratulate the left on finding the Constitution. This doesbring a couple of questions to mind.

1) We have now established that a corporation has rights Citizens United?

2) Tobacco is a legal product and smoking is a legal activity. CVS has decided its policy based on its prejudice against people engaging in a legal activity. We have seen a couple of cases recently where owners of bakeries refused to bake wedding cakes for homo couples. The cry from the left is, a business cannot refuse to sell to a person because the business has no right to decide not to serve someone because that produst or service is wrong. Do you leftists now support the right of the business owner to refuse service based on its prejudice

I have been waiting for a true apples to apples comparison. I finally got it. Now, lets see how the loons contort themselves to support their different opinions on the identical subject.

Kevyn

[quote=madshark]First, I would like to welcome all of our new friends of the Constitution on the left. I do have a couple of questions though.

Most folks have seen or heard about CVSs decision to stop selling tobacco products by October. I have seen mixed responses from talking heads on TV and radio and the people on the blogs I frequent. Those on the right seem split in their opinions, while those on the left universally celebrate CVSs decision. The argument I hear from the left is taht it is CVSs right to decide what product they choose to sell or not to sell. I would like to congratulate the left on finding the Constitution. This doesbring a couple of questions to mind.

1) We have now established that a corporation has rights Citizens United?

2) Tobacco is a legal product and smoking is a legal activity. CVS has decided its policy based on its prejudice against people engaging in a legal activity. We have seen a couple of cases recently where owners of bakeries refused to bake wedding cakes for homo couples. The cry from the left is, a business cannot refuse to sell to a person because the business has no right to decide not to serve someone because that produst or service is wrong. Do you leftists now support the right of the business owner to refuse service based on its prejudice

Not really an apple and apple comparison, a retailer always has a right to sell or not sell what legal and unregulated products they want to. A book store has no obligation to sell pornography or even religious books they don't wish to sell. The same business can not however discriminate against who they serve as an example the bakery can refuse to sell all cakes they just can't refuse to sell cakes to gay people or blacks while selling them to others. Prejudice against a product is very different than prejudice against people which is a violation of the civil rights act.

bobgssc

Ummm, where is the "apples to apples" comparison? I must have missed all that in the news regarding gay wedding cakes killing 1 in 5 gay couples. I'm an ex-smoker so I really don't like getting involved in this debate, but I don't think it really comes down to any huge prejudice except that CVS is trying to become true to its purpose... selling products which make people healthier, or at least not kill people. Sometimes in life things just happen, not everything is intended to make someone a victim.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Madfish: Is this really such a twisted sense of logic that a soapbox fight or flight response is required?

Let's say I'm a French Restaurant, should I be forced to sell hamburgers because that is a popular food?
Is tobacco a safe product, whether isn't legal or not? Knowing, that for the most part it isn't a safe product, why would a pharmacist knowingly sell a product that has no medical benefit at all.
Tobacco isn't a food, but supermarkets sell tobacco products as well.
The fact of the matter is that cigarettes and other products are a marketing "hook" for consumers. CVS isn't really damaging their image one way or the other, but it gets media attention.

And recently, after years of research, vitamins and supplements have no benefit whatsoever, but the CVS still sells those products.

I wouldn't worry about how liberals view this: this isn't a constitutional issue. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill-good luck with that

Don Overton Loc: Southwest USA

Be Careful Reptards, There is no intellectual consistency on the right.

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

I remember long ago bakers square (poppin fresh back then) restaurant chain went smoke free and it helped usher in a new world of public opinion. I am sure there will be many more retailers who will now follow suit. No one has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot sell. But we are getting seriously close to a day when this will no longer be true. I can still buy my 44oz cup of coke in MN but not in NYC.

But to the liberals I ask many of you support the legalization of marijuania but are addiment about destroying tobacco at any cost. This just doesn't really pass a hypocrite smell test.

67p5065

they might tie themselves into knots on that one . With any luck around their necks would be a good place for the knot .

PhilosophyMan Loc: Washington state.

[quote=Kevyn]

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Unclet Loc: Amarillo, Tx

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

madshark

You are missing the point of the question.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

so you're not making a point?

madshark

[quote=Kevyn]

This is for bobgssc, too. This is precisely an apples to apples comparison. In the CVS case, they are refusing to sell a legal product to a customer who has the right to purchase and use that product, because of their corporate prejudice against the activity. In the case of the bakeries they refused to sell their legal product to people who had the right to purchase and use the product because of their personal prejudice against the activity. See. Exactly the same. Now you may continue to contort.

madshark

Let me break it down for you, as you are too stupid to figure it out. The point is that libtards are intellectually inconsistant. On one hand they support CVSs decision to not sell tobacco, because they believe smoking is bad. On the other hand they want to force another business to sell a product to a customer who the business owner believes is engaging in a behavior that is bad. An intellectually consistant person would either support or be against both businesses.

Kevyn

Not really an apple and apple comparison, a retailer always has a right to sell or not sell what legal and unregulated products they want to. A book store has no obligation to sell pornography or even religious books they don't wish to sell. The same business can not however discriminate against who they serve as an example the bakery can refuse to sell all cakes they just can't refuse to sell cakes to gay people or blacks while selling them to others. Prejudice against a product is very different than prejudice against people which is a violation of the civil rights act.

Glaucon

It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences.
Harry S. Truman

Does this exchange improve understanding? Is improving our understanding the purpose of this site?