Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[candycorn]

There are TWO Rite Aids, as shown in this map

YP.com - Yellow Pages the new yellowpages.com

Also, you forgot about the Dynamite and Drugstore.

Why are being so dishonest about such an easily provable thing Candy. Just say "I made a mistake" and go on.

There is no town in America where someone will only have access to one Pharmacy



Nice try:

Pick ANY town in America and I'll find you a minimum of 3 pharmacies within 20 miles of the center of town

Twenty miles--3 Pharmacies. Your conditions...not mine.

You're link listed pharmacies in

Merced, nearly twice the distance
Camp Hill, PA, something like 1800 miles away
Chowchilla, CA, further than Merced
etc...

Come back when you can meet your own standards...

Are you insane?

Pharmacy 1.

Rite Aid
4994 Joe Howard St,

Mariposa, CA 95338

Other Locations »

(209) 742-7600

Pharmacy 2

Dynamite & Drugstore
5102 Jessie St,

Mariposa, CA 95338

(209) 742-4141

Pharmacy 3

Pioneer Market Pharmacy
(1)
OPEN NOW

Today:7:00 am - 10:00 pm

5034 Coakley Cir,

Mariposa, CA 95338

(209) 742-6100

Pharmacy 4
Pioneer Market Pharmacy
(1)
OPEN NOW

Today:7:00 am - 10:00 pm

5034 Coakley Cir,

Mariposa, CA 95338

(209) 742-6100

So, that is FOUR that are RIGHT IN TOWN.

None of the pharmacies on that page were in PA, I don't even know where you came up with that at.

Not quite the case...

Well, you listed Pioneer twice.

And Dynamite & Drugstore is actually a marijuana dispensary...Screenshot below.

View attachment 33677

View attachment 33677

Yes, I mis posted

There are two Rite AIds, a Pioneer, a Dynamite IN TOWN

Dynamite might sell medical marijuana, but that is not all they sell, notice they call themselves a DRUG store.

In either case, I produced at minimum 3, I say 4 Pharmacies, RIGHT IN TOWN.

Why you idiotic troll liberals can't just say "okay you proved me wrong on that one" is ******* beyond me.

No..there is one Rite Aid and the Pioneer. The facts prove you wrong...I merely pointed them out.

Very well said.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah and society is passing you by as well. Adios.

Yeah ... You can tell me that from the parking lot and think you made it anywhere other than outside.

.

Not sure what any of that means but whatever.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I consider these folks who want to use aparthied type behavior in order to not have to deal with or accept people because they don't like their color, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. to be completely un-American. It's repulsive the joy you take in disaproving of and hating others, and it is truly un-American.

The true American spirit resides in FREEDOM ... Which includes the freedom of association.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others does not mean you have to neglect your own values and invite them to participate or diminish your desired course of action. Each of us has the freedom to engage life and opportunity as it suits our own needs, absent physical harm or the theft of another's property.

To hide behind false barriers established by the group think mentality is just another way our basic freedoms are eroded over . Nanny-State socialists don't know crap about what Freedom or American mean.

.

Discrimination =Freedom? Hate, fear and suspicion are American values? Creating a second class citizen because you think it's a matter of Liberty and Freedom makes sense?

What a pitiful attitude you have.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

You have twisted and perverted the definition of 'freedom' so that your warped and uncivilized attitudes might gain some moral cover. It is not working.

It is YOU who has twisted and perverted freedom, how any thinking person could believe freedom means "forcing people to do
business with people they don't want to do business with" is beyond me.

Let me use an analogy. What if there were a law passed that said that every morning on your way to work, you had to pick up a random person chosen by the state and drive them to THEIR job?

Doesn't matter that you may not like this person, does not matter that the vehicle you're in belongs to YOU, because you see, you are using PUBLIC roads, and the government quite clearly has the right to regulate the use of roads, so just as clearly, they have a right to dictate who you must let ride in your vehicle.

Sounds reasonable, yes?

 

[bripat9643]

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Again, straw-man. You're making stuff up because you can't articulate your position and defend it with a rational argument.

Incidentally, you're also proving the bigotry of liberals with the "toothless rednecks" stuff. Funny how you people declare yourselves "tolerant" and throw around endless racist and sexist terms.

The only people I know that don't recognize the authority of the federal government are the unhinged asshat libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists. Every conservative I know completely recognizes and respects the authority of the federal government. The problem is, they recognize only the 18 enumerated powers that the federal government is constitutionally restricted by, where as you demand that conservatives recognize the federal government as having unlimited powers "for the good" of society because liberals have brainwashed you into believing such nonsense and your pissed off that conservatives won't follow you on it.

From her perspective, if you don't support the laws liberals have forced on us, then you don't recognize the rule of law. However, you're free to oppose any law that liberals don't like.

Liberals forced you to stop lynching blacks? How terrible.

It's apparent you've realized that you're an idiot who is unable to use facts and logic to support your points.

It's apparent (has been for a while), you're frustrated that "liberal laws" protecting minorities have robbed you of your way of life.

Why should anyone be happy that they have to serve people they dislike, like Christian photographers who are forced to attend gay weddings? Only liberals delight in forcing their preferences on others. That's the servile totalitarian mentality in a nutshell.

 

[bripat9643]

I consider these folks who want to use aparthied type behavior in order to not have to deal with or accept people because they don't like their color, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. to be completely un-American. It's repulsive the joy you take in disaproving of and hating others, and it is truly un-American.

The true American spirit resides in FREEDOM ... Which includes the freedom of association.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others does not mean you have to neglect your own values and invite them to participate or diminish your desired course of action. Each of us has the freedom to engage life and opportunity as it suits our own needs, absent physical harm or the theft of another's property.

To hide behind false barriers established by the group think mentality is just another way our basic freedoms are eroded over . Nanny-State socialists don't know crap about what Freedom or American mean.

.

Discrimination =Freedom? Hate, fear and suspicion are American values? Creating a second class citizen because you think it's a matter of Liberty and Freedom makes sense?

What a pitiful attitude you have.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

You have twisted and perverted the definition of 'freedom' so that your warped and uncivilized attitudes might gain some moral cover. It is not working.

It is YOU who has twisted and perverted freedom, how any thinking person could believe freedom means "forcing people to do
business with people they don't want to do business with" is beyond me.

Let me use an analogy. What if there were a law passed that said that every morning on your way to work, you had to pick up a random person chosen by the state and drive them to THEIR job?

Doesn't matter that you may not like this person, does not matter that the vehicle you're in belongs to YOU, because you see, you are using PUBLIC roads, and the government quite clearly has the right to regulate the use of roads, so just as clearly, they have a right to dictate who you must let ride in your vehicle.

Sounds reasonable, yes?

Don't give them any ideas!

 

[BlackSand]

Yeah and society is passing you by as well. Adios.

Yeah ... You can tell me that from the parking lot and think you made it anywhere other than outside.

.

Not sure what any of that means but whatever.

It means you are silly enough to confuse proprietary rights with the desire the discriminate against individuals in a manner than offends whatever sensibilities you may hold dear at the moment. It means you then have the audacity to suggest you and your particular misconceptions are somehow the embodiment of society. It means that you will continue to assume that your misconceptions and misguided assertions of power will in some way influence activities you have no say so over. It means you will continue to argue points not made with principles that do not apply ... And refuse to grasp the concept that you and your vision of society in regards to the power you hold to tell a business owner who they can or cannot serve is non-existent.

I tried to help you understand with an analogy of what it would be like standing in the parking lot after being refused service ... And thinking you or your ideas about society would get you any closer to what the rest of world is free to enjoy without your incessant meddling.

 

[bripat9643]

Uppity white socialists always resort to racial comments so the black man can carry their water when all other arguments fail.

.

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

Stay classy CC!

(Incidentally, I have all of my teeth and they are perfectly straight - and I am destroying you with facts in this discussion)

The issue was settled over 50 years ago...the only thing you've ever destroyed was your bedsprings.

One thing we learned from liberals is that no issue is ever settled until we say it is.

It was settled a long time ago. If you and I were at the counter at Woolworth's you'd be the one clubbing the guys in the back of the head trying to get them to end their sit-in and I'd be standing between you and them.

You want to go back to those days.

The rest of the world doesn't.

It's that simple and you're upset by the world leaving you behind.

**** off you insulting piece of shit.

Whenever libturds lose an argument, they always resort to accusing their critics of being racists. That's what you have to do when you haven't got any facts or logic on your side.

You're exactly the kind that would volunteer to drop the Xyklon-B down the chute into the gas chamber where all the Jews are standing naked waiting to take a shower. You worship authority and you don't tolerate anyone who objects to your designs to bring on Utopia.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah and society is passing you by as well. Adios.

Yeah ... You can tell me that from the parking lot and think you made it anywhere other than outside.

.

Not sure what any of that means but whatever.

You're only sure that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

 

[bripat9643]

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

Stay classy CC!

(Incidentally, I have all of my teeth and they are perfectly straight - and I am destroying you with facts in this discussion)

The issue was settled over 50 years ago...the only thing you've ever destroyed was your bedsprings.

One thing we learned from liberals is that no issue is ever settled until we say it is.

It was settled a long time ago. If you and I were at the counter at Woolworth's you'd be the one clubbing the guys in the back of the head trying to get them to end their sit-in and I'd be standing between you and them.

You want to go back to those days.

The rest of the world doesn't.

It's that simple and you're upset by the world leaving you behind.

The 2nd Amendment was settled centuries ago dear. And yet that doesn't stop you and your unhinged ilk from trying to ban guns.

However, there was nothing "settled" on this issue. If all you can point to is a "court ruling" then you have nothing. Courts do not and cannot make law. Period. End of story.

The fact is, you very logically and very rationally state that a singer should not be forced to perform for someone against their will. But then you turn around and irrationally state that a restaurant should be forced to serve food to someone. WTF is the difference?!? The fact that you're not even consistent in your views says it all. A restaurant order should no more be forced to serve food (slavery) than a singer should be forced to sing (slaver).

If you have to use force sweetie - then you know you are wrong.

She's in favor of allowing discrimination in some circumstances so she must some kind of filthy despicable racist. That's her logic, anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

I consider these folks who want to use aparthied type behavior in order to not have to deal with or accept people because they don't like their color, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. to be completely un-American. It's repulsive the joy you take in disaproving of and hating others, and it is truly un-American.

The true American spirit resides in FREEDOM ... Which includes the freedom of association.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others does not mean you have to neglect your own values and invite them to participate or diminish your desired course of action. Each of us has the freedom to engage life and opportunity as it suits our own needs, absent physical harm or the theft of another's property.

To hide behind false barriers established by the group think mentality is just another way our basic freedoms are eroded over . Nanny-State socialists don't know crap about what Freedom or American mean.

.

Discrimination =Freedom? Hate, fear and suspicion are American values? Creating a second class citizen because you think it's a matter of Liberty and Freedom makes sense?

What a pitiful attitude you have.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

You have twisted and perverted the definition of 'freedom' so that your warped and uncivilized attitudes might gain some moral cover. It is not working.

So freedom means the government forces you to do things you don't want to do? Is that your unperverted definition of freedom?

 

[candycorn]

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

Stay classy CC!

(Incidentally, I have all of my teeth and they are perfectly straight - and I am destroying you with facts in this discussion)

The issue was settled over 50 years ago...the only thing you've ever destroyed was your bedsprings.

One thing we learned from liberals is that no issue is ever settled until we say it is.

It was settled a long time ago. If you and I were at the counter at Woolworth's you'd be the one clubbing the guys in the back of the head trying to get them to end their sit-in and I'd be standing between you and them.

You want to go back to those days.

The rest of the world doesn't.

It's that simple and you're upset by the world leaving you behind.

**** off you insulting piece of shit.

You're an insult to the human race.

Whenever libturds lose an argument, they always resort to accusing their critics of being racists. That's what you have to do when you haven't got any facts or logic on your side.

Do you deny you'd be the ones that were crushing their cigarettes into their backs, knocking them off of their stools, chastising them, calling them names?

I didn't think so.

If that makes you a racist, your problem is in the mirror...as it always is. Not with me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

it does. But when has any freedom or right been absolute? Never.

Often, freedom, rights etc come like this. You can do whatever you like as long as your don't hurt or harm someone else.
Clearly preventing black people from being able to shop in shops on the main street is harming them. Not physically, but mentally.

There are plenty of other such things. Libel, you can't speak or write something that isn't true that would harm someone else. Treason, if you put people in danger or go against the country then this can be treason.

When you run a business you are taking on a certain amount of responsibility you otherwise would not have within society. You can't do whatever you like when you like. You can't decide to lock the doors of your shop while people are inside and refuse to let them out.
You also should not be able to discriminate based on how someone is born.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So freedom means the government forces you to do things you don't want to do? Is that your unperverted definition of freedom?

Does freedom mean I can kill you? No it doesn't. The govt has a law in place that says I can't do that, but if I do there will also be a penalty attached to this.

The govt is forcing me not to do something. Is it not freedom if I can't kill who I like?

 

[candycorn]

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

it does. But when has any freedom or right been absolute? Never.

Often, freedom, rights etc come like this. You can do whatever you like as long as your don't hurt or harm someone else.
Clearly preventing black people from being able to shop in shops on the main street is harming them. Not physically, but mentally.

There are plenty of other such things. Libel, you can't speak or write something that isn't true that would harm someone else. Treason, if you put people in danger or go against the country then this can be treason.

When you run a business you are taking on a certain amount of responsibility you otherwise would not have within society. You can't do whatever you like when you like. You can't decide to lock the doors of your shop while people are inside and refuse to let them out.
You also should not be able to discriminate based on how someone is born.

Excellent point that will be totally lost in the "Where is this happening today" cyclical "thinking"

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gee, why did Candy ignore my analogy? Oh that's right.

By the way Candy, I defend a LOT of rights I don't agree with. Defending a right does NOT mean I partake in that right. It simply means I defend those who do.

That's called intellectual honesty, you should try it.

 

[candycorn]

Gee, why did Candy ignore my analogy? Oh that's right.

By the way Candy, I defend a LOT of rights I don't agree with. Defending a right does NOT mean I partake in that right. It simply means I defend those who do.

That's called intellectual honesty, you should try it.

What analogy was that?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gee, why did Candy ignore my analogy? Oh that's right.

By the way Candy, I defend a LOT of rights I don't agree with. Defending a right does NOT mean I partake in that right. It simply means I defend those who do.

That's called intellectual honesty, you should try it.

What analogy was that?

The one you clearly ignored. I'm not providing a link, nor retyping it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We all know lynching has occurred. However, it wasn't nearly as common as assholes like you want to make it sound. Plenty of Japanese and German prisoners were murdered and tortured by American troops during the war. Does that mean we should believe that everyone who voted for FDR condoned murder?

How often did I say it happened?

Also, why the need to insult? I'm an "asshole" because I have the audacity to suggest that white people lynched black people?

Fine, I'll be an asshole, I'd hate to be called something NICE by you.

There's a big difference between what sometimes happens in armies by groups of people in warfare, and a society which supported, advocated and carried out lynchings.

Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968

"From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched. These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded. Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched. That is only 27.3%. Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes. "

4,743 known lynchings. Is it a lot? Not necessarily for a time period of 80 years. That's about 60 a year on average.

"Mississippi had the highest lynchings from 1882-1968 with 581."

Some societies, like Mississippi, had more of an acceptance of mob rule and lynchings than other states.

I'd call it institutional.

Because not only do you have the lynchings themselves, you have the impact knowing you could be lynched would have on black people. Do you think they felt free in their own society?

However, I wasn't talking about number, I was talking about barbarity.

We have a few people being beheaded by ISIS and a LOT of people are saying these people are barbaric. The NUMBER they killed wasn't important. It was HOW they killed and WHY they killed that made people take notice and denounce.

 

[dblack]

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

it does. But when has any freedom or right been absolute? Never.

Always.

Often, freedom, rights etc come like this. You can do whatever you like as long as your don't hurt or harm someone else.
Clearly preventing black people from being able to shop in shops on the main street is harming them. Not physically, but mentally.

There are plenty of other such things. Libel, you can't speak or write something that isn't true that would harm someone else. Treason, if you put people in danger or go against the country then this can be treason.

When you run a business you are taking on a certain amount of responsibility you otherwise would not have within society. You can't do whatever you like when you like. You can't decide to lock the doors of your shop while people are inside and refuse to let them out.
You also should not be able to discriminate based on how someone is born.

You shouldn't be allowed to libel others. You shouldn't be allowed to harrass, threaten or intimidate others, regardless of your reasons. You shouldn't be allowed to imprison them. But not serving someone as they demand, or at all, isn't harming them, and in a free society the right to say "no" to should be preserved.

 

[candycorn]

Gee, why did Candy ignore my analogy? Oh that's right.

By the way Candy, I defend a LOT of rights I don't agree with. Defending a right does NOT mean I partake in that right. It simply means I defend those who do.

That's called intellectual honesty, you should try it.

What analogy was that?

The one you clearly ignored. I'm not providing a link, nor retyping it.

I really have no idea what you're talking about...but stand in the corner and hold your breath...I'm sure someone may care what you do...someday.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We all know lynching has occurred. However, it wasn't nearly as common as assholes like you want to make it sound. Plenty of Japanese and German prisoners were murdered and tortured by American troops during the war. Does that mean we should believe that everyone who voted for FDR condoned murder?

How often did I say it happened?

Also, why the need to insult? I'm an "asshole" because I have the audacity to suggest that white people lynched black people?

Fine, I'll be an asshole, I'd hate to be called something NICE by you.

There's a big difference between what sometimes happens in armies by groups of people in warfare, and a society which supported, advocated and carried out lynchings.

Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968

"From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched. These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded. Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched. That is only 27.3%. Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes. "

4,743 known lynchings. Is it a lot? Not necessarily for a time period of 80 years. That's about 60 a year on average.

"Mississippi had the highest lynchings from 1882-1968 with 581."

Some societies, like Mississippi, had more of an acceptance of mob rule and lynchings than other states.

I'd call it institutional.

Because not only do you have the lynchings themselves, you have the impact knowing you could be lynched would have on black people. Do you think they felt free in their own society?

However, I wasn't talking about number, I was talking about barbarity.

We have a few people being beheaded by ISIS and a LOT of people are saying these people are barbaric. The NUMBER they killed wasn't important. It was HOW they killed and WHY they killed that made people take notice and denounce.

Of course black people were lynched by whites. That's despicable.

But has zero to do with forcing people to do business with those they don't want to.

Or do you really think that someone who is lynching people is suddenly going to start doing business with them (by force of law) and say "gee these people aren't so bad, I'm gonna stop lynching them?"