Kim Davis was voted in to be an agent of the government. She should've conformed to government policy when she took office. If she could not, she shouldve resigned, or been thrown in jail for refusal to comply. She ultimately was thrown in jail, and her clerks started issuing licenses without her name. Notably she didn't just refuse to issue gay couples marriage licenses, but all couples, because she disagreed with the federal courts order to issue marriage liscenses to same sex couples. She didn't discriminate, choosing instead to deny all couples marriage licenses in protest of the federal courts decision. Completely different scenario. But, in a similar scenario, If the pharmacist works for Walgreens, and its their policy to provide birth control and the pharmacist refuses, its walgreens right to fire him, or provide another pharmacist who will fill the script. If however, it's the pharmacists pharmacy, a private business, it's his right to sell or not sell what he chooses.
While true, You can't, nor should you, discriminate, and refuse to sell products you carry to someone based on their skin color or sexual orientation, you can, and you should be able to refuse to sell an item because you choose not to.
You can make up hypothetical situations, or cherry pick anomalous incidents that, while wrong, and need to be dealt with, aren't the norm. What about all the other county clerks who were issuing marriage liscenses, indiscriminately? There are 95 counties in Tenn. If you were really hot to get a license, there were 94 other places you could've gotten one... Rules and Regs, the incident you cited happened back in 2014. While she remained county clerk, as voted in by her constituents, she and the government found a compromise and worked around the issue. As of January 1 2019, she is no longer the county clerk, as a new cc was took office. Problem resolved and the world moves on. Except you, and those who want to rehash it in an effort to point out how unfair it is.
If you want a free society, you have to allow people the right to make choices. You can not shield them from the pecuniary consequences of those choices (nor should they be). If you dont like their business practices, vote with your wallet. Take your business elsewhere. But you shouldn't be able to force them to abide by your wishes by taking them to court and make them sell you what you want. You can not have it both ways. You want the right to sleep with who you want? The right to decide your sexual orientation? The right to believe what you will? Those same rights give others the right to disagree with you. If you dont want me forcing my beliefs on you, you cant force me to conform to your beliefs.
Live and let live.
Simple
