Good point, but it is their choice. Walmart and other retailers choose not to carry Playboy, a violation of freedom of speech. I don't but that magazine, but if I did, I would just go to another store (or download it).
Does bring up the question though, what if a cure for Cancer was found and certain druggists feel so strongly against smokers that they refused to carry it? Or an AIDS cure was found and the druggist hated gays?
It does come down, however, to their rights to sell what they choose to.
I actually do not post a reply that often. But when I see a response that goes so beyond any semblance of common sense I must respond.
It is obvious you have absolutely no concept of the meaning of freedom of speech if you believe a private business not selling a certain product is a violation of that same freedom.
Walmart and other retailers not carrying Playboy is not a violation of freedom of speech. By what reasoning could a company be forced to carry a product that they do not want to carry? If the government makes it illegal to sell Playboy, then that would be a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not require forced consumption of a product.
You said wal mart doesn't carry playboy therefor they don't sell it.
That's different from them selling it and the cashier refusing to sell it to you which is what is happening at the drug store. They carry BC yet a certain druggist refuses to sell it. That.s wrong.
He said the day they wouldn't give him that latitude he'd have to quit otherwise he wouldn't take the chance of refusing filling prescriptions that, in combination, could cause damage or questioning obviously forged prescriptions for narcotics.
He may have been stretching to make a point, but the point was they take an oath just like doctors and not every doctor is forced to perform abortions, deliver babies, etc.
"Good point, but it is their choice. Walmart and other retailers choose not to carry Playboy, a violation of freedom of speech."
It is not a violation of free speech for them not to carry it. Using your train of thought, it is a violation of free speech not to carry every magazine published. No one does that. It's only a violation of free speech if they did carry it and you were prevented from buying it.
The analogy with the ham and the jewish checkout person is much better.