When rights collide, part 2
At the risk of throwing gas onto a fire, and not wanting to thread-jack the other thread, I would like to know what others think of these two real-life situations.
1) A young, mentally challenged young man was taken into a nicer restaurant here in Louisville for lunch. The place is popular and hence, was very crowded that day. The young man is confined to a wheelchair, and is only capable of emitting high pitched, loud schreeches (almost like a little gril screaming), and loud moaning. The family was seated, and the young man began to schreech, and thrash about in the wheelchair. The family was oblivious to this, and did nothing to try to comfort the young man, or to remove him. Several other diners complained, and after 30 minutes of the noise, the family was asked to leave. They promptly filed a lawsuit, claiming discrimination again their son. A diner filmed part of the young man and his family on his cell, and it clearly shows the noise level, and the family conversing like their was nothing happening. (A family memeber later said that this was normal behavior for the young man, and that the family tunes him out.) So, who's right trumped whos? The young man certainly has the right to be there, but then the diner's have a right to a nice lunch. Thoughts?
2) What about the rights of a pro-life pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control pills/the morning after pill? On one hand, they got into pharmacy knowing that yes, indeed, pharmacies dispense these meds, but they also have freedom of religion. What if it's a small town, and only one pharmacy close, so that's it's difficult to go to another one? Would a Jehovah's Witness ever become a pharmacist? Thoughts?