Laws and Pregnant women drinking at a bar
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:24:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Laws and Pregnant women drinking at a bar
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Which of these do you favor?
#1
Owners forced to serve Pregnant women
 
#2
Let bar owner choose policy
 
#3
Let bar owner also choose to serve pregnant women but let bartenders refuse
 
#4
Illegal to serve alcohol to pregnant women.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 44

Author Topic: Laws and Pregnant women drinking at a bar  (Read 591 times)
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,218


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 29, 2020, 10:06:54 AM »

https://www.csglaw.com/an-expectant-mother-cannot-be-denied-alcohol-in-bars-and-restaurants-in-new-york-city-based-upon-her-pregnancy#:~:text=Bars%20and%20restaurants%20located%20in,York%20City's%20anti%2Ddiscrimination%20law.

Some states like NY require you to serve pregnant women as its discrimination otherwise.


Anyway Option 2 for me

Option 3 means the bar owner can set a policy of refuse to serve but if they set a policy of serving alcohol an individual employee has the "right" to morally refuse to serve
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2020, 10:40:02 AM »

Clearly Option 4 on moral grounds, though with the acknowledgment that this policy will hardly be enforceable.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2020, 11:50:52 AM »

Option 2 or 3. I lean closer to option 1 than to option 4 if I absolutely had to choose because I think it's possible for the state to be overconcerned with fetal health to the point of it becoming a eugenic attitude.
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2020, 12:34:23 PM »

Option 2 or 3. I lean closer to option 1 than to option 4 if I absolutely had to choose because I think it's possible for the state to be overconcerned with fetal health to the point of it becoming a eugenic attitude.

If regulating public physical health and safety without regard for genetics risks becoming eugenics, what is eugenics? Is physical education eugenic? Is welfare spending eugenic? The argument against genetics has always been that it is unfairly discriminatory because it is based in genetic divergence — but I can't see a whiff of that here.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2020, 12:40:48 PM »

Option 4. Same reason you can’t serve minors.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2020, 12:48:16 PM »
« Edited: September 29, 2020, 12:57:07 PM by The scissors of false economy »

Option 2 or 3. I lean closer to option 1 than to option 4 if I absolutely had to choose because I think it's possible for the state to be overconcerned with fetal health to the point of it becoming a eugenic attitude.

If regulating public physical health and safety without regard for genetics risks becoming eugenics, what is eugenics? Is physical education eugenic? Is welfare spending eugenic? The argument against genetics has always been that it is unfairly discriminatory because it is based in genetic divergence — but I can't see a whiff of that here.

To be clear, I fully recognize that this position of mine is crankish. I'll go through the rationale for it in a bit if you're interested.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2020, 01:01:52 PM »

Option 3 seems to be the most consistent with other positions of mine.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,218


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2020, 01:15:45 PM »
« Edited: September 29, 2020, 01:21:14 PM by lfromnj »

Option 2 or 3. I lean closer to option 1 than to option 4 if I absolutely had to choose because I think it's possible for the state to be overconcerned with fetal health to the point of it becoming a eugenic attitude.

Why would you ever pick option 2?

Shouldn't it just flat out be 3 for you? #workersrights? Like why would the employer need to make this moral decision to force on the worker. In option 2 an employer can fire a "rude" employee who refuses to serve a pregnant women.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2020, 01:20:52 PM »

Option 2 or 3. I lean closer to option 1 than to option 4 if I absolutely had to choose because I think it's possible for the state to be overconcerned with fetal health to the point of it becoming a eugenic attitude.

If regulating public physical health and safety without regard for genetics risks becoming eugenics, what is eugenics? Is physical education eugenic? Is welfare spending eugenic? The argument against genetics has always been that it is unfairly discriminatory because it is based in genetic divergence — but I can't see a whiff of that here.

To be clear, I fully recognize that this position of mine is crankish. I'll go through the rationale for it in a bit if you're interested.

tl;dr it's far from clear to me why the state should have the power to regulate substance consumption that might be damaging to fetal health in a society in which it doesn't have the power to regulate whether or not the fetus is carried to term to begin with. I don't intend this as a gotcha, I'm saying it out of respect for the fact that terminating a pregnancy is a right that most people in the Western world think women should have. Why would a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy extend to actually ending the fetus's life but not to behaviors that will be deleterious to its health if it's brought to term? Attempting to regulate--not only socially police, but legally regulate--pregnant women's consumption of otherwise legal substances only makes sense to me in a society where pregnancy in general is a highly regulated affair. Even as an abortion opponent, I feel that such a society would be unjustly restrictive of women's ability to conduct their own lives.

"Eugenics" was the wrong word, and is probably a word I overuse for attitudes towards health and wellness that I dislike in general. What I mean is that I think it reveals something unpleasant about attitudes towards the sick that fetal health is seen as more deserving of legal protection than fetal life; the implication is that it's better to be dead than to have fetal alcohol syndrome or whatever. A society that heavily restricted abortion also restricting women's ability to drink during pregnancy would make a lot more sense, but I would still oppose it for the reason laid out in the final two sentences of the above paragraph.

Option 2 or 3. I lean closer to option 1 than to option 4 if I absolutely had to choose because I think it's possible for the state to be overconcerned with fetal health to the point of it becoming a eugenic attitude.

Why would you ever pick option 2?

Shouldn't it just flat out be 3 for you? #workersrights?

It should be, yes, you're right. Option 3 it is. Thank you for pointing that out.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2020, 01:32:09 PM »

How is the person at the bar supposed to know, particularly in the earlier stages? It's not something you can police without being creepy.

Anyway, as much as I'd like people who are planning on carrying to term to use some common sense when it comes to drinking while pregnant, there's no point in 'white knight-ing' on their behalf. And most bar staff just want to get on with their job.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2020, 02:06:08 PM »

A bartender can and should be able to deny service for any reason he or she sees fit. Bodily autonomy or not, go get an 18 pack from the fast station and sit on your couch or something.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2020, 02:14:42 PM »

A bartender can and should be able to deny service for any reason he or she sees fit. Bodily autonomy or not, go get an 18 pack from the fast station and sit on your couch or something.

Mh? That feels like a statement in need of a lot of qualifications.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2020, 02:19:59 PM »

A bartender can and should be able to deny service for any reason he or she sees fit. Bodily autonomy or not, go get an 18 pack from the fast station and sit on your couch or something.

Mh? That feels like a statement in need of a lot of qualifications.

It isn't.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2020, 03:07:27 PM »

A bartender can and should be able to deny service for any reason he or she sees fit. Bodily autonomy or not, go get an 18 pack from the fast station and sit on your couch or something.

Mh? That feels like a statement in need of a lot of qualifications.

It isn't.

So you are telling me a bartender, for example, should be able to deny service because he doesn't like the ethnicity of the customer?
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2020, 03:10:26 PM »

A bartender can and should be able to deny service for any reason he or she sees fit. Bodily autonomy or not, go get an 18 pack from the fast station and sit on your couch or something.

Mh? That feels like a statement in need of a lot of qualifications.

It isn't.

So you are telling me a bartender, for example, should be able to deny service because he doesn't like the ethnicity of the customer?
That would be against the law, now wouldn't it?
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2020, 03:23:23 PM »

A bartender can and should be able to deny service for any reason he or she sees fit. Bodily autonomy or not, go get an 18 pack from the fast station and sit on your couch or something.

Mh? That feels like a statement in need of a lot of qualifications.

It isn't.

So you are telling me a bartender, for example, should be able to deny service because he doesn't like the ethnicity of the customer?
That would be against the law, now wouldn't it?

Yes. According to the OP, denying it to a pregnant woman would be against the law too, at least in NY and some other states.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2020, 03:41:42 PM »

Bars should be allowed to deny service to any person for health and safety reasons, whether they believe that person is already too intoxicated to safely consume alcohol, demonstrating a pattern of alcohol abuse over multiple visits, or if they are pregnant.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2020, 03:45:02 PM »

A bartender can and should be able to deny service for any reason he or she sees fit. Bodily autonomy or not, go get an 18 pack from the fast station and sit on your couch or something.

Mh? That feels like a statement in need of a lot of qualifications.

It isn't.

So you are telling me a bartender, for example, should be able to deny service because he doesn't like the ethnicity of the customer?
That would be against the law, now wouldn't it?

Yes. According to the OP, denying it to a pregnant woman would be against the law too, at least in NY and some other states.

There are plenty of legal ways to deny service to these people, even if it involves deliberate deceit.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,218


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2020, 03:47:12 PM »

How is the person at the bar supposed to know, particularly in the earlier stages? It's not something you can police without being creepy.

Anyway, as much as I'd like people who are planning on carrying to term to use some common sense when it comes to drinking while pregnant, there's no point in 'white knight-ing' on their behalf. And most bar staff just want to get on with their job.

How is it white-knighting?
Drinking alcohol doesn't really hurt the women directly, it hurts the fetus/baby.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2020, 03:51:25 PM »

How is the person at the bar supposed to know, particularly in the earlier stages? It's not something you can police without being creepy.

Anyway, as much as I'd like people who are planning on carrying to term to use some common sense when it comes to drinking while pregnant, there's no point in 'white knight-ing' on their behalf. And most bar staff just want to get on with their job.

How is it white-knighting?
Drinking alcohol doesn't really hurt the women directly, it hurts the fetus/baby.


It's not. Most bar patrons would be very uncomfortable seeing a visibly or known-to-be pregnant woman drinking in their midst, and rightly so. In the interest of providing customers with a welcoming environment, bartenders should find a way to ensure that pregnant women are not drinking.
Logged
HillGoose
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,861
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.74, S: -8.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2020, 05:19:13 PM »

let bar owner choose, the damn gov is ass. and if i caught my pregnant wife drinking u can bet she would be going straight to rehab because if my kid is stupid idk if i can handle that.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2020, 05:24:04 PM »

okeedokee.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2020, 12:51:32 AM »

Option 1.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2020, 01:24:37 AM »

Option 3 seems like the most realistic. Bars have the right to refuse service to anyone that isn't under a protected class, and bartenders are also allowed to make judgement calls (if they think the person is too intoxicated, for example). Anything more strict than this is just too hard to enforce.

Someone who really, really wants to drink while pregnant is going to find some way to do it anyway. If the bar won't serve them, then they'll go to the liquor store down the street.
Logged
GeneralMacArthur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,614
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2020, 10:02:46 AM »

It should be illegal, you are protecting the future child from a lifetime of deformities and mental handicaps.  Drinking alcohol while pregnant is future child abuse.  It's essentially the same thing as paying someone to come back in a year and bash your kid's skull.

Drinking while pregnant should be a crime.

Serving someone who's pregnant?  I'd support it being a crime, but I don't know how you could force bars to determine who's pregnant and who's not.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 13 queries.