livendive

It seems to me that the most problematic part of that story is not that he refused to fill the prescription, but that he refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacist. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Only in very unlikely instances, for example, if a drug were needed in order to save a life or prevent irreversible injury, and sending the patient to a nearby pharmacy wasn't feasible or wouldn't be quick enough. Blues, Dave Ya, Those areas you get no debate from me. What about birth control pills. Does he/she have the right to not even stock them? Yeah, I think so. This isn't something I know a lot about, but fundamentally I'd have a problem with a government forcing a pharmacist to dispense something like birth control pills if it violates his religious beliefs. Note, I said "government". If Walgreens sells birth control pills and they have a pharmacist who refuses to dispense them, I think it would be within their rights to fire him. In my mind, it would be no different than a strip club firing someone who refused to take her clothes off or Outback Steakhouse firing someone who refused to sell meat. Blues, Dave You and I agree. However, the gov has forces a business to dispense the day after pill... Really? Got a reference? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

We knew what you meant. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Only in very unlikely instances, for example, if a drug were needed in order to save a life or prevent irreversible injury, and sending the patient to a nearby pharmacy wasn't feasible or wouldn't be quick enough. Blues, Dave Ya, Those areas you get no debate from me. What about birth control pills. Does he/she have the right to not even stock them? Yeah, I think so. This isn't something I know a lot about, but fundamentally I'd have a problem with a government forcing a pharmacist to dispense something like birth control pills if it violates his religious beliefs. Note, I said "government". If Walgreens sells birth control pills and they have a pharmacist who refuses to dispense them, I think it would be within their rights to fire him. In my mind, it would be no different than a strip club firing someone who refused to take her clothes off or Outback Steakhouse firing someone who refused to sell meat. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Only in very unlikely instances, for example, if a drug were needed in order to save a life or prevent irreversible injury, and sending the patient to a nearby pharmacy wasn't feasible or wouldn't be quick enough. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

When I first started doing tandems, we had very large canopies with very high toggle pressure. As a result, I had to have my students help me land in order to be able to go back up. My personal rule was I would call it a day when I felt too fatigued to flare by myself if necessary. Most times that I did end up having to flare the 500 by myself, it ended my day. Today, we have much better parachutes and I've shifted from always making my student help me land to rarely letting my student help me land. Still, if I've got lots of students scheduled on a hot summer day, I'll let the student fly around up high just to conserve my energy, so I don't run into a fatigue problem later. Are you suggesting there's something wrong with trying to keep some gas in the tank for later? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

They would vote against it because it would restrict their own rights, as opposed to someone else's. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Because ancient religious texts shouldn't have any bearing on the law. I agree, however the fact of the matter is that many marriages are performed as religious ceremonies. One need not ignore that fact in order to make an argument in favor of gay marriage. You can accept that fact and still argue that prohibition of gay marriage abridges the right of homosexuals to practice their religion. How does changing the wording on a LEGAL DOCUMENT mean that churches would have to "legitimize before God" relationships that are counter to their beliefs? Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not proposing that any church be forced to perform marriages counter to their beliefs. I think both churches should be *allowed* to perform marriages according to their beliefs. I don't understand why it is that the religious majority in California thinks that I, as an agnostic, should be allowed to marry my atheist girlfriend, but Christian gays should not be allowed to marry each other. Given that it doesn't affect them either way, I've heard no better explanation than simple bigotry. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It appears that it does matter to you if it is called marriage. Why? Yes, I do think it does Wonderful. So do they. As do those living in CA huh? Yep. Now here comes the tricky part. You have to pick one argument, either the word does matter (to you) or the word shouldn't matter (to the gays). You've said both in this thread. Which is it? Blues, Dave Not sure how you got this but, it matters to me. I think it represents something important. Changing its "meaning" by including a union between something other than a man or women is an attack on that IMO You said in this post: Now I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like what you're implying is that as long as same sex partners get the same rights, it shouldn't matter whether it is called marriage. You go on to argue in later posts that it DOES matter if it is called marriage. In your quote above, did you mean to imply something other than "as long as they get the same rights, the name shouldn't matter"? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What about when that "knowledge" is based on bullshit chain emails that intentionally distort the facts about a particular candidate? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It appears that it does matter to you if it is called marriage. Why? Yes, I do think it does Wonderful. So do they. As do those living in CA huh? Yep. Now here comes the tricky part. You have to pick one argument, either the word does matter (to you) or the word shouldn't matter (to the gays). You've said both in this thread. Which is it? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It appears that it does matter to you if it is called marriage. Why? Yes, I do think it does Wonderful. So do they. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm not sure why one would need to exclude ancient religious texts. Imagine two churches, side by side, both of which espouse marriage (pun intended) as the only way to legitimize a relationship before God, and one of them does so regardless of genders (see Prop 8 opponent and minister here). If the government steps in and says that one church may implement 100% of their doctrine and the other may not, how is that *not* prohibiting the free exercise of religion? I'm guessing the argument against my position is likely similar to whatever legal means were employed to outlaw Mormon polygamy, and I'm unaware of what that is. Then again, it likely wouldn't convince me, as I also consider that an abridgement of freedom of religion. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

When I was 10 or 11 years old, I was given $50 of grocery money and a week home alone to spend it. The following year it was around 10-14 days (I remember it involved two weekends). I managed to survive without killing myself or burning the house down (though I'll admit there might have been a LOT of naughty bit touching during those weeks) Personally, I think I was too young to be alone for such extended periods of time, but it does contrast a very different end of the spectrum from your fiance. The best approach is likely somewhere in between the two extremes and will vary based on the kid. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

He talks a bit about the possibility in this video, an interview that includes his reaction to Obama's win. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I wouldn't go so far as to call her an idiot, but agree that she doesn't need to be crucified. She's a beauty queen that strikes a cord with Alaskan voters, and I'm perfectly content to let her continue living the life she's carved out for herself...provided it only affects me when I'm on vacation in Alaska (a place I don't think most here can relate to). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

One of those groups wishes to restrict the ability of others to exercise their religion and pursue happiness as they see fit, on the basis of their sexual orientation. The other group is not trying to deprive anyone of anything, they're just trying to protect their own right to happiness while it's under attack. Unfortunately the latter group lost, despite having (in my opinion) the moral high ground. And the thought of a crowd of effeminate male bullies makes me laugh. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

If two lovers go in front of their minister (or justice of the peace) and elevate the nature of their relationship to one that is legally binding and includes all the rights and risks of marriage, what word works better for you. When describing the events, should they say "Last week, I domestic partnershipped my significant other and we went on a celebratory vacation in Hawaii afterwords"? Somehow, to me, "My husband/wife and I got married last week and have been in Hawaii on our honeymoon" much more clearly relates what occurred. If you object to the use of the word marriage, do you also object to homosexual use of the words wedding, wed, nuptials, spouse, husband, wife, and divorce? Do you object to polygamists referring to their "wives"? Marriage, wedding, and spousal nouns clearly relate the concepts they refer to. Gay or straight, the significance of those words denote a specific level of committment more clearly than any other words you think homosexuals should use. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I disagree, but assuming you're correct anyhow, I can only point at the fact that for the last 8 years we've been lead by a "uniter, not a divider". Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I agree with you on all points, but would be surprised (pleasantly) to see it happen. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm waiting for the rash of Presidential pardons, to pre-excuse himself and his cabinet at a minimum. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Can you expand on what you consider those to be? And tell me how many decades we'd have to go back to find them in either of the big political parties? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

LOL - I thought the same thing both times he said it...I had to turn to a dictionary. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Kerry got 88% of black votes in 2004. Gore got 90% of black votes in 2000. Clinton got 83% in 1992 and 1996. Both exist and both are racist. Still, I find voting for someone because of their race a tiny bit less offensive than voting against someone because of their race. I'm not sure why I feel this way, but perhaps because the former speaks of pride whereas the latter speaks of hatred. Either way, I wish it didn't happen and I think the effects on this election were minimal, largely cancelling each other out. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

When the camera kept going back to him crying at Obama's speech, I tried to voice his thoughts to my girlfriend...yelling "Dammit! I coulda been a contender!" and "I wanna punch him in the balls!" Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)