Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 184
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I hope not. That would be a conflict of interest.
    Not sure...can you explain? Doesnt the FDA create policy that affects drug distributors?

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Over abound, if you ask me.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    There is no other means of refusing service. When ever someone chooses to refuse service, it is on the basis of something that distinguishes the refused from the served.
    Agreed.. sorry I didnt put 'racial' discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    In this case though, we are talking about refusing to carry a particular prodeuct, not refusing to serve a particular customer
    This is what Woof posted:

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Originally Posted by Woof
    T2 have you never seen the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to sanyone"? Any business has the right to not serve whomever they choose. It's their business. You want the government laying out operating procedures for businesses down to a list of who they can serve? Gimme a break.
    I do think he was talking about discrimination of a person...not a particular product. (Unless I am reading his post differently .)
  2.    #162  
    T2: "Remember I am a Christian. I just think that if this country was being run by a majority party that was Hinduistic (or any other religion different than Christianity...that the point would be easier to see.)"

    That's just it...for many years this country WAS ran by another religion...the secular humanist religion. Government is their central totem, and abortion is their sacrament. What is happening now is nothing more than the pendulum swinging back toward the center, where most of America is. If the Repubs overeach, the pendulum will swing again. The Dems and their friends in the media are doing their usual job of demonization and trying to give that perception. We'll see in 06 and 08 if they were successful. I suspect they won't be.
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    That's just it...for many years this country WAS ran by another religion...the secular humanist religion.
    (By definition, can secular be a religion?) That is what many (including I) believe the founding fathers wanted. Government for the people, by the people with a state/church separation.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What is happening now is nothing more than the pendulum swinging back toward the center,
    I would characterize it more as moving away from the center.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    where most of America is.
    A majority of people believe in God but I dont think that a majority of people want a state sponsored religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    If the Repubs overeach, the pendulum will swing again.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The Dems and their friends in the media are doing their usual job of demonization and trying to give that perception.
    I can see how some would feel that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We'll see in 06 and 08 if they were successful. I suspect they won't be.
    This is a whole nother thread. Maybe I will start it.
  4.    #164  
    "(By definition, can secular be a religion?) That is what many (including I) believe the founding fathers wanted. Government for the people, by the people with a state/church separation."

    We're talking about the foundation of personal beliefs. Most religons are based in faith of a supreme being that will hold man accountable for his actions. Secular humanists believe there is no higher accounting. I submit that would make it a religion of man.
  5.    #165  
    And I'm still waiting for DA to explain how it is that when Christian conservatives hustle to get the votes and win the majority that is a terrible thing, but when his side wins it is democracy in action.
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I disagree. Slavery was very much a part of this country's conception. The southern states econonomy was based on it. We had a civil war over it.
    Obviously the Southern States didn't exist before the states themselves existed. I realize that slavery was a huge part of our past, but it was not pa part of, or the reason for, our origin.

    Thats what I meant
  7. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    But who is trying to remove God from the Declaration? It's a written document. I don't think you can just walk up to the National Archives with a bottle of white-out and edit something of that nature.
    My statement was an extreme figure of speech. No more far fetched than DA's statments implying that the Right is forcing religion in his house (I think he said something like "keep it out of my bedroom")
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    (By definition, can secular be a religion?) That is what many (including I) believe the founding fathers wanted. Government for the people, by the people with a state/church separation.
    I believe they wanted all religions to be free from persecution. Not free from recoginition.
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    How is it a registered Republican can be agreeing with you?? O' the humanity!
    Cause I'm the kind of Lib which carries an ACLU card AND an NRA card AND has given money to John McCain.
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    My statement was an extreme figure of speech. No more far fetched than DA's statments implying that the Right is forcing religion in his house (I think he said something like "keep it out of my bedroom")
    I dont want to speak for DA but I think he is referring to a US S.Ct. case Lawrence v. Texas where the court was looking at the constitutionality of sodomy and one of the Justices (Breyer?) was concerned on how the law against sodomy would be enforced "By having police going into the bedrooms".

    I could be wrong though Its happened before.
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I believe they wanted all religions to be free from persecution.
    Totally agree

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Not free from recoginition.
    I dont necessarily agree. I think the founders were worried about the Government recognizing a state religion (or one religion over another.)
  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Not sure...can you explain? Doesnt the FDA create policy that affects drug distributors?

    Fair enough.

    Agreed.. sorry I didnt put 'racial' discrimination.



    This is what Woof posted:



    I do think he was talking about discrimination of a person...not a particular product. (Unless I am reading his post differently .)
    Businesses also have the right to refuse to carry a particular product. Duh! If they didnt every store would have exactly the same things. Bottom line is business are not owned by the government so as long as they dont break the law they can carry whatever product or serve whatever customers they like.

    Maybe you'd like all the stores to be govt run and they would all be equal have the same products and all charge the same prices? That would be real fun. Why would anyone go into business?
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Bottom line is business are not owned by the government so as long as they dont break the law they can carry whatever product or serve whatever customers they like.
    What you are saying is simply not true. Check out this story.

    "At a news conference Wednesday, the plaintiffs and their attorneys accused Waffle House restaurant workers of treating them differently than other customers, including refusing service, ignoring them and using racial slurs."

    My point is that it would be breaking the law if a business had a sign that said something like "No African Americans served here" and they refused service based on race.<--If this is true then a private business cant serve whatever customers they like.

    Here is an example where a business has to carry a particular product. In the state of Massachusetts (and probably elsewhere under federal regulations), gun dealers have to carry and supply trigger locks for every gun purchaser (even if the purchaser has their own trigger lock).

    http://www.harvardpd.com/guns.htm
    "General laws c140, 131K states that a state approved safety device must be SOLD with the weapon. This places the burden on the dealer to provide the safety device and does not allow the dealer an option of letting the purchaser provide a trigger lock."

    The government has a vested interest in making some retailers carry certain products (for policy reasons). Generally, the federal government can create laws to protect people under four categories: public's health, safety, welfare, or morality.

    ...and as you put it "Duh"
    Last edited by t2gungho; 05/02/2005 at 03:14 AM.
  14.    #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Cause I'm the kind of Lib which carries an ACLU card AND an NRA card AND has given money to John McCain.
    That expalins a lot. An NRA member that gives money to McCain is like a chicken supporting Colonel Sanders.
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Not sure...can you explain? Doesnt the FDA create policy that affects drug distributors?
    If the FDA has a vested interest in what is sold (i.e. profits in some way from its sell), then that could influence what it approves. The FDA's only role should be determinig if a proposed product has the right balance of effectiveness and relative safety. Whether or not a wholesale or retain outlet provides shelf space for the product is a function of the free-market system.

    The manufacturer negotiates to have the product available. The manufacturer publicizes its value. Consumers (including doctors as advisors) determine if they want to purchase.

    The FDA's only vested interest post approval is to see that the product continues to deliver the expect results, without significant collateral damage to the consumer. If the product fails to deliver, then the FDA can institute a recall.
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    What you are saying is simply not true. Check out this story.

    "At a news conference Wednesday, the plaintiffs and their attorneys accused Waffle House restaurant workers of treating them differently than other customers, including refusing service, ignoring them and using racial slurs."

    My point is that it would be breaking the law if a business had a sign that said something like "No African Americans served here" and they refused service based on race.<--If this is true then a private business cant serve whatever customers they like.
    I said as long as they are not breaking the law. Refusing service based on race is clearly against federal discrimination laws.

    Here is an example where a business has to carry a particular product. In the state of Massachusetts (and probably elsewhere under federal regulations), gun dealers have to carry and supply trigger locks for every gun purchaser (even if the purchaser has their own trigger lock).

    http://www.harvardpd.com/guns.htm
    "General laws c140, 131K states that a state approved safety device must be SOLD with the weapon. This places the burden on the dealer to provide the safety device and does not allow the dealer an option of letting the purchaser provide a trigger lock."

    The government has a vested interest in making some retailers carry certain products (for policy reasons). Generally, the federal government can create laws to protect people under four categories: public's health, safety, welfare, or morality.

    ...and as you put it "Duh"
    Under specific circumstances sure, but if they didnt carry guns the govt couldnt make em carry trigger locks. Hardly a typical case though. Most small businesses dont carry guns. Making a pharmacy carry certain drugs isnt for the protection of the people. Making a store carry a certain brand of shoelaces in the interest of public protection is hooey too. While your example may be correct it is hardly a good one. Guns are a bit different than drugs at a pharmacy. The govt already has their protection in place there. It's called a prescription. The pharmacy doesnt however have to carry a specific drug if they choose not to. Why? Because they are a private business.

    The govt also cannot force

    a computer store to carry pcs and macs...private business
    a fast food place to carry burgers and tacos....private business
    movie theatre to show kids movies and porn...private business
    insurance agency to sell life and auto and homeowners...private business

    I dont need to continue do I?
    Last edited by Woof; 05/02/2005 at 11:54 AM. Reason: i typed long instead of law..what a bonehead
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    My point is that it would be breaking the law if a business had a sign that said something like "No African Americans served here" and they refused service based on race.<--If this is true then a private business cant serve whatever customers they like.
    True but you are talking a bout a specific group of people which would be discrumination. The fact that they are the same race and this is the base for denial make it clear cut. Woof is talking about the right to refuse to service to an individual, based on anything other than a protected class. I.E. the pharmacists moral beliefs. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK $people$ $looking$ $to$ $consume$ $the$ $morning$ $after$ $pill$ $are$ $not$ $a$ $protected$ $class$ $of$ $people$.
  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Businesses also have the right to refuse to carry a particular product. Duh!
    I just wanted to give you an example to show that your blanket statement wasnt true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Under specific circumstances sure, but if they didnt carry guns the govt couldnt make em carry trigger locks. Hardly a typical case though.
    Agreed, not typical but it is a case where a private business has to carry a particular product.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Making a store carry a certain brand of shoelaces in the interest of public protection is hooey too.
    I didnt actually say that. All I said to shopharim in his post was that I could make an argument that a pharmacy could be required to carry a particular product. The child labor laws that were passed in New York were based on this very argument "fed govt can make laws based on public health, morality, welfare and safety." In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, the same rationale was used by the state to criminalize certain noncommercial, nonviolent sexual conduct between consenting adults.

    My point is this: the federal government makes all kinds of laws based on the 'health, safety, welfare and morality' argument
  19. #179  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    True but you are talking a bout a specific group of people which would be discrumination. The fact that they are the same race and this is the base for denial make it clear cut. Woof is talking about the right to refuse to service to an individual, based on anything other than a protected class. I.E. the pharmacists moral beliefs. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK $people$ $looking$ $to$ $consume$ $the$ $morning$ $after$ $pill$ $are$ $not$ $a$ $protected$ $class$ $of$ $people$.
    Agreed..but Woof's statement was much more broad. (And yes I agree that "people looking to consume the morning after pill are not a protected class of people".)
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I just wanted to give you an example to show that your blanket statement wasnt true.



    Agreed, not typical but it is a case where a private business has to carry a particular product.



    I didnt actually say that. All I said to shopharim in his post was that I could make an argument that a pharmacy could be required to carry a particular product. The child labor laws that were passed in New York were based on this very argument "fed govt can make laws based on public health, morality, welfare and safety." In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, the same rationale was used by the state to criminalize certain noncommercial, nonviolent sexual conduct between consenting adults.

    My point is this: the federal government makes all kinds of laws based on the 'health, safety, welfare and morality' argument
    The fact that gun shops have to carry trigger locks is because there is a law saying so. Do you know of a law forcing pharmacies to carry specific products? As to making your argument, the example you cite isn't really relevant. What item in a pharmacy needs a secondary item sold along with it?? The gun example is a bit unique and I implore to find a similar one for pharmacies. I dont think you can but I am willing to listen.
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions