livendive 8 #151 November 7, 2008 Quote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #152 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuote NOT their place. They only determin if laws are constitutional under the constitution. They can not claim a state constittutional statue is wrong. Only the US SC can do that When two statutes in the constitution conflict, they can say one is wrong. Traditionally they do not do this very often. That would make sense. Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #153 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? 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?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #154 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #155 November 7, 2008 Quote Quote Er... that would be "Bob and I" and "Jane and I". I didn't want to sound too edumacated. Ah ha. Stooping to the level of those Prop 8 supporters. It could work.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #156 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? 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..."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LOSTandCRAZY 0 #157 November 7, 2008 What I find as REALLY funny, in the whole thing, is that Republicans "hate" Government, that's their WHOLE platform. Yeah, they hate Government until it's time craft laws to tell a woman how she can treat her body, until it's time to decide that the Government must force schools to teach fairy-tale "creationism" as science, and Republicans HATE Government until they want laws banning gay marriage. Not to mention the fact of bailing out a bunch of their college pals with taxpayer dollars concerning one of the largest financial rape and pillaging of the average consumers in HISTORY. But discuss that with one, and LO AND BEHOLD!!!! YOU ARE UNAMERICAN! (I've shit TURDS with more brain cells than most of these assholes. Beer tends to do that.) I hope the Republicans run Sarah Failin' as their candidate in 2012 (even though I'm Libertarian). That will just secure Barack's place for another 4 years. Now, to ruin every point I just made with a comedic manism: SARAH PALIN IS DEFINATLEY HOT. I would POSITIVELY do her, all night long. (however, I would use protection, because we know that her mouth is not the ONLY place retarded things eject from this woman..... half of what came from the vajayjay is, too. And I DON'T want any DUMB kids saying "DADDY" to me.....) WOOOOOOOOOO HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"Get these balls!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #158 November 7, 2008 "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " Since YOU brought is up. Life is listed first. Without "life" none of the others mean anything. Besides, your post was a complete distortion at best"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #159 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIts a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some. That's an interesting comment, because one of the main points of the pro on 8 people was that as far as California was concerned, no ones rights were taken away last night. According to them, gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples because California has laws recognizing domestic partners. I don't know if that's true, and I would have liked to seen a debate centered around that claim. You are correct. In California Domestic Partners already have the same rights as those who are Married. Just not the "M-Word". See CA laws: FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5 and AB 205. ltdiver Unfortunately, the word "married" is used a number of times in some laws rather than "Domestic Partners." By changing the California Constitution, the laws applicable to "married" people will apply while those applying to "Domestic Partners" will not. That's pretty bad and what makes this a kind of ultimate "dick move" in my opinion because the vast majority of people have no idea how this works. See; http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=all&codebody=married&hits=20quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #160 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LOSTandCRAZY 0 #161 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? I would tell the Pharmacist to do the job he was HIRED for, and to leave his politics at home, or be FIRED. FILL PRESCRIPTIONS. He's not much of a Pharmacist, if he doesn't do his JOB, then, is he? Just like the rest of the issues we grown-ups have to deal with on a daily basis. If he can't do his job, he doesn't need to be doing that type of work? If he CHOOSES to be a pharmacist, then he CHOOSES to fill my frikkin' prescription. If he wants to get all socialistic, then maybe he should seek work inside clergy, until then, do your JOB, or be FIRED like the rest of us. FORCED to fill prescriptions? What, the bad ol' Gub'ment has a gun to your head? If you can't fill a prescription, you are either: A) One of Sarah Palin's kids B) CHOOSING Not to, therefore leading to: C) Find a new career, because you CAN"T PERFORM YOUR DUTY due to your political opinions. Worked for me!!!!!"Get these balls!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #162 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuote I think the "people" of CA have spoken at this point. And they are wrong. Gays are not looking to redefine the word marriage, just looking for the same rights married couples have. Ummm - yes they are redefining the word "marriage", just like they redefined the word "gay". Society as a whole didn't do that, it wasn't a natural evolution, it was, as someone wrote previously, a hijacking. "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg" Abraham Lincoln.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #163 November 7, 2008 Quote Quote Quote no one that skydives should be afraid of a lawyer - worst he can do is bore me to death. And they hardly have a monopoly on linguistics. I would say you're probably wrong in your first assumption. While there may be some excellent wordsmiths and parsers in the skydiving community, my guess is that there is a MUCH higher percentage of lawyers that can handle the language than skydivers as a whole. And you're 100% absolutely correct about lawyers not having a monopoly on linguistics. The general public should probably also not get into a battle of words with, for instance, professional stand up comics. It's not that they don't have a grasp of the language, but the person that does it for a living is probably going to win over the heckler. He just has more practice. Oh, certainly one can lose. But to be afraid to even try? Kallend has no official credentials either, and he's slippery with language than Johnny Cochrane. Why thank you... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ltdiver 3 #164 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIts a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some. That's an interesting comment, because one of the main points of the pro on 8 people was that as far as California was concerned, no ones rights were taken away last night. According to them, gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples because California has laws recognizing domestic partners. I don't know if that's true, and I would have liked to seen a debate centered around that claim. You are correct. In California Domestic Partners already have the same rights as those who are Married. Just not the "M-Word". See CA laws: FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5 and AB 205. ltdiver Unfortunately, the word "married" is used a number of times in some laws rather than "Domestic Partners." By changing the California Constitution, the laws applicable to "married" people will apply while those applying to "Domestic Partners" will not. That's pretty bad and what makes this a kind of ultimate "dick move" in my opinion because the vast majority of people have no idea how this works. See; http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=all&codebody=married&hits=20 So why not include the words "Married or Domestic Partners" in each of those sections (yes, I read the lengthy articles you referenced). If the afore mentioned laws I referenced seem to be inadequate in their eyes, just make this inclusion in yours. Problem solved. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #165 November 7, 2008 QuoteSo why not include the words "Married or Domestic Partners" in each of those sections (yes, I read the lengthy articles you referenced). If the afore mentioned laws I referenced seem to be inadequate in their eyes, just make this inclusion in yours. Because that takes time and (from what I can see) at least 20 new bills to make their way through the House, Senate and Governor's desk. While I have no doubt that this could eventually happen, it didn't have to at all. Meanwhile, until that does happen, these people are without rights they had just a couple of days ago. Would it be "ok" with you if I redefined the term "person" as only those that eat meat even if you knew you might someday "eventually" get that reversed? What would you be in the meantime? Does it matter what I call you? Probably not, but what about legally? Would you, for instance, have to go to a vet for medical care since only "people" are allowed medical coverage. It's not so much that Yes on 8 took away the word "marriage," it's that it legally redefined it so that laws now no longer apply to people they did just 48 hours ago. Oh, btw, the family law provision that equated Married with Domestic Partner . . . I believe that's now unconstitutional under California law.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ltdiver 3 #166 November 7, 2008 QuoteBecause that takes time and (from what I can see) at least 20 new bills to make their way through the House, Senate and Governor's desk. While I have no doubt that this could eventually happen, it didn't have to at all. How quickly did the 'bail-out bill' get through congress and signed by the president? Pretty dang fast. Government can move as quickly as it wants to, and with this outcry it has a chance to again. btw, why does it have to be '20 bills' when it can be just one to reference all of them with the inclusion of the new phrase? QuoteOh, btw, the family law provision that equated Married with Domestic Partner . . . I believe that's now unconstitutional under California law. I'd check on that a bit more thoroughly. Not sure this is correct. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #167 November 7, 2008 Just read this; Quote 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. Sounds great eh? Except . . . the laws say "married" not spouses. If it had said, perhaps "persons in civil unions" it might have avoided a few things, but it doesn't it specifically says "spouses." While that is a minor distinction to you or me, let me assure you that is going to be parsed very finely by a lawyer for an insurance company that no longer wants to pay for somebody's medical bills. The reason I say up to 20 separate bills is because each and every use of the word "married" or "marriage" or any other variation is going to have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to figure out the ramifications and how that effects another usage somewhere down the line. It's a hell of a lot of work. A lot more technical work than simply saying "here's $750 million dollars."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ltdiver 3 #168 November 7, 2008 QuoteJust read this; Quote 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. Sounds great eh? Except . . . the laws say "married" not spouses. If it had said, perhaps "persons in civil unions" it might have avoided a few things, but it doesn't it specifically says "spouses." While that is a minor distinction to you or me, let me assure you that is going to be parsed very finely by a lawyer for an insurance company that no longer wants to pay for somebody's medical bills. The reason I say up to 20 separate bills is because each and every use of the word "married" or "marriage" or any other variation is going to have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to figure out the ramifications and how that effects another usage somewhere down the line. It's a hell of a lot of work. A lot more technical work than simply saying "here's $750 million dollars." Yes, to you and me the word 'spouse' equals the word 'marriage'. Sad that anyone else believes it doesn't equate, because it does. I'd bet the authors of the law meant it as such. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #169 November 7, 2008 QuoteYes, to you and me the word 'spouse' equals the word 'marriage'. Sad that anyone else believes it doesn't equate, because it does. I'd bet the authors of the law meant it as such. Ok, you're not -quite- there but lemme help by pointing you back to exactly what you just wrote. You said, "Yes, to you and me the word 'spouse' equals the word 'marriage'. Sad that anyone else believes it doesn't equate, because it does." If the word "spouse" equates to "married" and marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 women, then how does "spouse" equate to "domestic partner"? It's the ambiguity of the language that is in play here and it's all WAY beyond simply thinking what whoever wrote the law meant so it will have to go to courts, somebody is going to have to pay for lawyers, bills will have to be written to fix things . . . In the mean time . . . where do some of my friends fit in?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ltdiver 3 #170 November 7, 2008 QuoteIf the word "spouse" equates to "married" and marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 women, then how does "spouse" equate to "domestic partner"? (trying not to sound condescending here): Let me point you back to my previous post. That is why we use "Married or Domestic Partner" in the 20 or so bills you referenced. I believe we understand each other. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #171 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? 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 No, I could go lookin but I do remember the news and I THINK there was even a thread on it here. If I get a minute I will see if I can find it. Been a while but I will try....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #172 November 7, 2008 I did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #173 November 7, 2008 QuoteI did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #174 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteI did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895 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 Ya, But in either case I would see him as wrong."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 333 #175 November 7, 2008 QuoteI did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895 Followup action: http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/contraception/34651prs20080325.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,106 #162 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuote I think the "people" of CA have spoken at this point. And they are wrong. Gays are not looking to redefine the word marriage, just looking for the same rights married couples have. Ummm - yes they are redefining the word "marriage", just like they redefined the word "gay". Society as a whole didn't do that, it wasn't a natural evolution, it was, as someone wrote previously, a hijacking. "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg" Abraham Lincoln.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #163 November 7, 2008 Quote Quote Quote no one that skydives should be afraid of a lawyer - worst he can do is bore me to death. And they hardly have a monopoly on linguistics. I would say you're probably wrong in your first assumption. While there may be some excellent wordsmiths and parsers in the skydiving community, my guess is that there is a MUCH higher percentage of lawyers that can handle the language than skydivers as a whole. And you're 100% absolutely correct about lawyers not having a monopoly on linguistics. The general public should probably also not get into a battle of words with, for instance, professional stand up comics. It's not that they don't have a grasp of the language, but the person that does it for a living is probably going to win over the heckler. He just has more practice. Oh, certainly one can lose. But to be afraid to even try? Kallend has no official credentials either, and he's slippery with language than Johnny Cochrane. Why thank you... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #164 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIts a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some. That's an interesting comment, because one of the main points of the pro on 8 people was that as far as California was concerned, no ones rights were taken away last night. According to them, gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples because California has laws recognizing domestic partners. I don't know if that's true, and I would have liked to seen a debate centered around that claim. You are correct. In California Domestic Partners already have the same rights as those who are Married. Just not the "M-Word". See CA laws: FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5 and AB 205. ltdiver Unfortunately, the word "married" is used a number of times in some laws rather than "Domestic Partners." By changing the California Constitution, the laws applicable to "married" people will apply while those applying to "Domestic Partners" will not. That's pretty bad and what makes this a kind of ultimate "dick move" in my opinion because the vast majority of people have no idea how this works. See; http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=all&codebody=married&hits=20 So why not include the words "Married or Domestic Partners" in each of those sections (yes, I read the lengthy articles you referenced). If the afore mentioned laws I referenced seem to be inadequate in their eyes, just make this inclusion in yours. Problem solved. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #165 November 7, 2008 QuoteSo why not include the words "Married or Domestic Partners" in each of those sections (yes, I read the lengthy articles you referenced). If the afore mentioned laws I referenced seem to be inadequate in their eyes, just make this inclusion in yours. Because that takes time and (from what I can see) at least 20 new bills to make their way through the House, Senate and Governor's desk. While I have no doubt that this could eventually happen, it didn't have to at all. Meanwhile, until that does happen, these people are without rights they had just a couple of days ago. Would it be "ok" with you if I redefined the term "person" as only those that eat meat even if you knew you might someday "eventually" get that reversed? What would you be in the meantime? Does it matter what I call you? Probably not, but what about legally? Would you, for instance, have to go to a vet for medical care since only "people" are allowed medical coverage. It's not so much that Yes on 8 took away the word "marriage," it's that it legally redefined it so that laws now no longer apply to people they did just 48 hours ago. Oh, btw, the family law provision that equated Married with Domestic Partner . . . I believe that's now unconstitutional under California law.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #166 November 7, 2008 QuoteBecause that takes time and (from what I can see) at least 20 new bills to make their way through the House, Senate and Governor's desk. While I have no doubt that this could eventually happen, it didn't have to at all. How quickly did the 'bail-out bill' get through congress and signed by the president? Pretty dang fast. Government can move as quickly as it wants to, and with this outcry it has a chance to again. btw, why does it have to be '20 bills' when it can be just one to reference all of them with the inclusion of the new phrase? QuoteOh, btw, the family law provision that equated Married with Domestic Partner . . . I believe that's now unconstitutional under California law. I'd check on that a bit more thoroughly. Not sure this is correct. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #167 November 7, 2008 Just read this; Quote 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. Sounds great eh? Except . . . the laws say "married" not spouses. If it had said, perhaps "persons in civil unions" it might have avoided a few things, but it doesn't it specifically says "spouses." While that is a minor distinction to you or me, let me assure you that is going to be parsed very finely by a lawyer for an insurance company that no longer wants to pay for somebody's medical bills. The reason I say up to 20 separate bills is because each and every use of the word "married" or "marriage" or any other variation is going to have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to figure out the ramifications and how that effects another usage somewhere down the line. It's a hell of a lot of work. A lot more technical work than simply saying "here's $750 million dollars."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #168 November 7, 2008 QuoteJust read this; Quote 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. Sounds great eh? Except . . . the laws say "married" not spouses. If it had said, perhaps "persons in civil unions" it might have avoided a few things, but it doesn't it specifically says "spouses." While that is a minor distinction to you or me, let me assure you that is going to be parsed very finely by a lawyer for an insurance company that no longer wants to pay for somebody's medical bills. The reason I say up to 20 separate bills is because each and every use of the word "married" or "marriage" or any other variation is going to have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to figure out the ramifications and how that effects another usage somewhere down the line. It's a hell of a lot of work. A lot more technical work than simply saying "here's $750 million dollars." Yes, to you and me the word 'spouse' equals the word 'marriage'. Sad that anyone else believes it doesn't equate, because it does. I'd bet the authors of the law meant it as such. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #169 November 7, 2008 QuoteYes, to you and me the word 'spouse' equals the word 'marriage'. Sad that anyone else believes it doesn't equate, because it does. I'd bet the authors of the law meant it as such. Ok, you're not -quite- there but lemme help by pointing you back to exactly what you just wrote. You said, "Yes, to you and me the word 'spouse' equals the word 'marriage'. Sad that anyone else believes it doesn't equate, because it does." If the word "spouse" equates to "married" and marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 women, then how does "spouse" equate to "domestic partner"? It's the ambiguity of the language that is in play here and it's all WAY beyond simply thinking what whoever wrote the law meant so it will have to go to courts, somebody is going to have to pay for lawyers, bills will have to be written to fix things . . . In the mean time . . . where do some of my friends fit in?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #170 November 7, 2008 QuoteIf the word "spouse" equates to "married" and marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 women, then how does "spouse" equate to "domestic partner"? (trying not to sound condescending here): Let me point you back to my previous post. That is why we use "Married or Domestic Partner" in the 20 or so bills you referenced. I believe we understand each other. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #171 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with? 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 No, I could go lookin but I do remember the news and I THINK there was even a thread on it here. If I get a minute I will see if I can find it. Been a while but I will try....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #172 November 7, 2008 I did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #173 November 7, 2008 QuoteI did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #174 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteI did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895 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 Ya, But in either case I would see him as wrong."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #175 November 7, 2008 QuoteI did find this but it is more along the lines of an employee at a store that DID provide the meds and he refused to on his own. This might be what I was trying to remember.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1296895;search_string=Morning%20After%20Pill;#1296895 Followup action: http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/contraception/34651prs20080325.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
