|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 317 of 526:
| 
Mar 2 22:55 UTC 2006 |
re #314
In no part of this country does the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights not apply.
Actually, the constitution doesn't always apply. One case is when
person/persons are under military or martial law. The military laws are
supposed to be "consistent" with constitutional law but sometimes are not.
|
richard
|
|
response 318 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:56 UTC 2006 |
well except for military or martial law. under other circumstances, the
Constitution is the law of the entire land, including every town and 'private
community' in Florida.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 319 of 526:
|
Mar 3 00:02 UTC 2006 |
Richard writes: "the 14th amendment btw is why Roe v Wade was passed."
Ummm, you do understand what's wrong with that sentence, right?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 320 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:40 UTC 2006 |
Cyklone, did you even read the story I posted? I posted it for humor
sake because I thought it was pretty funny what the doctor was doing. If
I'm wrong about there being a lot of frivolous malpractice lawsuits,
then ok, I concede. But malpractice lawsuits are still a problem.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf
"Actions taken by health care providers in response to rising malpractice
premiums have contributed to localized health care access problems in the
five states reviewed with reported problems."
|
nharmon
|
|
response 321 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:41 UTC 2006 |
Oh, I also wanted to add that nothing Richard has said yet shows that a
private citizen, on his/her own property, is required to grant every
other citizen all of their rights on said private citizen's property.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 322 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:57 UTC 2006 |
Re #316: The 14th amendment isn't "Bill of Rights." It's where the Supreme
Court got the idea to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, admittedly, but
that has nothing to do with what private citizens do with the land they own, or
put in contracts they sign.
|
bru
|
|
response 323 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:59 UTC 2006 |
More importantly, you have not said what rights Monoghan would be denying
anybody.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 324 of 526:
|
Mar 3 02:34 UTC 2006 |
Re #320: are you saying that non-frivolous malpractice lawsuits are a
problem? Really?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 325 of 526:
|
Mar 3 04:25 UTC 2006 |
> are you saying that non-frivolous malpractice lawsuits are a problem?
You don't think widespread negligence is a problem?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 326 of 526:
|
Mar 3 05:04 UTC 2006 |
You said that "malpractice lawsuits are still a problem." Did you actually
mean that malpractice lawsuits indicate a problem, namely widespread
negligence? Those seem like different statements to me; indeed this would
indicate that malpractice lawsuits are a good thing, because they are a
primary mechanism for reducing the frequency of negligence.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 327 of 526:
|
Mar 3 06:08 UTC 2006 |
I think Monaghan will build his town and it will remain rather insular for
some time. Only if people with different ideas move into it (by buying homes
there) will change creep in. I don't see how the rules of the town infringe
on anyone's rights if everyone in town is happy with the rules. There are
plenty of very or completely insular communities, including Budhist, Amish,
Native American, Hippy, and Jewish. Outsiders generally don't want to move
into such communities. Even if some rights are restricted in the community
no one has enough interest in that fact to raise a challenge.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 328 of 526:
|
Mar 3 09:41 UTC 2006 |
monaghan is irish for "cracker-assed taliban"
|
fitz
|
|
response 329 of 526:
|
Mar 3 11:32 UTC 2006 |
Maybe Monaghan should repackage his community as more a monastary. I don't
think that anyone would care what he would do within such an association.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 330 of 526:
|
Mar 3 13:01 UTC 2006 |
> because they are a primary mechanism for reducing the frequency of
> negligence.
They don't seem to be working.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 331 of 526:
|
Mar 3 13:53 UTC 2006 |
re Monaghanville: While I wouldn't want to live there myself, I don't
have any particular objection to what he's trying to do. (Heck, *I'd*
like to live in a town where I can set the rules according to my
personal whims--everyone must wear a nametag while in public, for
instance.) I don't know that Tom can keep the town "pure", though,
depending on how restrictive he plans to be. It will be simple enough
to meet his stated goals of no sales of birth control, no abortion
clinics, and no cable porn, as his organization will control all
commercial property. But what happens when a rival church wants to set
up shop? What if a private homeowner wants to paint "THERE IS NO GOD"
across the front of their house? Can the local bookstore sell
"anti-Catholic" books, or the local video store rent out
non-porn-but-still-objectional movies? Will pro-choice politicians be
allowed to campaign for office? And so on.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 332 of 526:
|
Mar 3 14:01 UTC 2006 |
Hey, getting back on topic, I just read this comment on Slashdot where
the author basically claimed that the reason Wal-Mart doesn't carry
emergency contraception is because it is in their best interest that
women carry pregnancies to term...it creates additional consumers for
them to sell toys to.
http://tinyurl.com/zu49j
|
kingjon
|
|
response 333 of 526:
|
Mar 3 14:01 UTC 2006 |
If he makes it work, and I ever want to move to Florida (I don't think that
second condition will ever be met, but still ...), I think I'd like to live
there, and I'm not Catholic with a capital C.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 334 of 526:
|
Mar 3 14:01 UTC 2006 |
#332 slipped.
|
jep
|
|
response 335 of 526:
|
Mar 3 14:13 UTC 2006 |
I don't see a threat from a bunch of like-minded people forming their
own community as a threat, either. Richard clearly views it as
terrible, though. So does the ACLU.
Richard's arguments seem to me to strongly resemble the arguments some
people use against nudist resorts. I wonder what his position is on
those?
The ACLU, of course, is opposed to the Ave Maria community because Tom
Monaghan is Catholic and conservative. If the same concept was started
by any group of reliable Democratic voters (say, if Jerry Brown started
up something based on the ideas of Timothy Leary), they'd be defending
it.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 336 of 526:
|
Mar 3 14:26 UTC 2006 |
Here's the website for info about the development:
http://www.avemaria.com/
|
johnnie
|
|
response 337 of 526:
|
Mar 3 14:34 UTC 2006 |
Office space will be available. I wonder if, say, NARAL would be
allowed to rent space at market rates?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 338 of 526:
|
Mar 3 15:10 UTC 2006 |
Fair Housing makes it illegal to discriminate in leasing residential
space, but I'm not aware of an equivalent act regarding the leasing
of office space. However, the businesses located within that office
space would presuambly be legally required to hire people without regard
to religion (and all the other stuff on which employers are not allowed
to discriminate) and to avoid creating a hostile workplace in which
people with the "wrong" religious beliefs might be (or feel)
marginalized.
|
slynne
|
|
response 339 of 526:
|
Mar 3 15:30 UTC 2006 |
There are all kinds of laws that folks in that place will have to
respect. Is the ACLU actually against this place or are they concerned
that people's constitutional rights might be violated? Residential
covenants have been around a long time and as far as I know, the ACLU
isnt against those unless they violate a person's constitutional
rights. Some residential covenants can be pretty restrictive and still
be legal.
|
edina
|
|
response 340 of 526:
|
Mar 3 16:02 UTC 2006 |
I always find it kind of funny - if someone is creating an environment where
they don't want certain things, why would someone want to live there simply
to prove a point? No one is going to change Tom Monoghan's mind. They
aren't. Why do people insist upon getting in the faces of those they disagree
with, screaming how wrong the other person is? If you think Monoghan is
wrong, don't live there.
|
richard
|
|
response 341 of 526:
|
Mar 3 16:04 UTC 2006 |
nharmon said:
"Oh, I also wanted to add that nothing Richard has said yet shows that a
private citizen, on his/her own property, is required to grant every
other citizen all of their rights on said private citizen's property. "
nharmon, even on a private citizen's private property, he cannot enslave
any other citizen. you can't own a restaurant and serve only white
people, or require that your customers all be christians, or require that
they only say certain things. This is a free country and you must respect
the rights of all citizens at all times.
|