packsaddle

Beavah's 'take it or leave it' approach is also a red herring. I'm actually sympathetic to this idea if the physician clearly advertises up front that he will DENY full access to legal medical care. Do that and I suspect that the market will take care of things fairly quickly. However, while the threat of losing government funding might limit such a doctor's ability to deny access to medical care, such denial has no effect whatsoever on the doctor's ability to deny that care to himself. He still has complete freedom to reject, based on his religious convictions, treatments that affect him personally. He therefore has the same freedom and choices as his patients. Moreover, under no circumstance does any of that force or 'coerce' him to change his beliefs. Those remain intact regardless of whether he imposes them on other people or not. They are merely beliefs. They are neither increased nor diminished by his ability or inability to harm other people. They are unaffected.

Beavah, what you seem to be saying is that in order to avoid government repression of religious beliefs, you should be allowed to limit MY access to health care based on YOUR personal religious beliefs. If that is your argument, I disagree. If you were a physician, YOU should not be allowed to deny health care access to me or anyone else merely on the basis of YOUR personal religious beliefs. Such a decision on your part would involve a professional medical decision about the life of another person on a non-medical, non-professional basis. What would happen to an attorney who decided to reject legal remedies for a client, simply because the attorney's religion didn't allow THE ATTORNEY to engage in them - and as a result the client suffered harm that he wouldn't have suffered if the attorney allowed the remedy? To me the difference in the above scenario is that in health care there may be no way for the patient to be made whole after the access has been denied.

Brent, I also think the DAC does a great job and I am not sure yet that I have a complaint because I have yet to resolve the source of the uniform requirement for the Eagle BOR. It was only a day or so ago that I was able to talk to the DAC and understand the situation from his perspective. All I know is that the DAC says he's getting this regulation from the council level. I just want to see the written regulation so I have an accurate description. THEN, if I see a problem I'll continue from there. Am I wrong?

Skeptic, the clerk was doing something based on religious convictions. The law itself was based on religious convictions. I see the connection clearly. The connection I see is the similarity between my situation with the voter registrar and sharia law. In my case, it was a Christian-based law and a Christian woman trying to deny my ability to vote. In another country it could be another religion and another religious person denying something based on their religious beliefs and religous laws. It goes to the heart of the issue. Should one person, acting on their personal beliefs, be allowed to adversely affect the life of another who does NOT share those beliefs? I answer this simply with 'NO'. My answer is that we should not be personally free to adversely affect the lives of others unless there is a good reason. A religious belief isn't good enough for me to be denied my vote, or my daughter denied medication, or my neighbor to be denied a medical procedure. I, my daughter, and my neighbor should be free to make those decisions for themselves, yes, even on the basis of their personal beliefs. But YOUR personal beliefs should not be allowed to make or limit or deny those same decisions. As I've said several times now, we'll just have to disagree.

The clerk who tried to deny my voter registration because I refused to answer her question about my beliefs was eventually told, by her supervisor, to register me anyway. Was that wrong?

"OB/GYN's needed. Christians and muslims need not apply." H'mmm. I was unaware that all Christians and Muslims would deny medical treatments of certain kinds on the basis of their beliefs. Are you sure about this? Alternatively, as Dan implied, in medical school they could THINK about whether they would be doing something that could conflict with their beliefs and choose wisely. They're supposed to be smart people, right? The sword cuts both ways. If that person's beliefs cause him to deny a patient a lifesaving medical treatment just because it resulted from experimentation with fetal stem cells, therefore against his religious beliefs, I'd want him fired and the hospital sued. If a woman suffering from an ectopic pregnancy is denied lifesaving treatment because the practioner doesn't 'believe' in abortion and as a result she dies, the practitioner should be fired and prosecuted. A little forethought on their part could have placed them in promising careers working at banks or the stock market. No ethical concerns there.

We're going to borrow shirts, etc. and get this over with. The DAC doesn't really care one way or the other personally...he says it's coming from the council level so he applies the requirement. I'll get these boys through and then address this with the council. Edited for clarity(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Should they be prohibited from limiting my legal options because of their personal beliefs? In a word, yes. Rather than have someone I don't know apply their personal moral code to my healthcare without my consent or control, I would rather have them seek other employment. If they are not going to allow me the freedom to consider ALL medical options, I don't consider them qualified to be my health care provider. Again, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. Edited to add: I note that even if they get fired, they are still free to believe whatever they want to believe. Those BELIEFS are theirs and remain unchanged. They should NOT, however, be allowed to impose those beliefs on my life, without my consent or knowledge.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Ed, it hasn't happened yet, at least not for this unit. I'm working from concerns passed on to me and I'm trying to avoid problems. I should know something for sure tomorrow. Edited for clarity. Yes, the DAC always attends in full regalia. He pays meticulous attention to detail and I really like the guy, so I really hope this is merely a tempest in a teapot that only requires some clarification.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beavah, the only conscience that should be involved in MY medical choices is MY conscience, not someone else's. We'll just have to disagree on this.

I'm going to have a private chat with the DAC before we do anything, just to make sure everyone is on the same page. If necessary, I'll find the loaner. Thanks for the suggestions. Again, congratulations to CA_Scouter. It was worth it. No question.

Heh, heh, none of the boys in this unit have 'slightly' used uniforms. They really do get worn...out. But yes, I did know that. The shirt is one of the Venture unit shirts that someone decided to wear anyway, I wasn't consulted. The problem may be with the DAC. He may be the person behind this and if so, his presence and signature are required. Me..I'd shake that hornet's nest in a microsecond if it didn't threaten the boy. He just wants to advance. We'll take the shortest path.

Yes, congratulations. I hope his success quickly erases the concern he had before. New situation: Boy is in Venture Patrol. Arrives at Eagle BOR. Is informed that he cannot do the BOR in his Venture Patrol shirt (the forest green one that BSA sells). Problem, his old boy scout shirt is way, way too small. Does he have to buy a new shirt just for the BOR? Should I rip the patches off one of my shirts and let him glue new patches on it temporarily so he can wear it to a BOR?

See? Now THIS is why I so enjoy the forums!

Skeptic, Even if you apply the term, 'coerce' or whatever, there is nothing in these state-government changes that restrict the freedom of some flavor of religion to believe what they want to believe. Am I wrong? What these legal changes DO is keep some flavors of religion from restricting the lives of OTHERS who don't share those beliefs. Like Narraticong noted just before the statement to which Merlyn responded, "I really don't care if government decides to recognize anything it wants as a "marriage". It matters not." Indeed, it matters not to whatever religious beliefs anyone may have and I agree with that statement. But Merlyn's question is one of clarification. Narraticong, in one sentence states that it matters not and in then later he implies that someone or something is trying to force his denomination to change their beliefs. That is quite alarming and whether Narraticong is mistaken, or if he has some evidence to support his assertion, Merlyn's question asks for that clarification. And I agree. Skeptic, if you agree with Narraticong please explain how your denomination is being 'coerced' into changing its beliefs.

Oooookaaaay. So what was that part about posing topless? Edited part: O - M - G! I just figured it out. Sooooooo, are there still some photos somewhere?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Lisa, I think that not every person who is opposed to gay marriage is a coke-snorting, drug-addicted conservative sleaze. I could be wrong. Edited to respond to Sheldonsmom: So then...you agree.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hey, I already tried that. Every kind of shiny fishing lure you can think of and big chunks of volcanic obsidian from Oregon...didn't make much of an impression.

Pretty much the same. I sometimes announce, usually on our anniversary or something like that, that I am so glad I found someone hard up enough to take me. And then she gets mad...go figure.

Sometimes the forums are kind of like reading National Enquirer or something. I just found perfect confirmation of this when Nike posed the question and DeanRx responded. Nice. Makes MY day for sure. And, by the way, DeanRx, if you don't corner the market on that idea, I might do it instead. Think...Gay Pride Parades, New Orleans, Key West, Carnival, South Beach, California, etc. Wooohoooo! We're going to make $millions. EDited part: C'mon Ed, you know you're just itching to strap one on yourself! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hey, hey, I vote for the mean streak. That's a whole lot more interesting. But sorry, gwd, I just don't see it. You're a cream puff and there's no way to deny it. Folks, what we have here is a case of thin skin on a whole lot of us. What's the bid deal? I'm with Calico and gwd, coming in late and moving that flag is like some kind of grand entrance demonstration. A simple question to the CC after the meeting to clarify how the flag got to the wrong position would have done the needed communication and left personal feelings less ruffled. Take if from someone who LOVES to tickle the tail of the dragon, all you 'in-your-face' flag sticklers, you need to be prepared to get singed once in a while and to take the heat graciously. Alternatively I invite you to knock on the door of my neighbor down the street and make him fly the American Flag above the Confederate Flag on his flag pole instead of the opposite way he has them up right now. I dare ya.

In both cases the good guys won.

SUMTER! It's Sumter, not Sumpter. Edited for JoeBob: I married a yankee too. From NY, Long Island. My family in the South has long been sensitive about intermarriage between southerners and yankees. When I announced this, however, the only comment that slipped out of my old battleaxe aunt was, "She's probably Catholic." I responded with a lie, "no she's Jewish" and they recoiled as if I had just been discovered passed out drunk with my head in the toilet at the NY Port Authority bus terminal. A fond memory. It's the simple things in life that often give the most pleasure. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"A yankee who moves South because of the warmer climate and friendly people, and decides to stay. (As opposed to regular yankees who return home because they like crappy food and weather cold enough to cause death)." from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=damn%20yankee Anyway, I think you'd be safe enough for a visit down here. If I've survived with MY mouth then some infamous ancestor isn't much of a liability to anyone.

I'm partial to the dry ice approach. You don't need to seal it and any cooler will work fine. Just make sure you put the dry ice on top and then wrap it and the ice cream container in layers of newspaper. It'll last just fine. The reason you might worry about a 'seal' is to keep the cold air from being exchanged with warm air. That won't be a problem in a cooler because cold air is heavier, especially becuse it will be almost pure CO2. You DO need to keep that cooler somewhere away from confined spaces because, as has been noted, it will continually release CO2 to the environs. We did an experiment with the ice cream maker. We made ice cream one year and marked the dead spot where the salt water overflowed. Then we returned each year to see its fate. Takes several years for grass to grow back, depending on how much salt water you release to the soil. We get a lot of rain normally and that doesn't seem to make much difference.