• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

161,680 Excellent

About cprenegade


  • Location
    over the Rainbow
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. While I agree with you, Walgreens made it perfectly clear that the pharmacist did nothing wrong in refusing to fill her order based on his beliefs. He was within his right to refuse service based on his beliefs. It has nothing to do with what the pharmacist feels she should take. Apparently we now live in a country where you can refuse service to anyone based on any number of things. I don't agree with this premise and I believe it is only going to lead to a more divisive society, if that is possible. But this guy had every legal right to not fill her prescription. Crazy, yes, a fireable offense, no.
  2. Yeah, I have no sympathy for her. Stupidity comes with a price. Seems like there have been a lot of people in the last several years who have taken actions that have resulted in not so positive results on their lives. Suck it up and pay the price.
  3. Yeah, that would be my guess as well. I figure the link will take you to an error screen just like when the site was down before. I would bookmark any links, and save any information you want in the next week.
  4. Walgreens already responded and said the pharmacist is within his rights to not fill a prescription because of a moral objection. However he should have referred the matter to another pharmacist. And this was all perfectly legal. Ahh yes, the New America that apparently a lot of people are happy to live in. Where it appears anyone can refuse service for just about any reason they find to be offensive. I don't like your mustache, get the hell out of my establishment. For the record, I think the pharmacist should have been fired immediately. And he should be stripped of his certification that allows him to dispense medications and told that if his moral beliefs create such a problem for him he should seek employment in another field where his moral beliefs will not be so challenged. But that's just my opinion. The situations are obviously different, but the question is a valid one. If I owned an independent pharmacy and Sanders came in to fill a prescription, and was confronted by some people heckling her, is it legal and acceptable for me to decline to fill her prescription based on who she works for and my political objections? I don't see why not. That appears to be where the point we are at in today's America.
  5. This woman is a model citizen. She reported an illegal business. We now live in a country where it is ok to refuse service to someone because of the sexual orientation, or their political views, and I imagine just about anything else you don't like about them. If his little girl wanted to sell bottled water she should apply for a business permit and tax id to do so, keep records of her sales and pay quarterly taxes to the local and state governments, and be subject to FDA inspections. That is the America we apparently want to live in. So don't be surprised when something like this happens. Actually, the woman missed a perfect opportunity to beat the system. Instead of reporting the girl, she could have bought a bottle of water, claimed she became violently ill, and brought a lawsuit against her. And she probably would have won. That wouldn't have surprised me either.
  6. Ok, that's fair enough. But I agree that this opens up a pandora's box. If I owned a business I could simply serve a few black people or gay people and refuse to serve the majority of them coming into my business as long as I had some other reason that is not protected and it appears I would within my legal rights. I think that's a crazy way of looking at things. But it is not surprising the way things have developed in this country.
  7. Ok, how about if she were black, yet still a big fat liar? If the owner stated it had nothing to do with the fact that she was black, but instead it was because she was a big fat liar would that be ok? And assume that the owner served other black people, just not her because it was his/her opinion that she was a big fat liar whom he/she did not wish to serve for that reason. I just want to know where the line is being drawn, and how you can prove exactly what the owner's true motives were.
  8. So if Sanders was a confirmed gay person, yet still a big fat liar, would it have been ok for the owner to not want to associate with her? If so, how can you be sure she was not discriminated against because of her sexual orientation as opposed to being a big fat liar? Seems like a very slippery slope which will allow for a lot more discrimination as long as the owner can "justify" another cause other than those protected by law.
  9. So you are saying that Ben Jealous' goal is to make life better for the democratic party in MD? I can believe that. I just wonder how many people will vote for that. We will see. But then I'm not convinced that come Tuesday night that Ben Jealous will be a viable political entity in MD. I think it's a toss up as to whether he or Baker comes out on top in the primary. And I still believe Hogan beats either one come November. The Dems needed a political superstar like MOM to beat Hogan's 70% approval rating. Neither Jealous or Baker comes close to that. The guy who might have put a little more fear into the Hogan campaign died. He may not have won the primary, but if he did he could have cut into Hogan's dem crossover support in BC. Neither of the current front runners will do much of that.
  10. Did you actually type this without laughing? The GA does what they want as a democratic body with veto override power. MOM's tax raises didn't make life better for MDers. Ehrlich ran on bringing slots to MD and was blocked by the GA. MOM got the same thing passed that Ehrlich ran and won on. The goal of MD legislators is clearly to make life better for their party in Maryland. MDers are an afterthought.
  11. Marylander's have always gone to Deep Creek and WIsp. I was at Wisp when I ran into the sports bar in Oakland. I have no doubt that vacationers will bring more Ravens and Orioles gear to the resort areas. Same thing happens in OC where there is a big mix of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Washington, Philly, and NJ. Lately, NY Giants sports gear has increased quite a bit as there are a lot more Jersey people coming to OC these days. I'm talking about the general population there which is still mostly Pittsburgh based. My mother in law lives in Cumberland and I have been up there recently during football season. Go to a bar in the area and look at how many people are watching the Pittsburgh game vs. the Ravens game. It's not even close. Take a walk through the mall or through Martin's up there and notice the jerseys or bumper stickers on the cars. Clearly much more Pittsburgh gear than Baltimore gear. I think some of this is simply historical since before cable it was easier to get stations out of Pittsburgh than Baltimore. The distance is not much more to Baltimore than Pittsburgh, but old alliances die hard.
  12. Well, not quite. Hogan rolled back a number of taxes/fees that MOM put in place. He also cancelled some things that MOM started, as you well know. MOM's policies were the reason Hogan was elected in the first place. Had MOM been more popular as governor, Brown would have won easily against an unknown from the Ehrlich administration. One thing that Hogan and O'Malley have in common is the way the re-election campaign will play out. O'Malley consistently referenced keeping MD moving forward and not going backwards. Expect a lot of the same from Hogan. He's going to play to his 70% approval rating. O'Malley was a well known Baltimore democrat when he beat Ehrlich. Ehrlich had major battles with Miller and Busch over his policies. Hogan has avoided those bitter battles and whomever he runs against will not be nearly as well known as O'Malley. Hogan will carry everything from Carroll county west, and everything from the bay east. Baltimore county is also likely to turn out fairly big for Hogan, now that Kamenitz is no longer in the race. His opponent will have to peel off the crossover dems who voted for him 4 years ago. It's not impossible, but my money is still on Hogan to win by anywhere from 4 to 10 percentage points.
  13. Not sure of the inferences or political ramifications, but when I read Waterloo I instantly thought about ABBA. Trump backstage with ABBA, that couldn't end well could it?
  14. None of them do. They all promise things they can't and won't deliver, and that they can't pay for. Jealous is no different. One thing interesting about Jealous is that he is getting a lot of money from outside groups, despite his supposed belief in campaign reform. Same thing, they all want campaign reform, but they all take the money and run.
  15. The Eastern shore already considers itself "Delmarva". Everything down there, TV, radio, papers refers to Delmarva. Western Md identifies more with Pa and W. Va than they do central MD. West of Hagerstown is hardly Raven or Oriole country. I went into a sports bar years ago in Oakland and was confronted with pictures of Terry Bradshaw, Jack Lambert, Mario Lemieux, and Willie Stargell among other Pittsburgh heroes. I naively asked the bartender if I had wandered into a "Pittsburgh" bar. The guy looked at me as if I had two heads. He then politely explained to me that "up here" most people support Pittsburgh teams because Pittsburgh is closer than Baltimore. Even DC is slightly closer to western Maryland. They may be the same state as Baltimore, but they hardly consider themselves Baltimore fans. Both the Eastern shore and Western Maryland feel that they have little representation in Annapolis. They feel like central Md, Baltimore and the DC suburbs, get all of the attention from Maryland government. Neither could survive on it's own as a state, but the Eastern shore would rather be considered part of a bigger state that includes them, Delaware, and the Virginia part of the peninsula called Delmarva. And Western Maryland would be just as happy to be annexed by Pennsylvania. Neither is particularly fond of central Maryland and DC.