The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
boycott Citibank,

Doesn't that mean boycotting every credit card company? Or is it just that every credit card company is ultimately owned by citibank?

(personally, I'd boycott them for locating in a state that apparently has no usury laws, or at least the least restrictive usury laws within the U.S.).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
If is mainly the policies I worry about. But if the main shareholder is putting the profits to nefarious uses, then they get on the list. Target is not providing birthcontrol because they are afraid of the backlash from social conservatives. We need to teach them that the backlash from social libertarians is even worse. If we don't boycott them, how can you blame Target for not carrying contraception? Their job is maximise profits for the shareholders. As the consumer it is our job to convince them that in order to maximise profits for their shareholders they need to do the right thing.

Pretty simple, and not that difficult.

Its a lot easier than going to rallies and much more effective.

Power to the People.

I compromise. I don't get my drugs at Target, but I buy stuff like rawhide bones and toilet paper and detergent and the Lady and the Tramp DVD there.

I sleep relatively uneasily at night over this, but it's sure as hell better than shopping at Wal-Mart.

[sgtclub]

Thoughts? Seems to me this is an important step, but what do I know?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Really, Target doesn't do birth control? I'm totally taking my new prescription to them this weekend, just to see if they reject it. Dunno if I will boycott them.

Why would they not sell BCPs when they sell condoms?

The issue at Target is that they'll let their pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription on moral or religious grounds. There is one (disputed by Target) case so far of a woman being refused her morning-after-pill prescription.

Target's policy allows its pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for moral and religious reasons. If they take this option, pharmacists are required to ensure that the prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner by another Target pharmacist or at a different pharmacy.


Target's Michaud would not amplify about why the company denies that a refusal occurred, even though Pourchot's account does not suggest the pharmacist broke the store's stated policy.

The pharmacy department at the Fenton, Mo., store declined to comment on the matter and referred a call for comment to the company's public relations office.

Hoping to use public pressure to compel Target to change its refuse-and-refer policy, Planned Parenthood supporters held demonstrations outside Target stores around the country on Dec. 17, a key Christmas shopping day. Planned Parenthood is also encouraging consumers to write letters and sign an online petition to get the store to change its policy.

The hope is that Target will join a group of stores--including Eckerd Corporation, Costco, CVS, Fagen's, Harris Teeter, Kmart, Price Chopper Supermarkets and Super Valu--that, according to Planned Parenthood, have implemented policies to ensure prescriptions of emergency contraception are filled on site and without delay.

Aside from Target, chains that have not implemented policies guaranteeing rapid, onsite filling of emergency contraception prescriptions include Rite Aid, Walgreens, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Winn Dixie Stores, according to Planned Parenthood.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Doesn't that mean boycotting every credit card company? Or is it just that every credit card company is ultimately owned by citibank?

(personally, I'd boycott them for locating in a state that apparently has no usury laws, or at least the least restrictive usury laws within the U.S.).

Oregon has no usury laws to speak of. "Payday Advance" places charging interest rates that work out to several hundred percent annually? No problem! Maybe Citibank can relocate here to avoid the boycott issues.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Thoughts? Seems to me this is an important step, but what do I know?

Towards what?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The issue at Target is that they'll let their pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription on moral or religious grounds.

• . If they take this option, pharmacists are required to ensure that the prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner by another Target pharmacist or at a different pharmacy.

While I don't like someone not providing service, it seems entirely reasonable to let a particular employee morally object to doing something, so long as there is another one there. I'm not quite so sure about sending a person to a different pharmacy, but how is this otherwise different from when your 18 yo waitron tells you they have to get a 21 yo waitress to take your drink order? Mild inconvenience, sure. But shouldn't an employer be able to choose to accomodate employees in this way?

And, BTW, I'm pretty sure we've all been on the flipside of being told to represent a detestable client. Did you like it?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Towards what?

towards getting the border area between pakistan and afghanistan nuked back to the stone age* by someone other than us?



* This assumes that area is not currently in the stone age, which may not be a reasonable assumption.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Oregon has no usury laws to speak of. "Payday Advance" places charging interest rates that work out to several hundred percent annually? No problem! Maybe Citibank can relocate here to avoid the boycott issues.

They kill old people in Oregon, don't they?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)


While I don't like someone not providing service, it seems entirely reasonable to let a particular employee morally object to doing something, so long as there is another one there. I'm not quite so sure about sending a person to a different pharmacy, but how is this otherwise different from when your 18 yo waitron tells you they have to get a 21 yo waitress to take your drink order? Mild inconvenience, sure. But shouldn't an employer be able to choose to accomodate employees in this way?

Sure. Phil can sit in the back and worship crystals for all I care so long as Ed or Frieda or someone back there will fill the goddamned thing. It's not like I have a deep personal relationship with my pharmacist.

But going to another pharmacy? Uncool. Same thing for being told to come back in an hour, or tomorrow, or whenever the "pro-choice" pharmacist is in.

And, BTW, I'm pretty sure we've all been on the flipside of being told to represent a detestable client. Did you like it?

No shit. My firm represents, uh, one of the detestable clients mentioned today. I'd raise this philosophical dilemma in the next firmwide meeting, but fear that I'd be brained over the head with a shovel and buried on the spot by the managing partner.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap

No shit. My firm represents, uh, one of the detestable clients mentioned today. I'd raise this philosophical dilemma in the next firmwide meeting, but fear that I'd be brained over the head with a shovel and buried on the spot by the managing partner.

heh. My former firm has a solution for moral objections, which they allowed with respect to one major client whom everybody hated (and I guess still hates). You could object to working on those matters, but if you did, you generally got assigned to a massive insurance case, Superfund case, or other huge litigation.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Oregon has no usury laws to speak of. "Payday Advance" places charging interest rates that work out to several hundred percent annually? No problem! Maybe Citibank can relocate here to avoid the boycott issues.

There was an interesting (to me anyways) article a few weeks ago in the Houston Press about the various ways low income people can get screwed looking for quick cash: Pawn shops, rent-to-own places, check cashing places, tax refund anticipation loans, buy-here-pay-here used car places.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Pitchers can be wiry- catchers are scrawny.

Silly me -- I was reading these posts backward, and actually thought you were discussing baseball.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
[...] it's for all intensive purposes [...]

Probably STP, but...


Ohnoyoudi'int.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They kill old people in Oregon, don't they?

John Ashcroft thinks Oregon makes the baby jesus cry. That's something.