If so, then consider this concerning homosexuality and morality:

Once the common morality was compromised (60's, free love, etc), it started a trend of downward spiral in the common morality in the nation. Sex was no longer an act that was private in your own bedroom. Divorce skyrocketed. Sexually transmitted diseases skyrocketed, teen pregnancy skyrocketed, etc. It degenerates further as liberals force the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal state of being.

I do not hate homosexuals as some ultra right wingers do. They remain my brother and sisters. But I believe their lifestyle choice is a small part of the big picture, and it is taking our nation and culture down the wrong path morally. It is one of the reasons our nation is so divided today. Some of us still attempt to hold the “old” common morality as a good thing. I'm a conservative democrat, but the “new” morality democrats in DC do not represent me.

Go figure.

You said “It's dangerous to pin the word 'moral' to anything the government touches…It should be avoided until everyone is on the same page as to what 'morality'is.” I agree, and you you got a “Like” from me as a result.

My question is: how do you square that philosophy with your agrument yesterday that, based on religious/moral grounds, gay marriage should be outlawed (legislated morality), an issue where everyone is clearly not on the same page?

I agree with Michael that it's ridiculous to try to shove your personal morality down someone else's throat. It's really the nanny state gone wild. What right does a counter clerk have to tell me I can't buy a lottery ticket because he doesn't approve of gambling? I'm not a baby; I can run my own life, thank you very much

Ummm….Haven't you been lobbying for public healthcare?

Actually the counter clerk has every right not to sell it to you, and you have every right to tell that to his manager or the store owner and get them fired.

Plus, most “pharmacists” these days (those that I encounter, anyway) are basically pill dispensers!

You cannot have a successful civilization or society when everyone has a different morality.
It just doesn't work.

As far as article goes, it is correct that doctors and pharmacists should not get into that game if they don't want to play. However, when a pharmacist sees plainly that a doctor that is bought and paid for by a pharmaceutical company has prescribed a frivolous drug that doesn't cure or treat the illness, I wouldn't expect him to “play along”, and he/she should say no.

This brings up another point, of course. Most towns, even most small ones, have more than one pharmacy; those that don't are generally the ones that serve communities that would be least able to just drive on down to the next town. There are also many types of specialist doctors that are few and far between. What “moral” reasons are they allowed to use for refusal of treatment? Do those reasons have to be connected to the treatment? Also: what if your insurance is such that only one doctor in the area takes it?

Years ago, for the subject is years, decades old.