[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

[Garrett Clevenger]

g writes:

"I'm confused. I thought you said you were a Moscow resident... I like our neighbors to the west, I don't feel a need to meddle in their affairs, and I'm willing to let them purchase "our" water at reasonable rates."


I'm not sure why you're confused. I live in Moscow. I try to support locally-owned stores, even ones in Whitman County. Like you, I have nothing against Whitman County, or the employers and people there in a general sense. I want their lives to prosper as much as anybody's. But when they are doing so by competing with Moscow's interests, it only seems natural to want to defend Moscow.

You are free to feel the way you state. The fact is, a Boise developer plans to build a predatory mall next to Moscow. Their intent is to compete with Moscow businesses. To me, I'm not thrilled at that prospect, and I consider it meddling with Moscow in that they aren't in this to help Moscow. More than likely, some businesses in Moscow will suffer, and thus Idaho sales tax revenue will decrease. So in some sense, they are meddling with Moscow by intently wanting Moscow business, thus reducing state coffers. I see nothing wrong with defending Moscow's interests from private developers who don't care if they hurt Moscow.

We aren't talking about one store, but a mall twice the size as Moscow's largest mall. That isn't minor as you stated earlier. The fact that they want to draw from the same aquifer as Moscow is another way they are meddling with Moscow.

Moscow shouldn't be in the business of facilitating out of state mega-malls that don't have Moscow's best interest at heart, meaning Moscow shouldn't sell them water, and should not have offered to provide them sewer services, as well. That isn't meddling, that just making sure we aren't letting Moscow be ill-served.

Should I take from your position, g, that you are willing to accept anything that may come to Whitman County, or even to Moscow?

How about a nuclear waste depository? A chemical company with a known history of polluting and leaving the waste to be cleaned up by taxpayers? A strip club a block down from your lock shop, perhaps with a topless car-wash (out of public view, of course)?

Do you have limits, or is it an anything goes kind of growth?


Regarding the conscience rule questions I asked. I understand the specific cases you are defending. I had in previous replies to the thread taken a similar position. From what I remember, Sunil asked you to document cases where someone was forced to perform an abortion, and you wrote, "To the best of my knowlage they have not." Meaning to me, no one has been forced to perform an abortion against their will. So it seems that to bring up something that is not an issue as an answer to my question is a red herring.

I wasn't answering a question with a question. The question you asked was addressed to someone else, and it was answered. I thought of the questions I asked you to further the discussion on the issue, and since you were the person supporting the conscience rule as is, I merely was hoping you'd answer them.

My questions were about the overall implications of the law, not specific parts. Since the original article was about modifying the order, not repealing it, I was trying to get to the meat of the issue. I'm sorry you interpreted them as red herrings, but that was not my intent. I think they are questions that supporters of the rule should think about.

If I were to call anything a red herring, it is the answer you just gave  to my questions. If you want me to consider that your "neglected reply," then I'll just assume you don't have a reasonable answer those questions, copied here for references sake:


Why should a business be obligated to pay an employee who doesn't do their job?

Shouldn't the business have the right to not spend its money on an employee who won't perform their job? If not, then how could a business continue to function if there doesn't seem to be a way to prevent employees from over-enjoying their supposed right to not do their job because of such a broad excuse as it goes against their religion? Are we talking about every single religion?

Does the government have the right to force a business to pay an employee who doesn't do their job? If so, why should government intervene in such an intimate way since that seems rather socialistic?

Doesn't passing a law requiring businesses to pay an employee who doesn't do their job because of religion violate the 1st Amendment? If not, how can a law which essentially is regarding the establishment of religion not be illegal, particularly when it also seems rather anti-capitalistic?

g's answer:

> 1. If you reply to my question with a question (and no
> actual response) am I honor bond to reply? If so, should it
> be in the form of another question?
> 
> 2. Your questions were specious in that we were not talking
> about the nurse at a planned parenthood clinic suddenly
> deciding that she didn't want to be involved in the
> tgaking of a life or anyone who contrived to be hired,
> knowing full well what their job would entail, and suddenly
> opting to not perform their duties. We are talking about
> personnel hired at private facilities that had no
> involvement with abortion suddenly being forced to perform a
> procedure they never hired on for. We are talking about
> private sector pharmacists being forced to sell products
> they in good conscience find abhorrent. 
> 
> This, and Donovan's "emergency save the
> mother" arguments are red herrings tossed out to cover
> the stench of forcing private individuals to bow to the whim
> of others against their will and conscience.
> 
> Please consider this my neglected reply. Sorry for my lack
> of alacrity.
> 
> g