Fingon

No, it's unconstitutional; the supreme court ruled in 1992 that if a company does not have a physical presence in a state, they cannot be forced to collect sales taxes from customers in that state. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23656 Likely NYS will be forced to reimburse those they collected sales tax from.

This won't last long, as it's widely considered unconstitutional.

Is this game on ABC like the others?

He has 4 tackles, 1 sack, and 1 FF.

http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=71488 don't know the validity of this, but apparently sportsxchange is reporting an extension will be coming soon.

LA is really the only other city.

Except sources in the league say it would be around $600 to $900 million

Ouch.... 1 month payment= average NFL team profit. If the Bills are moved; someone will have to pay with $2 billion in cash.

I wonder what the interest would be on a $3 billion loan? It has to be like $50-$100 mill a year in payments.

Not to mention that Toronto and LA will require a new stadium.

No

Adam Benigni just stated that for the Bills to move to toronto, an owner would have to pay $800 million to $1 billion for the franchise, and then pay $600-900 million as a relocation fee, and THEN help finance a new stadium in toronto.

IMHO, it would be simply idiotic to move The Bills. Where would you move them to, Toronto? You would lose the millions of upstaters that are fans for this team, and trade them for Toronto fans who may or may not be committed to an NFL franchise. Would you move them to LA? Los Angles has shown time and time again that they cannot support a franchise. The best possible solution would be a new stadium on the waterfront or in Niagara Falls so you can lure more corporate money.

That's what it boils down to, does it not? It's driving out of your way when one pharmacy doesn't carry something.. convenience. There were those arguing that carrying birth control should be mandatory, and because I was under the assumption that people were well versed in these parts of the issue: 1. Most of these state laws target independently operated pharmacies. 2. People were saying pharmacies should be required to carry these drugs. The actual effective rate of birth control is around 90% while condoms are 85%. However, used correctly they are almost identical. Infringing on rights does bother me.

Actually, i state that a pharmacist shouldn't have to... but he should expect also be fired. There are many state laws that require pharmacists to sell BC. I believe some states will target their licenses. Also, i was referring to Pharmacies owned by the actual pharmacist in many of my posts. (i've already explained that)

First of all... I would like to say that i do not advocate the elimination of rights because some people might be inconvenienced. Secondly, there was always a distinction between pharmacies and pharmacists... on page 2 i stated that pharmacists should be fired if they cost their company money. Also, "millions" was clearly an exaggeration, but there are a plethora of other birth control options available... i will list them if need be, but they are pretty obvious. There are in fact many states that require all pharmacies to stock BC, and laws that target the licenses of pharmacists who do not sell it; those I disagree with.

I said on page two that they can be fired... it's right there for your eyes. However, i believe that their freedom of religion shields them from penalties from the government.

Of course they shouldn't fall under the same definition. Condoms aren't drugs... besides i disagree with the new rule changes anyways. All i'm saying is that you should have the right to refuse to sell something to someone, but you have a right to be fired because of it as well.

You know discussions evolve... right? I was debating with someone whether pharmacies should be required to carry them.

Firstly, i was resposnding to the claim that rural women would not be able to find another pharmacy.... which was not backed up at all. The fact is that everything else is irrelevant. Should Pharmacies be required by law to carry BC? No Should a pharmacist be able to be fired for not selling BC? Yes I'd like to see your data on the amount of people living in rural areas that will not be able to find birth control.

Should you be able to sell or not sell them? Of course... do you have the right to be fired? Of course.

You do realize that many pharmacies are owned by the pharmacist, correct? I agree that Pharmacists working for corporations should be fired for not selling BC. I said that on page 1 or 2.

Should a pharmacy be forced to carry condoms? I think not. A lot of states have mandated that pharmacies carry birth control. Hell, pharmacies shouldn't have to carry claritin if they don't want to.

Again, i said that a pharmacist should have the option whether or not to carry non-essential drugs; try reading. If you open a hospital should you be forced to perform plastic surgery?

I am not debating the article here... I said on like page 1 or 2 that a pharmacist can and should be fired. Also, i find it funny that you think i'm a bible thumper. The issue i am debating is whether the government should force you to carry and sell BC.