Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, we're licensed to sell, service and install fire extinguishers, fire suppression systems and security systems. I'll turn down any customer I please.

---

Hello again, Steve:

At least tom recognized the special situation of doctors and pharmacists.. I don't know how it got by you...

But, let's use fire as an example. Could the fire chief let a Muslims house burn down because, in good conscience, he believes they're terrorists?

excon

I have no idea what you're referring to with tom recognizing "the special situation of doctors and pharmacists" that I allegedly don't recognize. You'll have to be more specific in what I allegedly don't know.

The fire chief is either a) of a volunteer department and can probably decide to fight a fire or not for whatever reason he wants, or b) a municipal chief obligated to protect and serve all residents equally. Most abortions as is the is the use of contraceptives, are elective, just as I can elect to NOT perform abortions or sell "emergency" contraception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I can't think of one example outside the medical/pharmacist profession where the added requirement is imposed that someone is required to compromise their values . Oh wait... take that back ...some Muslim taxi drivers refuse fares carrying alcohol.

---

Hello again, Steve:

That's interesting... You think a volunteer fire fighter WOULD be able discriminate.. I don't share that view, of course.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I can't think of one example outside the medical/pharmacist profession where the added requirement is imposed that someone is required to compromise their values.

---

In fact there are many such examples:

1. If you have a license to run a business establishment you may not refuse to serve people based on race, creed, sex,etc. It doesn't matter if you believe it immoral for races or sexes to mingle - you may not discrimenate even though your place of business is your private property.

2. If you are a landlord you may not discriminate - it doesn't matter what your view on cohabitation of unmarried partners (or gay partners) may be - you may not refuse to rent them your property unless the living arrangement would violate local law.

3. If you want to provide certain charitable services you can run afoul of laws as well - look at what happened with Catholic Charities and their refusal to help place foster children with gay couples. They have been forced to stop providing foster children services in certain municipalities due to refusal to bend on their views. Like the pharmacist they had a choice to either compromise their values or get out of the business.

Key word, volunteer. He/she doesn't have to do anything. You apparently think volunteers are as obligated as doctors and pharmacists to do whatever it is you demand. I don't share that view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

...They have been forced to stop providing foster children services in certain municipalities due to refusal to bend on their views. Like the pharmacist they had a choice to either compromise their values or get out of the business.

---

And that's a damn shame. A disgrace actually.

I would hope that any voluteer first responder who refused to serve people based on race, creed, religion etc would be bounced out of the service ASAP. Yes he's a volunteer, but he's also a representative of the organization he's a part of, and as such has an obligation to uphold the standards of that orgaization. If I'm the fire captain I would tell this guy to take a hike - we don't need him.

As a practical matter most volunteer organizations have written non-descrimenation policies in this regard - it's required if you want to get funding government (and most volunteer fire departnments do get support from local government) or large charitable foundations such as United Way, Red Cross, etc.

Don't worry, I'm not advocating for a volunteer firefighter to discriminate for any reason and of course I know there are conditions for government funding, requirements for housing, etc.

All I'm saying is there ought to be a few exceptions, such as forcing a church to violate their morals to adopt children out, or forcing a pharmacist to dispense drugs or a doctor to perform abortions that are purely elective in nature. Whatever happened to "choice"? Don't we get one as well?

Now, back to the subject of this post. This is not a headline I ever want fulfilled...

Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans

That's why choice # 4 was the only real choice.

From this comes censorship next.

Romney said its okay to fire the bums that can't give you the service you wanted. Hire someone who can.

I agree. But the worst nightmare we can get is to elect him president, and have a republican congress with him. Déjà vu?