1
   

Seperation of Muslims & State

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 05:36 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Where did I say it fell through the cracks?
I will not give my view on the pharmacist situation, it's none of your business.


What I was referring to was your dismissal of the situation because "they didn't get by with that either".

I'm curious why you would feel like giving your opinion on just about everything else in this forum, yet you refuse to answer this question. Interesting.

I'd be curious to hear whether or not you think it right for adoption agencies to refuse to adopt to non-religious people. IF you don't believe my situation, then check out the link I posted.




Do you think it's ok for pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

Do you think it's ok for the adoption agencies to discriminate against a couple based on their religion?

For as smart as you seem to think you are, I'd think that you could figure out what they didn't get by with that either means. If i have to spell it out for you, you still wouldn't be capable of grasping what I say, so, I'll just leave you to your own illusion/delusions, until maybe you figure it out.
I believe that private adoption agencies & public adoption agencies are different. If a Christian/private adoption agency has certain criteria/requirements that must be met, the either meet them or go elsewhere. If it's a public/state adoption agency, no, I don't think religio, color, nor creed should have a place in the requirement. Have you ever heard of an adoption agency refusing to allow a white couple to adopt a black child solely because of the race? I have.
If the pharmacist owns the drug store, yes, it's his right to refuse to stock anything he finds objectionable, IMO. However, & I believe this is the case, if that pharmacist works for a drugstore that does stock & sell the product, the pharmacist must sell it, IMO. I also believe that if I own property that it is my decision as to who I choose to allow on my property or who I choose to allow to rent my property.
Satisfied now?
Why were you turned down by the other adoption agencies?


I was turned down by two Catholic adoption agencies. No others. I believe I've made that quite clear.

I'd go in with my fiance, we'd fill out the paper work, leaving the 'Religious Affiliation' field blank. We'd turn in the paperwork to the office. They'd go down each line and when they got to the religion field they'd make some comment like, 'oh, you forget to fill in your religion'. We'd politely tell them that we have no religious affiliation (there was so much more that I wanted to say, believe me), and they would say, "oh, unfortunately we only allow our children to be adopted by Christian parents, preferably Catholic". One of them even asked us if we had heard about what Jesus did for my fiance and I and offered to have someone come down and tell us all the wonderful things Catholicism has to offer (my words, not hers, but hers were close). We declined and left the orphanage.

I will be trying to find a non-religious orphanage near me soon.

I guess the children in the orphanage would rather stay there then leave with a pair of loving heathen parents.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 06:50 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
If a Christian/private adoption agency has certain criteria/requirements that must be met, the either meet them or go elsewhere. [..]

If the pharmacist owns the drug store, yes, it's his right to refuse to stock anything he finds objectionable, IMO. [..]

I also believe that if I own property that it is my decision as to who I choose to allow on my property or who I choose to allow to rent my property.

OK, so you believe that:

  • a private adoption agency should be able to select whom it serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • an independent pharmacist should be able to select what he serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • a property owner should be able to select whom he rents to on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • BUT a Muslim taxi driver should NOT be able to select whom he serves on the basis of religious grounds
Have I got that right, then?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 07:24 pm
I am wondering if the refusal of these catholic orphanages reflects the prejudice of those who run them, or if the relinquishing parents have specified catholic, or at least christian, parents?



Re the taxi drivers, here, taxis, though they may be independently owned, or run by independent companies, must conform to state determined parameters, or their license will be withdrawn.


No such discrimination as is detailed above would be tolerated...(and we also have numbers of Somalian Muslim drivers). Drivers refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol would be history, and rightly so in my view, just as drivers refusing to pick up clearly Muslim passengers would be, also rightly so.


Drivers do have the right to refuse clearly drunken or aggressive passengers, but if they used this to discriminate against people for other reasons, then the person refused service has the right to take the matter to a tribunal.

I would believe that similar laws regarding the conduct of pharmacists would obtain here...ie they would have to provide pharmaceutical service irregardless of personal belief.


Does the law pertaining to taxi licenses allow the behaviour of the Muslim drivers in the state where the problem is occurring?

If so, I guess it could be changed if it is causing problems?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 07:27 pm
nimh wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
If a Christian/private adoption agency has certain criteria/requirements that must be met, the either meet them or go elsewhere. [..]

If the pharmacist owns the drug store, yes, it's his right to refuse to stock anything he finds objectionable, IMO. [..]

I also believe that if I own property that it is my decision as to who I choose to allow on my property or who I choose to allow to rent my property.

OK, so you believe that:

  • a private adoption agency should be able to select whom it serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • an independent pharmacist should be able to select what he serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • a property owner should be able to select whom he rents to on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • BUT a Muslim taxi driver should NOT be able to select whom he serves on the basis of religious grounds
Have I got that right, then?


Is it an independent cabbie?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:02 pm
dlowan wrote:
I am wondering if the refusal of these catholic orphanages reflects the prejudice of those who run them, or if the relinquishing parents have specified catholic, or at least christian, parents?


I would guess that the preferences of the mother would be relinquished at the release of her parental rights.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:06 pm
Let's add another industry, another race and another religion into the mix and see how things shake out:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13045


Quote:
(09/29/2006)
Clinic's Sabbath Closure Seen As Biased
Orthodox-run medical center in Spring Valley hit with discrimination complaint by NAACP.
Steve Lipman - Staff Writer

In a case that could pit civil rights concerns against government-protected religious accommodation, the Rockland County chapter of the NAACP has filed a complaint against an Orthodox-owned medical clinic, calling on the facility to stay open on Saturdays, provide diversity training to its employees, and hire more staffers from the minority community.

The complaint, filed with the state Division of Human Rights by the NAACP of Spring Valley, accuses the Ben Gilman Medical and Dental Clinic in Spring Valley of "unlawful discriminatory practice."

"The willful closing of the clinic on Saturdays serves no other business purpose than to impose the extremity of [the owner's] religious beliefs in Hasidic Judaism on the community it serves which consists of predominantly African Americans and Hispanics," the complaint states, adding that the clinic "engag[es] in disparate treatment of people who believe in a religion other than Hasidic Judaism, and … [fail]s to accommodate other religious beliefs."


The defendant is Monsey businessman Mendel Hoffman, managing director of the Spring Valley clinic and of another in the area, about a mile away. The Spring Valley facility opened two years ago on Route 59, which is near large haredi and minority populations. The clinic has been closed on weekends since its began operations.

According to the complaint, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People took part in discussions last spring, conducted at the office of the Spring Valley mayor, with the clinic's owner and management, to "reasonably accommodate" the needs of the clinic's minority patients. Hoffman subsequently indicated that he could not open the clinic on Saturdays "as he did not get permission from his rabbinic authority," the complaint states.

The complaint does not cite specific instances of discrimination. Willie Trotman, president of the NAACP chapter, who filed the complaint, said it is intended to make the clinic's black and Hispanic patients feel more comfortable, and to make its services more accessible. "People get sick seven days a week," he said. "We're not alleging [discrimination]" against or specific harm to patients unable to receive treatment on Saturdays.

As a recipient of government funds - the clinic accepts Medicare and Medicaid payments - the facility should be open during hours that do not discriminate against members of any religious group, Trotman said; i.e., the clinic should be forced to stay open on Saturdays.

Several Jewish authorities on law and religion said the complaint has a weak legal foundation, and makes demands on the clinic's Orthodox owners that halacha, or Jewish law, do not support. But the complaint could create a dangerous precedent if its claims are upheld by the Division of Human Rights, they said, adding that a Jewish business can no more be compelled to open on Saturday than one owned by religious Christians could be forced to open on Sundays.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:37 pm
nimh wrote:
OK, so you believe that:

  • a private adoption agency should be able to select whom it serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • an independent pharmacist should be able to select what he serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • a property owner should be able to select whom he rents to on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • BUT a Muslim taxi driver should NOT be able to select whom he serves on the basis of religious grounds
Have I got that right, then?


dlowan wrote:
Re the taxi drivers, here, taxis, though they may be independently owned, or run by independent companies, must conform to state determined parameters, or their license will be withdrawn.

No such discrimination as is detailed above would be tolerated...

Oh, for the record, I dont look positively on any of the four above instances, although as long as there are sufficient alternative providers of the same service in the location I can't be too agitated about it either. But LSM appears to approve of three, but consider the fourth A Bad Thing; when the only difference I can see is that in the fourth case, its a Muslim doing it.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:38 pm
And just to round things out, we have:

http://www.poststar.com/articles/2006/12/22/news/doc458c45f875808317739879.txt

Quote:
What's open, what's closed Christmas Eve and Christmas Day



By MARIE CLUM, [email protected]
Friday, December 22, 2006

Many businesses and government offices will close early Christmas Eve Day and most will be closed Christmas Day.



The Post-Star

The news and sports departments will operate with weekend staffs Christmas Eve Day and Christmas Day.



Banks and Credit Unions

Many banks will be closed but there a few banks that will be open Christmas Eve Day.


Citzens Banks at Price Chopper on Upper Glen Street in Queensbury, at Hannaford in Saratoga Springs and at WalMart in Wilton will be open 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Christmas Eve Day.

Area credit unions are closed Christmas Eve Day.

Banks and credit unions will be closed Christmas Day.



Buses

Greater Glens Falls Transit System buses do not run on Sundays. Buses will not run on Christmas Day.




Convenience Stores

Many area Cumberland Farm's Shops will close at midnight Christmas Eve and will open at 8 a.m. Christmas Day.

Area Stewart's Shops will be open normal hours Christmas Eve Day and open at least by 8 a.m. (some shops may be open earlier) and closed 8 p.m. (some shops can choose to stay open later) Christmas Day.



Government Offices

Most government offices will be closed Christmas Eve Day and Christmas Day.
These offices will be closed Tuesday: Town of Corinth, Town of Fort Edward, Town of Lake George and Town of Schroon Lake. Town of Johnsburg offices will be closed until January 2.



Libraries

Crandall Public Library in Glens Falls and Saratoga Springs Public Library will be closed Christmas Eve Day and Christmas Day.




Malls and Supercenters

Aviation Mall in Queensbury and Wilton Mall will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day and will be closed Christmas Day. Wilton Mall will be open 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday.

Super Kmart Center in Queensbury will close at midnight Christmas Eve and reopen 6 a.m. Tuesday.

Wal-Mart in Queensbury and in Wilton will close at 7 p.m. Christmas Eve Day and reopen at 6 a.m. Tuesday.



Medical Services

Convenient Medical Care on Bay Street in Queensbury will close at 12N Christmas Eve Day.


The Health Center on Broad St. in Glens Falls will be open 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. Warrensburg Health Center will be open 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. Other Hudson Headwater Health Centers will be closed Christmas Eve Day.

Irongate Family Center Acute Care in Glens Falls willl be open 9 a.m. to 12N Christmas Eve Day.

Wilton Medical Arts will be open with regular hours Christmas Eve Day and closed Christmas Day.

Most other medical service providers are normally closed Sunday.

Most medical service providers will be closed Christmas Day.

Pharmacies

CVS Pharmacies on Quaker Road in Queensbury, at 5 Main Street in Queensbury and in Greenwich will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. The Whitehall Pharmacy will close at 3 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. CVS Pharmacy on Quaker Road in Queensbury will be open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Christmas Day. CVS pharmacy on Congress Street in Saratoga Springs will be open 24 hours Christmas Eve Day and on Christmas Day. Other CVS Pharmacies will be closed Christmas Day.
Eckerd Pharmacies on Ridge Street in Glens Falls, on Route 50 in Saratoga Springs, on Ballston Avenue in Saratoga Springs and on Main Street in Hudson Falls will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. The Route 50, Saratoga Springs pharmacy will be open 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Christmas Day. Other area Eckerd Pharmacies will be closed Christmas Day.
Hannaford Pharmacies on Broad St. in Glens Falls, on Quaker Road in Glens Falls, in South Glens Falls and in Saratoga Springs will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. Area Hannaford Pharmacies will be closed Christmas Day.
Kmart Pharmacy in Queensbury will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Christmas Eve Day and closed Christmas Day.

Price Chopper pharmacy on Upper Glen St. in Queensbury will close at 5 p.m. Christmas Eve Day and will be closed Christmas Day.

McCann's Pharmacy in Hudson Falls will be open from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Christmas Eve Day and will be closed Christmas Day.

Rite Aid Pharmacies on Quaker Road in Queensbury, in Hudson Falls and in South Glens Falls will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day and closed Christmas Day. Rite Aid Pharmacy on Broad Street in Glens Falls will close at 5 p.m. Christmas Eve Day and will be open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Christmas Day.

WalMart Pharmacy in Queensbury will close at 6 p.m. and in Wilton will close at 5 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. Both pharmacies will be closed Christmas Day.



Post Office

Most area post offices will be closed Christmas Eve Day and Christmas Day.

Express mail and parcels or packages will be delivered Christmas Eve Day and Christmas Day.



Schools

Most area schools will be closed until January 3.



Supermarkets

Grand Union Markets in Bolton Landing, Corinth, Schroon Lake and Warrensburg will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day.

Hannaford markets on Broad Street in Glens Falls, in Kingsbury, on Quaker Road in Queensbury, in South Glens Falls and on Weibel Avenue in Saratoga Springs will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day.

Cummings Market in Cambridge and Lewis Market in Hudson Falls will close at 5 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. Byron's Market in Schuylerville will close at 7 p.m. and Jacob's and Toney's in Warrensburg will close at 8 p.m. Christmas Eve Day.

Price Chopper markets on Cooper Street in Glens Falls, on Upper Glen Street in Queensbury, in Granville, in Lake George, in Wilton, on Ballston Avenue in Saratoga Springs and at Railroad Place in Saratoga Springs will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day. and will reopen at 7 a.m. Tuesday.

Indian Lake Market will close at 6 p.m. Christmas Eve Day.

Sokol's Market in Queensbury will close at 7 p.m. Christmas Eve Day.

Sorrentino's in South Glens Falls will close at 3 p.m. Christmas Eve Day.

Area supermarkets will be closed Christmas Day.



Transfer Stations and Landfills

Washington County Transfer Stations will be closed until Wednesday morning.

Corinth landfill/transfer station will be closed Tuesday.

Carpenter Waste and Springer Waste Management pick-up schedules will be delayed by one day beginning Tuesday of next week and New Year's week. Monday scheduled pickups will be done on Tuesday, etc.

Landfills and transfer stations will be closed Christmas Day
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:44 pm
nimh wrote:
nimh wrote:
OK, so you believe that:

  • a private adoption agency should be able to select whom it serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • an independent pharmacist should be able to select what he serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • a property owner should be able to select whom he rents to on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • BUT a Muslim taxi driver should NOT be able to select whom he serves on the basis of religious grounds
Have I got that right, then?


dlowan wrote:
Re the taxi drivers, here, taxis, though they may be independently owned, or run by independent companies, must conform to state determined parameters, or their license will be withdrawn.

No such discrimination as is detailed above would be tolerated...

Oh, for the record, I dont look positively on any of the four above instances, although as long as there are sufficient alternative providers of the same service in the location I can't be too agitated about it either. But LSM appears to approve of three, but consider the fourth A Bad Thing; when the only difference I can see is that in the fourth case, its a Muslim doing it.


Oh, I got, and agree with your point re LSM, Nimh.....I am just trying to clarify the circumstances irregardless of her, and of such nonsensical positions.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:45 pm
nimh wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
If a Christian/private adoption agency has certain criteria/requirements that must be met, the either meet them or go elsewhere. [..]

If the pharmacist owns the drug store, yes, it's his right to refuse to stock anything he finds objectionable, IMO. [..]

I also believe that if I own property that it is my decision as to who I choose to allow on my property or who I choose to allow to rent my property.

OK, so you believe that:

  • a private adoption agency should be able to select whom it serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • an independent pharmacist should be able to select what he serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • a property owner should be able to select whom he rents to on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • BUT a Muslim taxi driver should NOT be able to select whom he serves on the basis of religious grounds
Have I got that right, then?

The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:46 pm
nimh wrote:
nimh wrote:
OK, so you believe that:

  • a private adoption agency should be able to select whom it serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • an independent pharmacist should be able to select what he serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • a property owner should be able to select whom he rents to on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • BUT a Muslim taxi driver should NOT be able to select whom he serves on the basis of religious grounds
Have I got that right, then?


dlowan wrote:
Re the taxi drivers, here, taxis, though they may be independently owned, or run by independent companies, must conform to state determined parameters, or their license will be withdrawn.

No such discrimination as is detailed above would be tolerated...

Oh, for the record, I dont look positively on any of the four above instances, although as long as there are sufficient alternative providers of the same service in the location I can't be too agitated about it either. But LSM appears to approve of three, but consider the fourth A Bad Thing; when the only difference I can see is that in the fourth case, its a Muslim doing it.

Then you haven't paid attention.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:49 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Where did I say it fell through the cracks?
I will not give my view on the pharmacist situation, it's none of your business.


What I was referring to was your dismissal of the situation because "they didn't get by with that either".

I'm curious why you would feel like giving your opinion on just about everything else in this forum, yet you refuse to answer this question. Interesting.

I'd be curious to hear whether or not you think it right for adoption agencies to refuse to adopt to non-religious people. IF you don't believe my situation, then check out the link I posted.




Do you think it's ok for pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

Do you think it's ok for the adoption agencies to discriminate against a couple based on their religion?

For as smart as you seem to think you are, I'd think that you could figure out what they didn't get by with that either means. If i have to spell it out for you, you still wouldn't be capable of grasping what I say, so, I'll just leave you to your own illusion/delusions, until maybe you figure it out.
I believe that private adoption agencies & public adoption agencies are different. If a Christian/private adoption agency has certain criteria/requirements that must be met, the either meet them or go elsewhere. If it's a public/state adoption agency, no, I don't think religio, color, nor creed should have a place in the requirement. Have you ever heard of an adoption agency refusing to allow a white couple to adopt a black child solely because of the race? I have.
If the pharmacist owns the drug store, yes, it's his right to refuse to stock anything he finds objectionable, IMO. However, & I believe this is the case, if that pharmacist works for a drugstore that does stock & sell the product, the pharmacist must sell it, IMO. I also believe that if I own property that it is my decision as to who I choose to allow on my property or who I choose to allow to rent my property.
Satisfied now?
Why were you turned down by the other adoption agencies?


I was turned down by two Catholic adoption agencies. No others. I believe I've made that quite clear.

I'd go in with my fiance, we'd fill out the paper work, leaving the 'Religious Affiliation' field blank. We'd turn in the paperwork to the office. They'd go down each line and when they got to the religion field they'd make some comment like, 'oh, you forget to fill in your religion'. We'd politely tell them that we have no religious affiliation (there was so much more that I wanted to say, believe me), and they would say, "oh, unfortunately we only allow our children to be adopted by Christian parents, preferably Catholic". One of them even asked us if we had heard about what Jesus did for my fiance and I and offered to have someone come down and tell us all the wonderful things Catholicism has to offer (my words, not hers, but hers were close). We declined and left the orphanage.

I will be trying to find a non-religious orphanage near me soon.

I guess the children in the orphanage would rather stay there then leave with a pair of loving heathen parents.

You're not married & yet you went to a Catholic adoption agency to adopt a child? You had to know before you went there what your chances were.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:51 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:

You're not married & yet you went to a Catholic adoption agency to adopt a child? You had to know before you went there what your chances were.


By the time the adoption would have been completed, we will be married. You bring up an interesting point though regarding single parents.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:03 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:

You're not married & yet you went to a Catholic adoption agency to adopt a child? You had to know before you went there what your chances were.


By the time the adoption would have been completed, we will be married. You bring up an interesting point though regarding single parents.

I personally don't have a problem with single parents, widows & widowers, divorced people have done that since forever. Of course the ideal setting, IMO, is for a mom & dad to raise the kids.
I do wish you luck in adopting a child.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:11 pm
dlowan wrote:
nimh wrote:
nimh wrote:
OK, so you believe that:

  • a private adoption agency should be able to select whom it serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • an independent pharmacist should be able to select what he serves on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • a property owner should be able to select whom he rents to on the basis of religious (or any other) grounds

  • BUT a Muslim taxi driver should NOT be able to select whom he serves on the basis of religious grounds
Have I got that right, then?


dlowan wrote:
Re the taxi drivers, here, taxis, though they may be independently owned, or run by independent companies, must conform to state determined parameters, or their license will be withdrawn.

No such discrimination as is detailed above would be tolerated...

Oh, for the record, I dont look positively on any of the four above instances, although as long as there are sufficient alternative providers of the same service in the location I can't be too agitated about it either. But LSM appears to approve of three, but consider the fourth A Bad Thing; when the only difference I can see is that in the fourth case, its a Muslim doing it.


Oh, I got, and agree with your point re LSM, Nimh.....I am just trying to clarify the circumstances irregardless of her, and of such nonsensical positions.

Nonsensical positions You give a very good example of one of the many differences between liberals & conservatives. You (liberal) tend to think in group mentality (one size fits all) I (conservatives) believe in the individual thought process. What's good for Sally isn't always good for Suzi, & conservatives recognize individual rights.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:12 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I do wish you luck in adopting a child.


Well, thank you.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:26 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I do wish you luck in adopting a child.


Well, thank you.

I figure if a person goes to all the hard work it takes to adopt a child then they really want that child. Nothing more important in the world that being good parents, IMO.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:31 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

Hhhmmmmm, ohkay.. So thats all your beef is about? Like, if they refuse the same passengers for the same reason on, say, Downtown Tourist Square, you would not have a problem with it?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:33 pm
LSM,

I was also still hoping you'd answer the question here.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 10:10 pm
nimh wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

Hhhmmmmm, ohkay.. So thats all your beef is about? Like, if they refuse the same passengers for the same reason on, say, Downtown Tourist Square, you would not have a problem with it?

If those drivers are independent drivers, with no agreement with the airport, of course it would be their individual right, IMO, to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 09:56:42