|
|
Post by Jodie on Aug 27, 2011 18:26:56 GMT -5
I approve of taking action against these girls, but I do not approve of denying a service because of something completely irrelevent to said service. It really goes back to that pharmacies argument we had recently. Um... no. The two do not even remotely compare. Some people's lives depend on the medications and services provided by the pharmacy, so they really should not have a say on who gets what (or does not get what) because of their personal beliefs. People will not endanger their lives if their photo is not taken. Non essential services should have the right to refuse service, especially to protest intolerance and harm to innocent people. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 27, 2011 21:37:24 GMT -5
I approve of taking action against these girls, but I do not approve of denying a service because of something completely irrelevent to said service. It really goes back to that pharmacies argument we had recently. Um... no. The two do not even remotely compare. Some people's lives depend on the medications and services provided by the pharmacy, so they really should not have a say on who gets what (or does not get what) because of their personal beliefs. People will not endanger their lives if their photo is not taken. Non essential services should have the right to refuse service, especially to protest intolerance and harm to innocent people. what she said. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 27, 2011 23:10:25 GMT -5
But THAT just goes back to Lighthorsemen's thing about non-essential medications.
I'm not sure if I want to say she shouldn't be able to refuse service for that reason, but that doesn't mean I have to support it either.
As far as I'm concerned, the service for and the action against the girls should be 2 separate things. One is something you do professionally, the other is a moral obligation that you take up on your own time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 28, 2011 3:35:29 GMT -5
I approve of taking action against these girls, but I do not approve of denying a service because of something completely irrelevent to said service. It really goes back to that pharmacies argument we had recently. Let me put it this way. If you saw someone who had flat-out murdered someone and wasn't hiding it come into your store, would you be expected to cater to their service? What about someone who you blatantly saw take a purse from an unsuspecting lady? Personally, I think bullying should be a felony because it is harassment and, in some cases, assault. We don't allow adults to do this to each other, why should we allow children to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 28, 2011 3:59:49 GMT -5
I approve of taking action against these girls, but I do not approve of denying a service because of something completely irrelevent to said service. It really goes back to that pharmacies argument we had recently. Let me put it this way. If you saw someone who had flat-out murdered someone and wasn't hiding it come into your store, would you be expected to cater to their service? What about someone who you blatantly saw take a purse from an unsuspecting lady? Personally, I think bullying should be a felony because it is harassment and, in some cases, assault. We don't allow adults to do this to each other, why should we allow children to do so? Unfortunately though, bullying isn't a felony and as such the comparison really doesn't work, as trading with rather than reporting criminals in kind of a crime in itself. The overall point is that either private businesses should be allowed to refuse service based on personal convictions or they should not. Saying they should only do that when you agree with the cause is hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 28, 2011 13:19:18 GMT -5
Exactly what Art says. My idea of "professional integrity" includes actually doing your job, even if you don't want to, for whatever circumstances. Yes, I would sell a murderer a loaf of bread, then go call 9-1-1. Because it's their job to dispatch the police, whose job it is to arrest criminals, the courts' job is to prosecute them, & mine (in this metaphor) is to sell bread.
|
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Aug 28, 2011 13:34:39 GMT -5
difference between a pharmacist or store clerk and this situation is that a pharmacist or store clerk is working on behalf of somebody else, who owns the place of business they work at and has hired them to sell stuff, in these cases it's the business owner who gets to decide who does and doesn't get services, the employees don't have that authority. The photographer is apparently working for herself, and thus has a right to decline customers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 28, 2011 13:38:11 GMT -5
Regardless of whether or not she has the right, is she in the right? Again, I don't disagree with her outrage, but I don't see how it's actually related to her job.
|
|
