<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: America: The Land of the Free?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://furtwengler.com/theinvaluableleader/2008/08/18/america-the-land-of-the-free/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://furtwengler.com/theinvaluableleader/2008/08/18/america-the-land-of-the-free/</link>
	<description>Increasing Profits Without Adding Resources</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: dale</title>
		<link>http://furtwengler.com/theinvaluableleader/2008/08/18/america-the-land-of-the-free/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>dale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://furtwengler.com/theinvaluableleader/?p=32#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Barry,

I presume, then, that you feel that business owners do not have a right to refuse service to any customer.  Is that correct?  If that's so then you're saying the customer's preferences - religious, moral or simply life choices - take precedent over the business owner's right to make choices.  Are you suggesting that we provide legal protection to those business owners so that they aren't held liable for choices over which they have no control?

My point is that each of us has rights to choose what's right for us.  If we respect that right in others, we have that right as well.  If we insist on imposing our choices on others, then we open the door for others to impose theirs on us.

Thank you for the stimulating dialogue.  Whether or not you agree with me, you have the right to your opinion and I do respect that.  I hope that you will continue to post comments in the future.

Best wishes,

Dale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barry,</p>
<p>I presume, then, that you feel that business owners do not have a right to refuse service to any customer.  Is that correct?  If that&#8217;s so then you&#8217;re saying the customer&#8217;s preferences - religious, moral or simply life choices - take precedent over the business owner&#8217;s right to make choices.  Are you suggesting that we provide legal protection to those business owners so that they aren&#8217;t held liable for choices over which they have no control?</p>
<p>My point is that each of us has rights to choose what&#8217;s right for us.  If we respect that right in others, we have that right as well.  If we insist on imposing our choices on others, then we open the door for others to impose theirs on us.</p>
<p>Thank you for the stimulating dialogue.  Whether or not you agree with me, you have the right to your opinion and I do respect that.  I hope that you will continue to post comments in the future.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Dale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry</title>
		<link>http://furtwengler.com/theinvaluableleader/2008/08/18/america-the-land-of-the-free/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://furtwengler.com/theinvaluableleader/?p=32#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Give me a break!!  I respect others' choices just fine.  If a person CHOOSES to become a pharmacist, he can't CHOOSE to fulfill only part of his obligation to his profession or customer.  The chemistry and the technology exist to help people prevent pregnancy.  Pharmacists can't CHOOSE to ignore the science that undergirds their profession.  What next?  If a patient is prescribed painkillers, will the pharmacist CHOOSE not to fill that Rx because the patient might overdose and kill himself?  Or because the pharmacist believes that everyone ought to bear up under adversity and withstand the pain?  Is it counterintuitive to think that one's personal religious preferences ought not to interfere with other people's rights to CHOOSE their own way of life?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Give me a break!!  I respect others&#8217; choices just fine.  If a person CHOOSES to become a pharmacist, he can&#8217;t CHOOSE to fulfill only part of his obligation to his profession or customer.  The chemistry and the technology exist to help people prevent pregnancy.  Pharmacists can&#8217;t CHOOSE to ignore the science that undergirds their profession.  What next?  If a patient is prescribed painkillers, will the pharmacist CHOOSE not to fill that Rx because the patient might overdose and kill himself?  Or because the pharmacist believes that everyone ought to bear up under adversity and withstand the pain?  Is it counterintuitive to think that one&#8217;s personal religious preferences ought not to interfere with other people&#8217;s rights to CHOOSE their own way of life?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
