I also don't know how or if websites can require a specific plugin. If that would be the case they could also demand the use of a specific browser. This should not be tolerated. "Buy this first and then we will let you go ahead ⚠". If a site wants to display a PDF it should be equal by what means it gets displayed. This is how I look at it.
The following is copied from the Adobe website and may serve those who haven't seen it yet:
Adobe Reader plug-in and Acrobat plug-in are not compatible with the Safari 5.1 browser, included with Mac OS 10.7 and for 10.6 in July 2011. Adobe Reader and Acrobat will continue to work as standalone applications on Mac OS 10.7 and 10.6, and will render PDF documents outside of the browser. In addition, Safari 5.1 renders PDF documents natively. However, the Adobe Reader and Acrobat plug-ins will not function as expected in LiveCycle and Acrobat workflows that require either plug-in to render PDF documents in Safari 5.1.
Recommendations:
For Acrobat customers who utilize functionality like forms, digital signatures, portfolios, guides, 3D, extended PDF documents and rights management, and who require the Acrobat plug-in to render PDF documents in the Safari browser, Adobe recommends that you continue to use Safari 5.0.x and Mac OS X 10.6. Adobe will provide updates as we continue to investigate this issue. For additional information see Apple Safari 5.1 and Adobe Reader/Acrobat Advisory.