Muslim Cabbies refuse alcohol and dogs. ACLU strangely on the side of common sense?

[motorcityxj]

Your ignorant.

please see your next post.

Nothing to do with religious rights. Its because muslims that work at an airport are making a fuss, and people react to that and give attention to the media.

It has to do with what the somalians THINK IS THEIR right. Troublesome muslims think everything has to do with their rights, to further complicate it their poor understnading of english and our government, and REAL relgious freedom. Democracy is confusing. IE a non state relgion. Anyways your ignorant if you didnt realize the problem is people are buying a legal IN AMERICA product alcohol, the SOMALIANS, dont like it, they chose to come here, they chose that job. YET THEY ARE FORCING their religion on others. THATS THE ISSUE.

You said "give attention to the media" what the heck does that mean? I suspect the media is reacting to 100s or 1000s of people that bought alcohol, and then cant get a cab, and half to throw out $100 + in booze to get a ride.

These cabies dont understand america. Seeing eye dogs are great. You cant discriminate against a handicaped persons, period. Lets focus on that as handicaped is a non religious aspect of this problem.

When the somalians have all the cabbie jobs in that town, how is a blind fella supposed to get home. THATS THE PROBLEM, thats what the media picked up on and people react with empathy thinking, that sucks, i would be mad as hell if i bought $100 in booze and cant get a cab ..... IN AMERICA.

What the hell is your problem Ramsey i didnt say one thing the least bit ignorant in that first post. Maybe it doesnt make the news down in louisana like it does here in detroit, but there is crazy "muslim" antics in the news every week up here.

 

[motorcityxj]

I bet you alot of those cabbies own their own car and or business. There goes your argument.

Point is that if you're offering a public service, you must offer said service equally to ALL of th public.

i bet not, otherwise it wouldnt be all somalians there. I bet it is a larger cab company that pays a vendors fee to the airport just like every other service at the airport. You pay a premium for a captive customer like a travelor with out a car.

If it was open to any cabbie in the metro area, the somolians wouldnt be going there and THEN TURNING DOWN JOBS and word would get out that you want a NON somilian cabbie if you got booze. I dunno maybe i am giving them more credit than they diserve.

You could be right but i doubt it.

 

[ZomBrady]

i bet not, otherwise it wouldnt be all somalians there. I bet it is a larger cab company that pays a vendors fee to the airport just like every other service at the airport. You pay a premium for a captive customer like a travelor with out a car.

If it was open to any cabbie in the metro area, the somolians wouldnt be going there and THEN TURNING DOWN JOBS and word would get out that you want a NON somilian cabbie if you got booze. I dunno maybe i am giving them more credit than they diserve.

You could be right but i doubt it.

You still miss the point. You've applied a double standard to the so-called privately owned drug store and these cabbies and the companies that employ them.

Both are businesses that deal with the public, but you're sympathetic to the pharmacist that owns his own store and refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. Yet you come down hard on the muslim cabbies?

I smell a hypocrite. I don't like hypocrites.

 

[motorcityxj]

You still miss the point. You've applied a double standard to the so-called privately owned drug store and these cabbies and the companies that employ them.

Both are businesses that deal with the public, but you're sympathetic to the pharmacist that owns his own store and refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. Yet you come down hard on the muslim cabbies?

I smell a hypocrite. I don't like hypocrites.

but most airports are public, as in publicly funded with tax dollars, so all federal laws and state laws with regards to discrimination must be followed to the letter of the law .(the one in this story is public)

A private pharmacist can profit from support of his ideas or get chased out of town, its his business to run, or ruin .... his choice. There are hundreds of pharmacies in every major metro area. If i fly into dallas, st. louis, portland etc, there is usually one major publicly funded airport. I dont have much choice in many cases. And the real crux of the issue is the state and federal dollars.

I dont care that they are muslim, they could be wickens or catholics etc. Like i said many of my friends are muslims, my neighbors, i have known 100's of muslims. Just cause i am close to muslims doesnt mean i blindly support everything they do, in the name of their religion if i feel its misguided.

I would support a muslim pharmiscist who choses to not fill day after pill or birth control pills also, if its a private business. atriot: (by the way i am pro choice so i am not even agreeing with anti birth control, but i am a business man and capitalist and belive in free enterprise. When you sully your hands and get involved with a airport which is usually run by the county .... you are no longer the boss 100 %)

 

[ZomBrady]

but most airports are public, as in publicly funded with tax dollars, so all federal laws and state laws with regards to discrimination must be followed to the letter of the law .(the one in this story is public)

A private pharmacist can profit from support of his ideas or get chased out of town, its his business to run, or ruin .... his choice. There are hundreds of pharmacies in every major metro area. If i fly into dallas, st. louis, portland etc, there is usually one major publicly funded airport. I dont have much choice in many cases. And the real crux of the issue is the state and federal dollars.

I dont care that they are muslim, they could be wickens or catholics etc. Like i said many of my friends are muslims, my neighbors, i have known 100's of muslims. Just cause i am close to muslims doesnt mean i blindly support everything they do, in the name of their religion if i feel its misguided.

I would support a muslim pharmiscist who choses to not fill day after pill or birth control pills also, if its a private business. atriot: (by the way i am pro choice so i am not even agreeing with anti birth control, but i am a business man and capitalist and belive in free enterprise. When you sully your hands and get involved with a airport which is usually run by the county .... you are no longer the boss 100 %)

I still say your argument is hypocritical. If you're offering a public service, you must treat everyone fairly.

Your stand justifies someone refusing service to anyone based on skin color or any other number of things. That's bullshit.

 

[motorcityxj]

I still say your argument is hypocritical. If you're offering a public service, you must treat everyone fairly.

Your stand justifies someone refusing service to anyone based on skin color or any other number of things. That's bullshit.

yeah i agree you should, I have customers of all types, gay, old cripple, young doesnt matter to me as long as their money is green.

In reality though you cant make someone not be racist if they are a small one man contractor say. Dude doesnt like black people, you cant make him remodel a black families kitchen. He can price his bid such that he is no longer wanted ..... if he doesnt want to do it. You dont say you are racist. Cab fare is regulated. you cant really screw someone over if your a cabby with out breaking the law.

Unfortunately racists dont tell you they are racists. Heck i am sure there are instances of racists shop keepers helping someone of a group they dont like, but not helping them the same or as much as others if that makes sense.

Capitalism is the great equalizer. Someone who doesnt care will gladly treat them like kings and take their money. You can make folks not be racist. Its not against the law to be a racist.

 

[family TJ]

Re: Muslim Cabbies refuse alcohol and dogs. ACLU strangely on the side of common sense?

I got tired of reading but we can't say God in anything the Governemnt does now and the Muslims get to choose to follow something they believe in. What the hell is this Country doing. People claim they follow their religion which is to the point of total crap. One religion says not to judge, well most make a quick judgement of others. Here's another saying I am not going to service you for my own beliefs. That's fine just don't use reliegion as the reason. I see a major lawsuit coming towards those cab drivers and the companies they work for. They are now claiming it hurts their chances of living the "American Dream". Well all they have to do is live be means of the AMERICAN LAW. It's not the AMERICAN CHRISTIAN/RELIGIOUS LAW, so they shouldn't be refering to their RELIGIOUS belief while doing their job. I guess I am frustrated reading this and don't make much sense, being I am fighting for my countries freedom so that these freaks can tell me I can't ride in thier cab cause I got some wine. Well my Religion allows me to have wine so now what? I say kill em all. I am not racist, I hate everyone equally.

 

[DrMoab]

Strange, I didn't here this kind of rhetoric around here when that CHRISTIAN pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription. . . so you apply the same logic to this pharmacist?

Yes...actually I do. If you can't do a job because of religious reasons...find another job Period.

 

[ZomBrady]

Yes...actually I do. If you can't do a job because of religious reasons...find another job Period.

Cool! I appreciate you candor and common sense.

 

[Matthew Currie]

I think it's the public aspect of this situation that makes it different. I don't like the idea of a christian pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control, but if it's his own business, it's presumably his privilege to make these decisions, just as it's his own privilege to dispense homeopathic crap nostrums or sell tobacco or not. It might also be the privilege of insurers and state agencies to send their business elsewhere also, which is just too bad for the pharmacist. I hugely disagree with the anti birth-control position, but for those who hold it this is a matter of conscience, and conscience can be expensive and inconvenient sometimes.

So what I want to know before making a judgment on the cabbie issue is first of all whether or not the cabbies are owner-operators, and second, whether any cab can serve the airport or whether there is control over who can pull up to the curb. If there is, since the airports are public facilities subsidized by public tax money, I think the cabbies should be subject to public rules, and if they cannot operate that way they should be told to go elsewhere and replaced with cabs that serve the public properly. If the cabbies are not owner-operators, then the owners should have the right to fire them if they decide that their reluctance to pick up dogs and drinkers is harmful to the enterprise.

I see nothing inherently wrong with making a conscientious decision that is contrary to commonly held beliefs or community standards, but if you do, and it is unpopular or unprofitable, you shouldn't whine.

 

[ZomBrady]

I think it's the public aspect of this situation that makes it different. I don't like the idea of a christian pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control, but if it's his own business, it's presumably his privilege to make these decisions, just as it's his own privilege to dispense homeopathic crap nostrums or sell tobacco or not. It might also be the privilege of insurers and state agencies to send their business elsewhere also, which is just too bad for the pharmacist. I hugely disagree with the anti birth-control position, but for those who hold it this is a matter of conscience, and conscience can be expensive and inconvenient sometimes.

So what I want to know before making a judgment on the cabbie issue is first of all whether or not the cabbies are owner-operators, and second, whether any cab can serve the airport or whether there is control over who can pull up to the curb. If there is, since the airports are public facilities subsidized by public tax money, I think the cabbies should be subject to public rules, and if they cannot operate that way they should be told to go elsewhere and replaced with cabs that serve the public properly. If the cabbies are not owner-operators, then the owners should have the right to fire them if they decide that their reluctance to pick up dogs and drinkers is harmful to the enterprise.

I see nothing inherently wrong with making a conscientious decision that is contrary to commonly held beliefs or community standards, but if you do, and it is unpopular or unprofitable, you shouldn't whine.

You're arguing the same thing as the other guy, and it's still bullshit.

You guys have such an easy time of applying double standards. Have you thought of the fact the pharmacy taking insurance? And that insurance is subsidized by the government? Bullshit. There you go! Government money is going into someone's coffers!

The point is and alway will be that if you are in the business of offering a public service, you MUST treat everyone fairly and reasonably. There are laws that protect people from discrimination based on skin color, religion, and any number of other things. The pharmacist and the cabbies are the same FREAKING thing!

 

[red91]

There is only 3 races ....

I agree....Indy, Daytona, and the Piston Cup.


I be correct on this...


Good thing I have my pirate grammar on....or I would have missed this one...





Note: Unwind panties, and relax...this be thar weekend for imbibing!

 

[Matthew Currie]

You're arguing the same thing as the other guy, and it's still bullshit.

You guys have such an easy time of applying double standards. Have you thought of the fact the pharmacy taking insurance? And that insurance is subsidized by the government? Bullshit. There you go! Government money is going into someone's coffers!

The point is and alway will be that if you are in the business of offering a public service, you MUST treat everyone fairly and reasonably. There are laws that protect people from discrimination based on skin color, religion, and any number of other things. The pharmacist and the cabbies are the same FREAKING thing!

You didn't read what I read very carefully, I think, when I said that in return for the privilege of refusing certain services it would be the privilege of insurers to take their business elsewhere also. I would be fine with that, and if the pharmacy goes out of business as a result, that's fine with me too.

While I think the practices of the cabbies are obnoxious and unreasonable, and also think the practices of pharmacists who refuse to carry birth control goods are also obnoxious and unreasonable, I do not think it entirely the same as discrimination based on religon, color, etc. etc. Whatever you or I might think of the beliefs in question, we're dealing here with the question of whether or not a person should be required to act in violation of his own conscience, and perform an action that he regards as a sin. I say that if he's on his own, then so be it, though I think he's probably chosen the wrong occupation. If he's employed by someone else, his employer has a right to demand performance of the whole job. If he's taking public funds or subsidies, or under some kind of public quota or licensing arrangement that prevents others from competing openly, then it should be denied, and the funding/license/franchise or whatever passed to someone who can function as the public interest demands.

 

[creeperjeep]

Re: Muslim Cabbies refuse alcohol and dogs. ACLU strangely on the side of common sense?

To throw in my bs;
The dog slobber statement is not totally right, In Islam it was interpreted that the Angel Gabriel would not bring his good blessings to you because he was essentially scared of dogs or didnt like them.

And yes Ramsey, Lebanese rock

[/pointless ramble]

 

[ZomBrady]

You didn't read what I read very carefully, I think, when I said that in return for the privilege of refusing certain services it would be the privilege of insurers to take their business elsewhere also. I would be fine with that, and if the pharmacy goes out of business as a result, that's fine with me too.

While I think the practices of the cabbies are obnoxious and unreasonable, and also think the practices of pharmacists who refuse to carry birth control goods are also obnoxious and unreasonable, I do not think it entirely the same as discrimination based on religon, color, etc. etc. Whatever you or I might think of the beliefs in question, we're dealing here with the question of whether or not a person should be required to act in violation of his own conscience, and perform an action that he regards as a sin. I say that if he's on his own, then so be it, though I think he's probably chosen the wrong occupation. If he's employed by someone else, his employer has a right to demand performance of the whole job. If he's taking public funds or subsidies, or under some kind of public quota or licensing arrangement that prevents others from competing openly, then it should be denied, and the funding/license/franchise or whatever passed to someone who can function as the public interest demands.

Basically, you're saying that IF I own my business completely independent of governmental help, I can do as I please. I can refuse to serve mexicans, or blacks. I can kick out atheists or polytheists. Landlords can't even do that.

I've tried to rationalize this argument the same way and it doesn't work. There's just too many exceptions to your scenarios. It's not like I don't understand where you're coming from but those same business use public roads paid for by my taxes. I can think of multiple examples of how my taxes support or help those so-called independent businesses.

 

[kubtastic]

Re: Muslim Cabbies refuse alcohol and dogs. ACLU strangely on the side of common sense?

Just to throw another log onto this fire:

In the pharmacist's defense, once a child is conceived it could be considered unethical to provide medicine to abort the child. Here I am one second putting pre-natal vitamins and maybe some cough syrup for a 1 month old in one bag, and the next putting some kill-kid in Lucy's bag.

Personally I think whoever brought up the pharmacy thing was just pissy about the relative levels of media attention. Go find some ice cream.

 

[radardog]

Basically, you're saying that IF I own my business completely independent of governmental help, I can do as I please. I can refuse to serve mexicans, or blacks. I can kick out atheists or polytheists. Landlords can't even do that.

I've tried to rationalize this argument the same way and it doesn't work. There's just too many exceptions to your scenarios. It's not like I don't understand where you're coming from but those same business use public roads paid for by my taxes. I can think of multiple examples of how my taxes support or help those so-called independent businesses.

i think, correct me if i am wrong, but dont most stores have a sign in front saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ?

i think a big part of the issue here is this, i will just give a couple of examples now...

example 1:
you work at store number 11302, part of a much larger corporation. now lets for the sake or agrument say that you are a anti-christian muslim. and store number 11302 is located in the heart of the bible belt. if you refuse to serve people who dont see eye to eye with you, common sense would say you are going to be fired. but since you are a muslim if corporate decides to let you go then it becomes racism/anti-muslim/oppression whatever.
point is that you are costing the company a lot of money and you need to go away. it isnt discrimination.

example 2:
instead of working at store number 11302 you now own quicky-stop in the same area.

your attitude is still the same, and so are your customers.
what do you think is going to happen??? sure you have the right to say "F" you to whoever you want. but the point is that isnt going to work in either situation. what is BULL SHIT is these morons act like...well... MORONS and then scream discrimination when someone says something/tries to do something about it.

 

[motorcityxj]

Basically, you're saying that IF I own my business completely independent of governmental help, I can do as I please. I can refuse to serve mexicans, or blacks. I can kick out atheists or polytheists. Landlords can't even do that.

I've tried to rationalize this argument the same way and it doesn't work. There's just too many exceptions to your scenarios. It's not like I don't understand where you're coming from but those same business use public roads paid for by my taxes. I can think of multiple examples of how my taxes support or help those so-called independent businesses.

I can call my lawyer if i have to and get him to give me the public act # of the law stating it that business are under no requirements to serve anyone. I know for a fact business DO NOT HAVE TO SERVE YOU. They invite you, you want what they have (service, product, etc), they want what you have ($) and it is an informal agreement. If someone is rude to you, you can say fuck you get out of my store and NEVER come back. I have worked at business's where we banned customers. One lady that was banned, i know 2 other local business's in a 1/4 mile that also banned her. One was mobil gas station, she was not allowed in the mini mart. Not a thief, she was i think manic and maybe had teurets and possibly an array of psychological problems. She was definately banned though. You can not make my business serve you. There is no law, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Just think of the blant signs you see like no shirt no shoes no serive. There is no law requiring me to wear a shirt or shoes. How about no one under 18 admited with out adult (party stores by schools usually where kids rob the store blind). Your saying if a guy is rude, loud, obnoxious maybe swearing, i would have to serve him by law? NO WAY. Try acting like that at the county clerks, the help desk at the police station etc places your tax dollars support 100 % and see how they help you. I dunno where you got this idea business HAVE to accomdate anyone who walks in ..... but that is not the case. Its good business to accomdate everyone (usually), but you dont have to.

I am under no more obligation to serve you that you are to buy from me. Every sale is an agreement.

(disclaimer this is assuming we are still talking about a private pharmacist, but could be any small business, shoe repair, tailor, sandwitch shop, doesnt matter)

to get off the pharmacist thing. To make you think i dont have anything against muslim cabbies, the very same cabbie can turn me down outside the liqour store on the street, thats fine. The same cabbie has the right to not take my fare if i have a bunch of smelly garbage like i wanna take with me. If he has to clean the cab or smell it and its not worth the cab fair thats his choice. He doesnt have to take me on a drug buy. The airport is not like a regular independent business man.

 

[Ramsey]

Re: Muslim Cabbies refuse alcohol and dogs. ACLU strangely on the side of common sense?

I like chocolate cake. I don't like long winded responses. Not directed at any here as I haven't read them. Mmm, I need some milk.

 

[Matthew Currie]

Basically, you're saying that IF I own my business completely independent of governmental help, I can do as I please. I can refuse to serve mexicans, or blacks. I can kick out atheists or polytheists. Landlords can't even do that.

I've tried to rationalize this argument the same way and it doesn't work. There's just too many exceptions to your scenarios. It's not like I don't understand where you're coming from but those same business use public roads paid for by my taxes. I can think of multiple examples of how my taxes support or help those so-called independent businesses.

Our taxes in the form of exemptions also support and help churches, including those which preach and practice ideas that are repugnant to many of us. Businesses and individuals use the public highways too, of course, but they do not have preferential use of them.

I suppose there are some gray areas, and overlaps here, but I still think there is a serious and important distinction between the choice of what you do, and the choice of whom you do it for. There are constitutional guarantees against discrimination based on who or what you are. I do not think that this implies that you should be required to perform actions that violate your religious scruples in other ways that are not specifically excepted in the constitution, no matter unpleasant, ridiculous or obnoxious some people might find the scruples in question. You find too many exceptions in my viewpoint, but of course one could find too many in yours as well. Must a doctor who gets insurance money be forced to perform abortions? Executions? Must a minister whose church is tax exempt be obligated to perform gay weddings? Must a Muslim cab driver pick up an intoxicated passenger with a pet dog? If you use the public highways as a qualifier (which is very close to the reductio ad absurdum, I think), must a business run by Orthodox Jews fill orders on Saturday because they use public roads to get to work?

As I said before, I think also that the flip side of this is that people who feel they must abstain from actions that are generally considered acceptable by society should expect to be without recourse if their practices are bad for business, and these practices should disqualify them from government subsidies and preferential treatment.

But I really do think there is a difference between refusing to do something because it violates your religious convictions, and discriminating against individuals or groups.