[GreenTiger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DD, if the taxi drivers are refusing to do the work their company wants them to do then they should find other work or start their own company.

A halal taxi company would likely do well and if they post all of their advertising in Arabic then that would effectively exclude most non-Muslims from riding in their cabs.

But, again, I side with these taxi drivers in that they should not be forced to perform work that they find religiously objectionable. The notion of forcing anyone to perform any sort of work against their will (regardless if I agree with their motivations) disturbs me far more than the notion of someone not getting a ride in a taxi.

Hmmmmm, I wonder if you'd feel the same way if they were refusing service to blind people with guide dogs.

Initially, I objected to it when the Somali taxi drivers did exactly that in Minneapolis. Upon reflection, I'd rather they be free to refuse a fare than to be forced to do something objectionable.

Forcing people to perform services is far more objectionable to me than someone not being able to demand service from anyone they like.

I still object to it. If the Cab drivers don't like service animals that is unfortunate but I could not care less, welcome to North America.

[N_Fiddledog]

desertdude desertdude:

Yup still making up crap without any actual proof backing up that pile of shit. Like I said go back to your Potter movies.

Still working with your logic 1 Christian cabbie = 100 rapes.

No, I'm quoting a report from the London Metropolitan Police.

$1:

However, a much acclaimed report produced by the London Metropolitan Police Service estimates that on average there are a total of 1,125 sexual assaults, including rapes, each year involving taxi drivers in just London; this works out to approximately 22 sexual assaults against women by taxi drivers each week in England’s capital city alone.

That's verifiable. That a judge advised women of the general public to be careful about getting into minicabs after he tried a case involving a Muslim rape driver is verifiable from multiple sources.

My proposal that London mini-cabs are driven mostly by Muslims, they are responsible for most of the rapes, and the people of London know about it is admittedly not completely verified by hard sources, although there are many verified cases of muslim taxi rape and assault. However I cannot find a single hard source identifying the percentage of the over 1 thousand cases reported by London Metro police that can be identified as Muslim. Not yet.

It is true though that the UK government has a rep for blocking freedom of information requests. I've heard it here, and elsewhere. So as shown, stats are hard to find and the media is reluctant to search.

However the BBC anchor woman didn't want to put her 14 year old into a Muslim cab for a reason.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

I agree with your last sentence. That has nothing to do with the cabbies in Windsor. You just make it so because they are both Muslims. In fact it would be interesting to learn if only the Muslims in Windsor objected to fares specifying drivers, or if all sorts of drivers did, but your bias made you see only the Muslims.

Well, I hope you're still interested to learn because I can STILL remember most of their cab numbers! There were only about 8 or 9 of them (out of a fleet of 205 cabs). All they had to do was cry "racism" and the City caved. In fact, shortly after that I remember rolling up to a grocery store one rainy day and seeing one of them sitting in his cab while some lady who had to have been Methusela's sister, was loading her groceries into the trunk.
For those unfamiliar with the rules of being in the hack, getting off your ass and helping your passengers with groceries, luggage etc, is part of the goddam job!! It is not, repeat NOT, optional. At least not when I was driving. That was just one of a few reasons why they didn't fare well when it came to requests because it wasn't an isolated incident. Of course I've also had the ubiquitous, "I take you on shortcut" variant. But my personal fave was the guy who was going to tell me all about his religion, or at least as much as he could between point A and point B. I call him the imam of the Cab 198 Mosque.

It didn't matter as far as requests went though. Despite getting the City ruling against request overturned, more and more of us were getting car phones anyway.
For some of us, the dispatcher became a secondary source of calls.

I was making two points though. The second point I was making is, I find the whole thing amusing when I juxtapose a group of Muslim cabbies whining about a lack of business, with stories over the last 2-3 years of Muslim cabbies refusing service over retarded religious reasons. Yes, I realize that the two are separated by both time and location. Yes, I realize that they are not connected by the intentions of Muslim cabbies across North America.
Doesn't mean I can't get a bit of a giggle from the irony, and share what would hopefully be a giggle to others.

Keep in mind, this has less to do with my utter rejection of Islam and everything it stands for and everything to do with my utter rejection of mass organized religion and everything it stands for.

But of course you conveniently forget about my posts regarding retarded religious beliefs when it comes to Christian beliefs and gay people. I've yet to see you respond negatively to anything I've said about the Christian right-wing and their campaign of hatred and discrimination towards gay people.
Why is that andy? I regularly attack/make fun of Christian jagoffs and not even a grumble from you. But God forbid I say anything about Muslim jagoffs and suddenly you're all, "I wonder if you aren't biased".

[desertdude]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

My proposal that London mini-cabs are driven mostly by Muslims, they are responsible for most of the rapes, and the people of London know about it is admittedly not completely verified by hard sources

Because your "proposal" only exits in your warped reality. Anyways still working within your framework of logic my counter "proposal" is 1 Christian cabbie = 100 rapes and even if there are just 10 Christian cabbies in London, something not very hard to believe or needs to be proven by "hard sources" thats a 1000 rapes. Sorry mate even working within the confines of your delusion the numbers are still against you.

[stratos]

desertdude desertdude:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

My proposal that London mini-cabs are driven mostly by Muslims, they are responsible for most of the rapes, and the people of London know about it is admittedly not completely verified by hard sources

Because your "proposal" only exits in your warped reality. Anyways still working within your framework of logic my counter "proposal" is 1 Christian cabbie = 100 rapes and even if there are just 10 Christian cabbies in London, something not very hard to believe or needs to be proven by "hard sources" thats a 1000 rapes. Sorry mate even working within the confines of your delusion the numbers are still against you.

So what both of you are saying is if you're a woman in London wait for that lone Asian Taxi driver to come by and you'll be 100% safe in regards to being raped.

[BartSimpson]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Initially, I objected to it when the Somali taxi drivers did exactly that in Minneapolis. Upon reflection, I'd rather they be free to refuse a fare than to be forced to do something objectionable.

Forcing people to perform services is far more objectionable to me than someone not being able to demand service from anyone they like.

I still object to it. If the Cab drivers don't like service animals that is unfortunate but I could not care less, welcome to North America.

Forcing someone to perform an action they find objectionable is itself objectionable.

Why?

Because how much force is society willing to use to impose its will?

Will we seize the Muslim cab drivers' cab?

Have armed police arrest the man and put him in prison for standing up for his beliefs?

Are we willing to kill him or have him kill people in retaliation or self-defense?

If not then the discussion of using force to make someone comply with some dickheaded social agenda is, well, dickheaded.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Initially, I objected to it when the Somali taxi drivers did exactly that in Minneapolis. Upon reflection, I'd rather they be free to refuse a fare than to be forced to do something objectionable.

Forcing people to perform services is far more objectionable to me than someone not being able to demand service from anyone they like.

I still object to it. If the Cab drivers don't like service animals that is unfortunate but I could not care less, welcome to North America.

Forcing someone to perform an action they find objectionable is itself objectionable.

Why?

Because how much force is society willing to use to impose its will?

Will we seize the Muslim cab drivers' cab?

Have armed police arrest the man and put him in prison for standing up for his beliefs?

Are we willing to kill him or have him kill people in retaliation or self-defense?

If not then the discussion of using force to make someone comply with some dickheaded social agenda is, well, dickheaded.

But drafting laws permitting discrimination against one's sexual orientation isn't the least bit dickheaded though, is it. Using religion to deny anyone a service that YOU provide is the epitome of being a dickhead!

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

But drafting laws permitting discrimination against one's sexual orientation isn't the least bit dickheaded though, is it. Using religion to deny anyone a service that YOU provide is the epitome of being a dickhead!

My core objection here is that if government can force people to provide services and if, as we see with healthcare, the government can also force people to buy services - then what can't the government force you to do?

Sorry, chum, I'd much rather let the bigots be free to discriminate than to empower the government with the authority to compel me to do something I object to.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

But drafting laws permitting discrimination against one's sexual orientation isn't the least bit dickheaded though, is it. Using religion to deny anyone a service that YOU provide is the epitome of being a dickhead!

My core objection here is that if government can force people to provide services and if, as we see with healthcare, the government can also force people to buy services - then what can't the government force you to do?

Sorry, chum, I'd much rather let the bigots be free to discriminate than to empower the government with the authority to compel me to do something I object to.

Hmmm let's take that logic one step further. "I believe Black people are sub-human thieves I and don't want them in my place of business as an employee or customer."

Or how about a nice Cartman? "I believe all gingers are evil and soulless and I should be allowed to refuse them service for that very reason."


So now, where do you draw the line between permitting discrimination for retarded religious reasons and permitting discrimination for one's own retarded personal reasons?

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Hmmm let's take that logic one step further. "I believe Black people are sub-human thieves I and don't want them in my place of business as an employee or customer."

Or how about a nice Cartman? "I believe all gingers are evil and soulless and I should be allowed to refuse them service for that very reason."

Your place of business is not a publicly funded accommodation and you should have the right to say who you will and will not do business with if you so desire.

Or does a Klansman have a right to force a black man to serve him if the black man objects to working for a Klansman?

Edit: Reducto absurdium...a man wearing full Klan regalia walks into a black-owned soul food café - does he have a right to demand service from the owners?

Does a Nazi have a right to demand service from a Jew?

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

So now, where do you draw the line between permitting discrimination for retarded religious reasons and permitting discrimination for one's own retarded personal reasons?

The reasons are irrelevant. All that matters here is that I am free to choose my customers and that my customers are equally free to choose someone else.

[Goober911]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DD, if the taxi drivers are refusing to do the work their company wants them to do then they should find other work or start their own company.

A halal taxi company would likely do well and if they post all of their advertising in Arabic then that would effectively exclude most non-Muslims from riding in their cabs.

But, again, I side with these taxi drivers in that they should not be forced to perform work that they find religiously objectionable. The notion of forcing anyone to perform any sort of work against their will (regardless if I agree with their motivations) disturbs me far more than the notion of someone not getting a ride in a taxi.

I disagree. They applied for and received a Taxi license or are employed under one which is issued by the City.
They can quit.

[BartSimpson]

Goober911 Goober911:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DD, if the taxi drivers are refusing to do the work their company wants them to do then they should find other work or start their own company.

A halal taxi company would likely do well and if they post all of their advertising in Arabic then that would effectively exclude most non-Muslims from riding in their cabs.

But, again, I side with these taxi drivers in that they should not be forced to perform work that they find religiously objectionable. The notion of forcing anyone to perform any sort of work against their will (regardless if I agree with their motivations) disturbs me far more than the notion of someone not getting a ride in a taxi.

I disagree. They applied for and received a Taxi license or are employed under one which is issued by the City.
They can quit.

The same logic would apply to any business these people engage in so is it your suggestion that they go on assistance for the rest of their lives for the reason that the government effectively prohibits them from working at any meaningful employment?

[andyt]

Yes, good logic. Let's have bus drivers be allowed to refuse to have queers on the bus. Landlords don't have to rent to those perverts, restaurants can refuse service, and so on. And why stop at gays. I mean blacks commit all the crime, businesses shouldn't have to serve them either. And Jews, Christ killers, baby murderers, why should a God fearin cHristian have to serve them. Let's go back down the rabbit hole.

[Khar]

$1:

Your place of business is not a publicly funded accommodation and you should have the right to say who you will and will not do business with if you so desire.

Or does a Klansman have a right to force a black man to serve him if the black man objects to working for a Klansman?

Edit: Reducto absurdium...a man wearing full Klan regalia walks into a black-owned soul food café - does he have a right to demand service from the owners?

Does a Nazi have a right to demand service from a Jew?

Your place of business is a public accommodation since it functions within a free market to the general population. The relevancy of whether or not it is publicly funded doesn't actually exist in either the letter or the interpretation of the law. Both public and private entities are considered public accommodations. This is as it is laid out in Article One, Section Eight of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which stands in line with the Constitution of your nation. This was further expanded with the Americans with Disabilities Act enforcing requirements for handicapped access to various forms of public accommodation.

A public accommodation is, by definition;

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

Cornell Law Reference. This definition is typical under US state and federal law. Exceptions must exist as "private clubs" or strict religious institutions, and was included in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as such, so if you want to be open to the public you are a public accommodation. The full text of Title II, inclusive of the above definition of Public Accommodation, can be found here.

For the record, that means the answer is yes in regards to all those questions. If you own a store you are expected to deal with all customers who walk in so long as they breach no law. I answered this before.

As I said later in that linked thread, "A person does have a right to not be discriminated against. A person does have a right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. A person does have a right to equal treatment in the eyes of the government and the law. A person does have a right to express a religion that does not have fundamentalist Christian [or Muslim in this case] views. A person does have a right to not have to meet a religious test so as to exist in that society."

The rights of a religious individual do not overturn the rights of individuals of a different religion. Demands of affirmative action for religious views do not meet rational basis review (I will explain my opinion later on why rights are not sacrosanct) or have not, and I believe that since that Act is still in effect 50 years later across multiple SCOTUS courts that may be even a legally supported statement (don't have time at the moment to do the required case reading to confirm that ). Realize no right is sacrosanct because freedoms clash at times; right to free speech is limited, for example, in cases of libel. There are rational reasons, as discussed in the previous thread I linked, why public accommodations do not get to block people from entering their establishments; because that right, a minor one, causes harm in the form of discrimination to an unacceptable degree and was hence curtailed with aforementioned laws.

What happens when you set a precedent for discrimination? How do we interpret the fifth amendment then? Or the fourteenth? Following principles founded in plurality is not an error in judgement, in my opinion. Remaining an open and free nation and remaining true to the morality of equality present in the fifth and fourteenth amendments is not a failure.

If your reducto ad absurdum example (nazis, KKK) isn't still allowed, it makes we wonder why the more normal question of gays, or even service dogs, are still in question, no? Especially since it falls in line with American written law, as well as American jurisprudence, as seen above?

$1:

The same logic would apply to any business these people engage in so is it your suggestion that they go on assistance for the rest of their lives for the reason that the government effectively prohibits them from working at any meaningful employment?

If a person is incapable of working in a free, democratic society with respect for his fellow citizens, then he is likely incapable of working a job within that society either. He would not be able to work at one of the defined public accommodations above, but could work in a field that did not deal with the public should he not feel capable of dealing with people he may not personally like. Lots of people don't work in a service industry, but if you do, the expectation is service, not the denial of such.

If you are "free to choose [your] customers," as you stated in a prior post, then you are not actually open on the marketplace. American customers should have complete choice. Those customers should not have to face the indignities of being told their kind are not allowed. No racial, cultural, religious, gender, or sexual minority/majority should be told they are not allowed in any of the stores listed above. Frankly, restricting access to safe transportation should be considered an issue; especially since it still is one for black people. The expansion of laws to taxi drivers may not be such a bad idea, and steps have been taken, as that article I cited points out, to try to curb such issues already. This is simply another form of such an issue. Realize that not getting a cab as a black man demonstrates what happens when some stores refuse to sell to certain groups; what happens in towns with one grocery store? What happens when you have to drive double as long to get to a drug store that accepts Christian or Muslim customers? Or if you had to spend an extra hour in traffic to get to a gas station or a mechanic? Access to a market is important, and ensuring minorities and majorities have access is also important to the health of the USA.

Private clubs do exist, sure, but private clubs typically act outside of the market place, and face significant judicial oversight in recent years. On that front, and in a similar vein to much of the discussion above, I generally agree with JJ on this one still, and will quote him exactly from here; "the fairest fix to questions of competing rights is as it’s always been — a broad constitutional guarantee of equality of all citizens, with alleged violations weighed on a case-by-case basis by a pragmatic and independent judiciary."

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Goober911 Goober911:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DD, if the taxi drivers are refusing to do the work their company wants them to do then they should find other work or start their own company.

A halal taxi company would likely do well and if they post all of their advertising in Arabic then that would effectively exclude most non-Muslims from riding in their cabs.

But, again, I side with these taxi drivers in that they should not be forced to perform work that they find religiously objectionable. The notion of forcing anyone to perform any sort of work against their will (regardless if I agree with their motivations) disturbs me far more than the notion of someone not getting a ride in a taxi.

I disagree. They applied for and received a Taxi license or are employed under one which is issued by the City.
They can quit.

The same logic would apply to any business these people engage in so is it your suggestion that they go on assistance for the rest of their lives for the reason that the government effectively prohibits them from working at any meaningful employment?

The govt wouldn't be prohibiting them from working. They'd be limiting their own employment prospects.

But this is moot really when this particular issue is a Freedom of Religion issue. One of your framers of the Constitution specifically interpreted that to also mean Freedom FROM Religion. This means you cannot be discriminated against because of what you believe, NOR can you discriminate against others because of what you believe.

If you doubt what I'm saying, just look back at the early days in New England. The interpretation was included in the meaning of Freedom of Religion because non-Catholics in New England at the time were being discriminated against. They were being refused service. Landlords would refuse to rent to them. They were prevented from buying land, etc.

What you are suggesting should be permissible for religious reasons is SO UNconstitutional it's not even funny. IN fact, it's downright un-American.