As far as govt intervention, the excuse usually given for such intrusion into private “contracts” is that the gummit is granting a monopoly, and in exchange, the cab companies give up some rights and accept some regulation. Remember that (most? all?) cities restrict the number of cabs allowed and who can enter the business, so capitalistic competition doesn’t exist.
This reminds me of the problem Godfrey Cambridge wrote about ca. 1960’s, “My taxi problem and ours”, about the difficulty of getting a NYC cab.[sup]*[/sup] Having won awards for his acting, and leaving the award ceremony dressed in a tuxedo, he found that cab drivers raced by him, or used such excuses as “I really like you people, but I’m not going to Harlem” (neither was Godfrey). Cambridge looked up the taxi ordinance and found that cabs were required to pick up passengers by law, unless they were carrying “foul or evil-smelling packages”. Since he rarely carried such, he began writing down the cab numbers of the ones who refused him and filing complaints, which were typically thrown out of court when the cabbie said “I didn’t see him” (since Cambridge was a large man, that’s difficult to believe unless there were no street lights).
I wonder if this story has a parallel here – cabbies refuse to pick up passengers because of their prejudice. Certainly race bigotry was so deeply ingrained in some that it might be called a religion.
I can’t find the article online. It appeared in Monacle, an obscure publication edited by Marvin Kitman. An interesting aside – Cambridge found in court that if he didn’t “have words” with the driver, the court assumed no violation occured. So he began carrying a pocketful of large steel ball bearings, and when a cab whizzed by, Cambridge would zing one thru the windshield. He said not only did the steel balls make him look like a colored Captain Queeg, but he also “had words” with most drivers right away.
Once again, this time to Musicat… HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THE FUCKING THREAD?
Sorry, that was actually a rather interesting and well composed post. But still…are you deliberately ignoring what’s been posted already, or have you just not read it?
Well, I’m exaggerating a bit for effect. But really, ‘Have nothing to do with alcohol’ isn’t really very wacky as religious beliefs go. It’s no worse than, say, ‘Use of contraception is sinful’ or ‘Don’t work between Friday sundown and Saturday sundown.’ Perhaps I should have said “all religious people hold beliefs not based on reason or evidence.”
Nope, I’m dead serious. If we’re going to have the state interfere with religious practices that cause others minor inconvenience, I think we should declare uninvited proselytizing visits to be trespassing before we require Muslim cabbies to take fares carrying alcohol. (If a cab company wants to fire someone for refusing a fare, that’s fine with me - I’m talking about state action here.) Of course, I don’t support state interference with religious practices in either case. The statement is purely hypothetical.
[Nitpick]Actually, the legality of proselytizers is based on freedom of speech more than freedom of religion. As a former political canvasser, I’m extremely grateful to Mormons and JWs for establishing the legal right to knock on doors uninvited. (I’m sure the Girl Scouts and Jr. High marching band appreciate it, too, though they’re a bit more restricted.) The right to spread ideas, whether political, religious, or Thin-Minty, through direct contact with people in their homes is one of the foundations of democracy, and has been recognized as such by the courts.[/nitpick]
While the possibility exists that I might have overlooked something, I have tried to follow this thread since its beginning. And I was not disagreeing with you, so why the vitriol?
Is there anything in particular that you feel I have overlooked which contradicts my post or makes it redundant?
Musicat, rather than hunt down the actual quotes from the thread, I’ll just reiterate the points that have been made:
*Government regulation, even to limit the number of contractors, does not equal a monopoly, nor does it eliminate competition.
*Race is a protected class (though it may not have been when Cambridge had his experiences) and is therefore a poor analogy to the current situation. There are now laws in place that protect victims of racial prejudice, even if the prejudice is religious in origin. The same laws protect people trying to practice their religious beliefs in the workplace, when they don’t infringe on other protected classes.
*Refusing to carry alcohol is not bigotry on the part of cab drivers. They are not trying to stop anyone from drinking or from taking a cab. They just don’t want to profit from it.
You obviously put some time and thought into your post, and you contributed some very interesting information. I just wish these points didn’t have to be repeated over and over again.
Well, Catholics aren’t prohibited (AFAIK) from profiting from the incidental transport of birth control or people on it. And I imagine even the most devout Catholics would find the questioning (since it isn’t likely to be carried openly) somewhat invasive and discomfitting.
But, sure, yeah. Why the hell not?
As a matter of fact, I think I think I should be able to get a hack licence, put a cab light on my car, and drive around town without picking up anybody at all! Why is it anyone else’s business? (Assuming there are enough licences for hacks out there that no one has trouble finding a cab that will pick them up.)
It’s becoming remarkable how often I have to say this, but this isn’t an analogous situation. The Muslim cabbies aren’t objecting to transporting fares who are behaving immorally by the cabbies’ standards. They are objecting to doing something they believe would be immoral for them to do themselves (that is, transport alcohol). I am unaware that Catholicism forbids adherents to associate with people using birth control. The Catholic pharmicist is a far better analogy, in that there again refusal of service would not be on the grounds that the customer using birth control would be immoral, but that the pharmacist would himself be sinning by providing the birth control.
This isn’t about imposing the cabbies’ religious views on the fares, but about whether the cabbies should be allowed to follow their own moral rules. If this were the former case, I’d be all about telling them to go fuck themselves (plus it would be illegal discrimination against a protected class, i.e., the religious class of non-Muslims). Since it’s the latter, I think they should be allowed providing that accomodating them isn’t onerous.
But the cab drivers are not transporting alcohol. The cab driver is accommodating the fare and the fare is transporting alcohol. It’s not like he was given 20 bucks to take a bottle of wine to Main and Maple. The fare is carrying the alcohol. Not the cabbie. Big difference.
It’s stupid. And an attempt to push their own beliefs on those that see things a bit differently.
That’s just too bad.
So that pharmacist should find a different line of work. If he or she cannot do his or her job based on superstitions then they should not be in that line of work.
Which kind of doctor would you see.
a. One that based his principles on modern medicine?
b. One that based his principles on faith?
I have nothing against Muslims (don’t know any) . But I stand firm against ANY fundamentalist that would like to push there ideology on my day to day life.
I’m personally not sure why taxi drivers also should not have the right to refuse a fare for any reason. I read in the papers almost every single year about multiple cabbies being murdered by a fare who actually just wanted to rob them. I think taxi drivers should have a reasonable right to just refuse to pick up someone if they think it is dangerous to do so, obviously just about the only thing that really tells you whether or not someone is dangerous, is your own gut feelings. All I know is, I’d refuse to pick someone up if I thought they were going to carjack me, I really wouldn’t care if the state felt my cab (which I owned or leased privately) was “public” transportation, I wouldn’t go home in a body bag just because of what a charter says.
Obviously that isn’t the situation here, but I don’t really understand why it isn’t somewhat analogous to doctors, why do cabbies have a responsibility to not refuse farees?
Why should the government have the right to say a private person can’t drive around in a car and pick up another private person who flags them down, and then drop them off at another place for money? I really fail to see the need for government regulation in this area.
Now, I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a specific rule saying, “government chartered taxis are the only ones that can be painted in X color scheme, non-chartered cabbies must be painted in X color scheme or clearly labelled as such.” So that customers will know they are dealing with a driver who doesn’t have a hack license.
Luckily the government doesn’t interpret things like you wish. You can continue to advocate people find different jobs simply because they are Muslims, but the government disagrees.
If we view cabs as a public service (I actually don’t think they should be viewed that way–neither here nor there) then the fact that the public is still being served without interruption taxi service at this particular airport means that the public (you, and others arguing like you) really have no basis to make your complaints. The service is being provided seamlessly and the religious beliefs of the taxi drivers are being reasonably accommodated. Since this solution truly does not affect the public at all, I genuinely do not see how the public has any right to complain whatsoever.
Personally, I suspect the public, at least the SDMB public is complaining simply because of a pervasive anti-religious bigotry that is prevalent here. These cab drivers passing on fares with alcohol is hurting no one when there is an entire line of cabs and the passenger is not inconvenienced what so ever. The only reason I can see for someone demanding this policy be changed is simple spite towards Muslims wishing to observe a facet of their religion. The argument “they should do their job” is something that is really no concern to you, the taxi company they work for could be concerned about that, or they themselves could be concerned about that if they own their own company, but as long as taxi service is still readily available to you, “them doing their jobs” how you see fit really isn’t an issue, nor should you concern yourself with it. The taxi service is still there for anyone who needs it, whether they are carrying alcohol or not.
Civility is defined differently in different cultures. Some cultures if you are invited over to eat dinner with another family, and you walk in without taking your shoes off, that is considered incredibly rude and disrespectful. In others, walking in and taking your shoes off would, likewise be viewed as strange and inappropriate.
To the Muslim taxi driver, what you are done probably seems uncivil.
What are you views on the Know Nothing party of the 19th century?
This attitude that immigrants are “guests” here, it’s “our way or the highway” is a little disgusting to me. One thing that makes America great is we have traditionally been very open to immigrants (less so now than virtually anytime in history), immigrants defined and shaped our culture throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. So to say, “this is our culture, do things our way, or get out” seems incredibly disrespectful to the immigrant heritage that has defined the entire “culture” that we’re asserting immigrants now should adhere to 100% or get out.
I rarely have to stand in a cab line (is that what it’s called?) Done it a few times. That’s not the issue, not at all.
The issue is that someone that is serving the public can decide that a perfectly legal activity is not accepted by his religion. No need for special lights on the cabs no need for additional cabbie callers or whatever they may be. We will all pay for that. And we should not have to.
You go to the back of the line because you can not do your job. Problem solved.
It’s legal, and I guess not unusual for someone to pick up a bottle at the duty free shop at an airport. And those people may request a cab.
I suspect they do. But unless there is an obvious danger to the cab or the safety of the passenger, they get back in line. Carrying a bottle of wine does not fit those parameters.
If you could not tell, I am very against giving anyone in the US getting special privileges based on their religion. That’s sort of how it started 225 years ago.
It hasn’t’ a thing to do if they are a Muslims or Klingons. A person that accepts a job should be able to do it.
Most of the Founding Fathers, (notably George Washington), belonged to the same Church of England as the king and the trade restrictions imposed by Parliament and the Crown against which Yankee merchants rebelled had nothing to do with religion. (And if you choose to go back 386 years, you will note that a minority of Mayflower colonists violated their Crown Charter by writing the Mayflower Compact while sneaking their minority religious views in on the the majority of colonists.) It was not until the new country started tinkering with a constitution that a couple of Virginia rebels actually managed to sneak some non-religious perspective into that document 219 years ago–and it hardly became a focal point of the national politic until several years after that.
Thank you, Martin. I resisted responding to LonesomePolecat’s virulent nativism because I wasn’t sure I could do so civilly. You said what I wanted to say elegantly and concisely.