Muslim taxi drivers in USA refuse to take passengers carrying wine bottle

[enipla]

I am looking at it as more of a local effect wherein the cab drivers are saying ‘my way or the hi-way’.

I think as a country built with the worlds people, that’s not a good idea. When a group of people tell others to take a flying leap, the out come is not going to be good.

And that’s a pretty shitty stance for immigrants to take.

Civility is defined differently in different cultures.

Well and good. I respect other folks when I go abroad and leave my customs at home.

Would you, Tommndebb, or you Martin, or you Gorsbaj not expect to make a few concessions when you go to another country? It may be a bit different you know. Would you force your ideals on your hosts?

Would you insist that ‘this is the way it’s done back home.’ I doubt it. You seem reasonable.

So then. Why should we allow others to try to change us? Why?

Interesting stuff about guide dogs jabiru Gonna need another light on the taxi I guess.

[enipla]

@jabiru

Looks like this is spreading. I wonder why passengers and bottles of wine have only recently become a problem?

I wonder about that too. I have mentioned it 3 times now in this thread.

Maybe that Islam has been in the spotlight for the past few years that folowers feel that they can bring it up?

Was it not important before?

[tomndebb]

@enipla

I wonder about that too. I have mentioned it 3 times now in this thread.

Maybe that Islam has been in the spotlight for the past few years that folowers feel that they can bring it up?

Was it not important before?

More likely, there has only recently been a sufficient number of Somali immigrants who happened to have entered the Minneapolis/St. Paul workforce as cabbies.

Note: it is not Muslim cabbies who are having issues; Muslim cabbies in other cities across the U.S. are not having issues. This is a single, narrowly defined, culturally cohesive, immigrant group.

[Martin_Hyde]

Not allowing guide dogs into the cabs is a perfect example of what I consider an unreasonable accomodation and it is also probably in violation of some statutes that deal with discrimination of the disabled. I feel if cabbies in Minnesota were refusing guide dogs that it would be grounds for revocation of their charter (or their firing if they aren’t actually the charter-holders but rather their employer.)

With refusing the guide dogs I see it as being a big problem because it is clearly discriminating based on who the fare is, not what they have with them. A guide dog is more than just an animal or a piece of property to a blind person, it is an essential part of their ability to move around the world.

[Musicat]

@Alan Smithee

*Government regulation, even to limit the number of contractors, does not equal a monopoly, nor does it eliminate competition.

Government-sanctioned monopolies do exist in the taxicab field. Limiting the number of competitors may not ELIMINATE competition, but it falls far short of free commerce. In my town, which I believe is typical in this regard, it is illegal to transport human fares without a government taxicab license. A license can only be obtained if the single taxicab company currently licensed consents, which it is unlikely to do. These kind of rules originated in the depression era, I believe, and are related to the philosphy of price supports and other market-restricting concepts in the name of the “public good”.

To excuse the granting of monopolies, government regulation is often imposed. If the marketplace cannot regulate, the government must, so goes the theory.

*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.

Godfrey Cambridge wrote in the early 1960’s, and no such protected classes existed in law (this was prior to most federal civil rights legislation), which is exactly both his and my point.

*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.

And they don’t want anyone violating their religious principles, which are absurd unless the fare is forcing them to drink alcohol.

I think it’s time we stop hiding behind “it’s a religious thing, so we must respect it”. We actively debate absurd crap of a non-religious nature, why should religion be off-limits (cf. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)?

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.

I hope I did not repeat anything you have {sigh} heard many times before. I strive at all times to enhance and expand, not echo. YMMV.

[DanBlather]

@Martin Hyde

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),.

What utter and complete claptrap. Have you never heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? Also, the legal immigration rate (warning PDF) for 1991-2000 was the highest since 1921-1930

[Alan_Smithee]

@Musicat

Government-sanctioned monopolies do exist in the taxicab field. Limiting the number of competitors may not ELIMINATE competition, but it falls far short of free commerce. In my town, which I believe is typical in this regard, it is illegal to transport human fares without a government taxicab license. A license can only be obtained if the single taxicab company currently licensed consents, which it is unlikely to do. These kind of rules originated in the depression era, I believe, and are related to the philosphy of price supports and other market-restricting concepts in the name of the “public good”.

To excuse the granting of monopolies, government regulation is often imposed. If the marketplace cannot regulate, the government must, so goes the theory.

This is interesting. The only city I’ve lived in that I know was large enough to support lots of taxi companies was Washington, DC, and sure enough, there were lots of taxi companies. I didn’t know there were cities where a literal monopoly existed by government fiat. I wonder how common this is. Also, is it the case in Minneapolis?

Godfrey Cambridge wrote in the early 1960’s, and no such protected classes existed in law (this was prior to most federal civil rights legislation), which is exactly both his and my point.

And I seem to be missing it. Discrimination was a huge problem before civil rights legislation. It was only the enormity of the situation that warranted such unprecidented invasion of the government into the private sphere. (And I think most people today feel that it was warranted, and that civil rights legislation was an enormously good thing.) Are you suggesting that this is a comparable situation? I find the comparison of the current situation to racial segregation frankly absurd. It’s akin to Godwinization.

And they don’t want anyone violating their religious principles, which are absurd unless the fare is forcing them to drink alcohol.

This is simply a lie. They don’t want to transport alcohol. They aren’t trying to stop anyone from drinking it or to keep anyone from getting transportation. They are trying to follow their own moral principles, not force them on other people.

I think it’s time we stop hiding behind “it’s a religious thing, so we must respect it”. We actively debate absurd crap of a non-religious nature, why should religion be off-limits (cf. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)?

Debating it isn’t off-limits, it’s exactly what we’re doing. As for whether we should respect beliefs we find absurd, I am of the firm belief that except for the most clearly harmful, we most certainly should. This is an overwhelmingly Christian nation, and an increasingly fundamentalist one. As an atheist, it is solely the law and the moral principle of religious freedom and toleration that allows me to live freely. I therefore strongly support the expansion of religious freedom in both law and civil discourse to the fullest possible extent. Besides being philosophically correct (IMO), it is in my own self interest, and yours as well.

[Monty]

@Musicat

And they don’t want anyone violating their religious principles, which are absurd unless the fare is forcing them to drink alcohol.

You seem to be misunderstanding what’s been said. Those particular drivers aren’t asking anyone else to observe the cab driver’s religious principles. They’re demanding that they (the drivers) not be forced to violate their own religious principles. I personally think the drivers are also misunderstanding the prohibition but that’s not the issue.

[Dangerosa]

@tomndebb

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.

It ain’t “how it started.”

Depends on where you put the starting point - move it back from the 225 years and you have the Puritians fleeing England to practice their religion their way.

But yeah, 225 years ago, no that didn’t have much to do with religion at all.

[tomndebb]

@Dangerosa

Depends on where you put the starting point - move it back from the 225 years and you have the Puritians fleeing England to practice their religion their way.

The key point with the Puritans being that they did not move for the purpose of establishing religious freedom, but only to avoid dealing with religious belief that differed from their own. The Puritans were opposed to religious freedom (as Roger Smith and numerous others could attest).

[Steve_MB]

@Martin Hyde

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.

That depends. If the cab driver is permitted to take the next passenger (or however far back it is to the first non-alcohol-carrying passenger), the passenger at the head of the line is inconvenienced (by having somebody cut in front of him).

If my solution is adopted (“You don’t want to take the first passenger in line? Fine. Get to the rear of the cab line; better luck next time.”), this issue is avoided.

[Valteron]

I don’t know about all cities in the US, but I know that in Canada, you usually have to show that you have no criminal record, for example, if you want a licence to drive a cab. And you have to be willing to serve the public irrespective of race, religion, etc. Why? Because, along with the right to drive a cab comes the responsibility to offer the public safe, impartial service and to keep your fucking opinions to yourself. If you don’t want to do that, then don’t apply for a taxi licence.

Okay, so how about the Muslim-Lebanese cabbie who refuses to pick up Jews coming off a flight from Israel? Will we allow that?

What about a member of the Church of the Creator (a white supremacist church) who refuses to pick up non-whites?

Or the angry Kashmiri Muslim who refuses to pick up East Indians (Hindus).

Or a Muslim or a Christian cabbie who refuses to carry a passenger with a bunch of books promoting atheism, all decked out in a T-shirts promoting the American Atheist Association and going to the local convention of their group?

Or a Jehovah’s Witness cabbie who refuses to take bottles of a rare blood type being rushed to a hospital for an emergency?

In Canada, a cabbie (I don’t even remember what religion he was) was warned he would have his licence revoked if he repeated his stunt of throwing out two gay guys who were holding hands in the back of his cab. Now, if they were giving one another blow jobs in the back seat, that would be a matter of public indecency. But the courts said he would not have thrown out a man and a woman who had been holding hands.

Let’s face it. We are letting these Muslims – who have no idea of of respect for the concepts of separation of church and state and religious pluralism – impose their religion on us here in the west. In Muslim countries, OTOH, they do not give a fucking inch. Try having a woman walk down the street in a sun dress in Saudi Arabia and see what happens.

Meanwhile, countries like France appease the Muslim bullies by banning string bikinis on FRENCH beaches! Germans cancel operas. Danes get told what cartoons to run. In Amersterdam, one of the most unhomophobic cities on earth, gays and lesbians are living in fear for the first time in many decades. Why? Because of the Muslim lads in the Netherlands who like to go gay bashing in the gay districts. People like Theo Van Gogh are murdered and British Muslims march with signs calling his murderer a hero. The Pope is told what he may or may not quote in a speech to a University in Europe.

Wait until your wife or girlfriend is left standing alone at an airport in the middle of the night because Ali considered her dress “too immodest” for his taste and tell me THEN how much you are willing to defend him.

It will NOT stop until we stand up for our rights and freedoms here in the west. Now. Today.

I do not drink ANY alcohol, but if ever I choose to buy a bottle as a gift for a friend and some Muslim leaves me freezing my ass at an airport at 2 a.m., he may not be drinking the alcohol, but his cab is going to be wearing it, let me tell you.

If you don’t like it here, Mohammed, don’t come here!

[Valteron]

You know, if I were a cabbie and someone in a burqua with her face (or perhaps HIS face???) covered hailed my cab, what if I were to say that I refuse to take her (or possibly him) because I can’t see their face and could not identify them if they robbed me?

Or what if I, a fervent Christian cabbie, look and notice that the prospective fare is carrying a copy of an infamous book that denies that Jesus was the Son of God. I am talking about the Koran. May I refuse to take them as a fare? Can I not refuse to carry a person with a book that specifically denies the truth about my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? What about MY religious feelings? What if I find that this person is carrying a whole suitcase of Korans, to spread the doctrine that denies the divinity of my sweet Jesus? God might send me to Hell for participating in the transport of such blasphemy!

[DocCathode]

@Valteron

What about MY religious feelings?

Those are irrelevant if you’re discriminating on the basis of a protected class. If you refuse to pick up a fare on a basis other than being a member of a protectec class, you’re within your rights.

I don’t know why you care about cabs though. You’re always talking about catching the bus.

[Miller]

@Valteron

I don’t know about all cities in the US, but I know that in Canada, you usually have to show that you have no criminal record, for example, if you want a licence to drive a cab. And you have to be willing to serve the public irrespective of race, religion, etc. Why? Because, along with the right to drive a cab comes the responsibility to offer the public safe, impartial service and to keep your fucking opinions to yourself.

You expect cabbies to keep their opinions to themselves? Have you ever been in a cab before?

Okay, so how about the Muslim-Lebanese cabbie who refuses to pick up Jews coming off a flight from Israel? Will we allow that?

Well, in the States, that would be racial discrimination, which is illegal, and therefore not at all like the situation described in the OP.

What about a member of the Church of the Creator (a white supremacist church) who refuses to pick up non-whites?

Well, in the States, that would be racial discrimination, which is illegal, and therefore not at all like the situation described in the OP.

Or the angry Kashmiri Muslim who refuses to pick up East Indians (Hindus).

Well, in the States, that would be racial discrimination, which is illegal, and therefore not at all like the situation described in the OP.

Or a Muslim or a Christian cabbie who refuses to carry a passenger with a bunch of books promoting atheism, all decked out in a T-shirts promoting the American Atheist Association and going to the local convention of their group?

Finally, a different example! I was getting tired of pressing “Ctrl-V” over an over.

However, the dog still won’t hunt. Refusing to transport someone because of their religion is against the law. The cabbies in question aren’t refusing to transport people who are of a different religion, they are refusing to transport alcohol, because they feel that doing so will violate their religion. So, again, your example is not at all like the example described in the OP.

Or a Jehovah’s Witness cabbie who refuses to take bottles of a rare blood type being rushed to a hospital for an emergency?

Somehow, I don’t see a taxi cab being used for this particular function.

In Canada, a cabbie (I don’t even remember what religion he was) was warned he would have his licence revoked if he repeated his stunt of throwing out two gay guys who were holding hands in the back of his cab. Now, if they were giving one another blow jobs in the back seat, that would be a matter of public indecency. But the courts said he would not have thrown out a man and a woman who had been holding hands.

And I imagine that would be because Canada has laws specifically forbidding discrimination against sexual orientation. We don’t have such laws in much of the US, so that would actually be legal down here, depending on the state. Not a situation I’m particularly fond of, but there it is.

Let’s face it. We are letting these Muslims – who have no idea of of respect for the concepts of separation of church and state and religious pluralism – impose their religion on us here in the west.

Judging by this post, neither do you.

In Muslim countries, OTOH, they do not give a fucking inch. Try having a woman walk down the street in a sun dress in Saudi Arabia and see what happens.

So what? You think we should try to be more like Saudi Arabia?

Wait until your wife or girlfriend is left standing alone at an airport in the middle of the night because Ali considered her dress “too immodest” for his taste and tell me THEN how much you are willing to defend him.

Just as much as I’m willing to defend him right now. The principle of liberty is not dependent on the degree to which you agree with me. I think traditional Muslim ideas about proprietary are stupid and ugly. However, having the right to hold those ideas trumps the content of the ideas themselves.

It will NOT stop until we stand up for our rights and freedoms here in the west. Now. Today.

We are standing up for our rights and freedoms. That’s why we’re arguing that Muslims should have the right to freely observe the strictures of their religion, so long as it does not violate any laws or harm other people. Missing a cab, in my book, is not sufficient harm to overturn that principle. Wait for the next goddamn cab, already. You know your life is pretty damned good when you consider having to walk ten feet down the curb to the next cab to be a gross imposition on your civil liberties.

I do not drink ANY alcohol, but if ever I choose to buy a bottle as a gift for a friend and some Muslim leaves me freezing my ass at an airport at 2 a.m., he may not be drinking the alcohol, but his cab is going to be wearing it, let me tell you.

And then you get arrested for assault. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

If you don’t like it here, Mohammed, don’t come here!

Cute.

[Cheesesteak]

@DocCathode

Those are irrelevant if you’re discriminating on the basis of a protected class. If you refuse to pick up a fare on a basis other than being a member of a protectec class, you’re within your rights.

The government can force me (in violation of my religious beliefs) to pick up a fare because of a non-discrimination law, but they can’t force me to pick up a fare because of a taxi licensing law. Is that right?

I wonder what allows one law to force me to act in violation of my religion, but won’t allow other laws to do the same.

[Miller]

@Cheesesteak

The government can force me (in violation of my religious beliefs) to pick up a fare because of a non-discrimination law, but they can’t force me to pick up a fare because of a taxi licensing law. Is that right?

I wonder what allows one law to force me to act in violation of my religion, but won’t allow other laws to do the same.

That would be the Constitution of the United States, in which your freedom of religion is enshrined. It can only be overturned by another ammendment, and so far as I know, there is no ammendment which specifically addresses taxi licensing laws.

[Cheesesteak]

Which constitutional amendment sets up these protected classes?

[DanBlather]

@Valteron

You know, if I were a cabbie and someone in a burqua with her face (or perhaps HIS face???) covered hailed my cab, what if I were to say that I refuse to take her (or possibly him) because I can’t see their face and could not identify them if they robbed me?

Or what if I, a fervent Christian cabbie, look and notice that the prospective fare is carrying a copy of an infamous book that denies that Jesus was the Son of God. I am talking about the Koran. May I refuse to take them as a fare? Can I not refuse to carry a person with a book that specifically denies the truth about my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? What about MY religious feelings? What if I find that this person is carrying a whole suitcase of Korans, to spread the doctrine that denies the divinity of my sweet Jesus? God might send me to Hell for participating in the transport of such blasphemy!

This is the most interesting hypothetical so far. Carrying a Koran vs being a Muslim. Imagine a book salesman that has a box full of Korans. Even if he is a Muslim, and has his own personal copy of the Koran on him, one could argue that selling* the Koran is secular and not-protected by the constitution.

I find the whole issue really interesting and I think it would make a great SC case. Another scenario would be a passenger with an Athesit T-shirt. Can a religious cabbie turn them away? It’s possible to argue that espressing a disbelief or hostility to religion does not place one in a protected class.

• Technically, the Koran is not supposed to be sold. It is OK to sell the binding however.

[LonesomePolecat]

And now the bastards are refusing to carry seeing-eye dogs in Australia.

And in connection with this, we have a viciously racist comment by Neil Sachs of the Victorian Taxi Association: “Muslims are good people and the community has to realise that the days of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant are well and truly over.”

I don’t like conservatives, but I fucking hate liberals.