Explain the medallions and commercial drivers licenses then
Back To The OP
In all seriousness, I’d think customers eating pork products or transporting dogs would be more of an issue. Alcohol is haram but AFAIK it isn’t considered foul and unclean in the same way pigs and dogs are.
I meant “yes” in that you as a private individual could discriminate on racial, ethnic, national origin, or religious reason whether or not to take a cab. They, OTOH, couldn’t discriminate against you because of your race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to not give you a ride. Discriminating against someone carrying alcohol, is not discrimination against a race, ethnicity, national orgin, or religion.
Which is the same thing I can do to them.
Well sure, but that’s not really relevant to my point…
Explain to me that cab drivers and the companies leasing the cabs are government entities.
The prohibition against alcohol is pretty well the strongest in Islam. A Muslim cannot drink, make, sell, buy, work with the stuff. (We are talking drinking alcohol here.) Muslims who invest in companies that deal in the stuff are supposed to kick back any profits made from alcohol to charity. Some actually do.
So not wanting to transport alcohol is not an unreasonable thought to a Muslim. On the other hand, I suppose it could inconvenience the public who grants the hack license.
No, but it’s descrimination FOR their religion. Positive discrimination is also discrimination. It’s rejecting anything that doesn’t accord with their worldview.
And I’m not descriminating against their religion, I’m descriminating against their policy. I choose to boycott any driver who chooses to prevent alchohol entering their cab. The moment the policy ends, I’ll go right back riding with them.
(Hypothetically, of course. I don’t really see myslef visiting the Twin Cities anytime soon).
I imagine that plenty of public and private transportation companies won’t let you board with those either.
So? They aren’t violating anyone’s protected rights.
So no matter the religion of the driver, if they refused to carry someone with alcohol, you’d refuse to ride in their cab even if you didn’t have alcohol?
If that was their stated policy - if, say, the taxis were taken over by a Mormon cartel - then yes, absolutely.
And by boycotting them I’m not violating their rights, either.
I never said that you were.
It’s a bit off on a tangent, I admit. But, if they have the temerity to inconvenience passengers with their religious belief (I initially thought that refusing passengers is not allowed there as it is not allowed in other places) then they should make sure that they are following someone respectable (as opposed to a murdering, cowardly pedophile). Anyway, my appreciation of their prophet is certainly very much in line with historical documents that Muslim scholars themselves adjudge as the most accurate.
“Carrying alcohol” is not a religion. It’s not discriminating against a religion to refuse service to those carrying alcohol. A private business must provide service to protected classes, such as women, minorities, and people of various faiths. “People carrying alcohol” isn’t one of them.
Only the government is prohibited from establishing a religion. It’s perfectly legal for a private person to try and convert others. But even that’s not happening here.
Regardless, taxi drivers are not government workers. They are, generally, independant contractors or, more often, privately incorporated “companies” renting a cab by the day. They hold business and professional licenses from the state or city, but they are not employees of the state or city. They may, within the limits of their rental agreements with the cab company, choose their own fares as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class, just as a store owner may refuse to allow children or people wearing no shoes and no shirt, or a restaurant owner may refuse someone wearing a polo instead of a sports jacket.
And, of course you as a private citizen have every right to boycott them on any principle - even that of their religion. There are no “protected classes” for boycotts.
This sounds a lot like the old “I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody” that the ol’ redneck boys used to refuse service to black people in the south in the '60s. It may be private transportation, but can they refuse service to, say, someone in uniform? How about black people?
Thanks for the clarification. In other places, taxi cabs are considered public transportation and are regulated. Here, they cannot refuse passengers (except for rowdy or drunk individuals) and they do not set their own fares.
I would imagine that since discriminating against someone on the basis of skin colour is against the law, they could refuse service but open themselves up to a lawsuit. Since discriminating against someone based on them carrying alcohol isn’t protected, your analogy is flawed.
On the other hand, refusing to serve someone in uniform, though, I think you could get away with. Wasn’t there a big hullaballoo about U.S. soldiers not being served at places due to the Iraq war a while back? I can’t recall anyone being sued for that, though my memory certainly isn’t the best.
banging head against the keyboard
They must provide service to those of protected classes. “Carrying alcohol” is not a protected class.
Actually, avoiding the taxis with colored lights would not be discrimination based on ethnic, racial or religious background unless Minneapolis foolishly placed the colored lights on all taxis driven by Somalians or Muslims. Any Somalian Muslim who chose to carry all passengers should receive no warning lights and, therefore, the discrimination will be based exclusively on the hack’s decision to offer a lower level of customer service.
Oh, bullshit.
You have taken some incidents of supposed history (that may or may not reflect specific events correctly), and summed them up in inflammatory language for the purpsoe of being insulting. It’s a cheap stunt that makes you look like an ass.
Hmmm. I followed this from an e-mail and thought it was in the BBQ Pit. My apologies to the board for the last remark.