[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Open a new thread.
[/QUOTE]
There is clearly no point given your attitude in this thread. I choke to have to agree with Shodan but I really do think you should take a deep breath, step back from the thread and reflect on your performance as a moderator in these instances.
My apology was to my initial comment on Anduril’s first post.
Beyond that, we obviously disagree on several points.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Alternatively, a poster who enters a thread for no other reason than to pick a fight with a Moderator is in violation of the rules and might better take his efforts to the Pit where they belong.
[/QUOTE]
Or even one who charges into a thread throwing insults, even if he is not wearing his moderator hat.
No one is picking a fight with you, tom - it seems much more the other way around, right from the get-go.
Indeed.
Regards,
Shodan
One if my GF’s students is a Muslim girl who wrot an essay on how difficult it is to grow up left-handed in Muslim culture. Apparently there are all kinds of things you’re not supposed to do with your left hand because it traditionally “unclean”. When she related that it struck me that all the outrageous restrictions on personal freedom under Islam that we’ve hearing about for a number of years are just the tip of the iceberg.
Most religions impose some unreasonable restrictions, but Islam has greatly exceeded it’s quota.
Come now, all manner of nasty things have been done to lefties by Christians up until very recently as well. The “outrageous restrictions on personal freedom under Islam” are by and large actually garden-variety restrictions on personal freedom common to almost all societies throughout history, with modern Western culture being nearly the only exception. Islam isn’t uniquely repressive; we are uniquely permissive. Permissive is good, of course, but you’ve got to make allowances for people and cultures that haven’t had time to get with the program.
One of my sisters-in-law grew up in West Virginia. She’s left-handed and was forced to use those bent spoons and bent forks to break her of that “awful habit.” This was done so that people in the area wouldn’t think she was possessed.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Come now, all manner of nasty things have been done to lefties by Christians up until very recently as well. The “outrageous restrictions on personal freedom under Islam” are by and large actually garden-variety restrictions on personal freedom common to almost all societies throughout history, with modern Western culture being nearly the only exception. Islam isn’t uniquely repressive; we are uniquely permissive. Permissive is good, of course, but you’ve got to make allowances for people and cultures that haven’t had time to get with the program.
[/QUOTE]
No. It is not. Islam is in a class of its own as far as repression is concerned. You only have to research on the subject to learn this.
[QUOTE=orvenq]
No. It is not. Islam is in a class of its own as far as repression is concerned. You only have to research on the subject to learn this.
[/QUOTE]
You badly underestimate human capacity for inhumanity.
When I was in high school, my Russian tutor would smack my hand every time I began to write. Not a Muslim.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
You badly underestimate human capacity for inhumanity.
[/QUOTE]
I’m well aware of the human capacity for inhumanity. But I also am aware of the fact that with Islam, inhumanity is sanctioned.
[QUOTE=orvenq]
But I also am aware of the fact that with Islam, inhumanity is sanctioned.
[/QUOTE]
I suggest you acquaint yourself with the defintion of the word fact.
[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
Magiver, you’re welcome to hold that opinion. Legally, however, the city of Minneapolis is free to interpret the charter however they wish within the bounds set by the courts, or to change the charter however they wish. If they choose to interpret and enforce the charter as you wish, they would be open to some legal challenges, on which they may or may not prevail. You are free to advocate for whatever laws and public policies you desire, but the legal facts are as I’ve stated them.
[/QUOTE]
nitpik
MAC - Metropolitan Airports Commission. The airport isn’t in Minneapolis. The MAC licenses taxis for airport service.
[QUOTE=Monty]
I suggest you acquaint yourself with the defintion of the word fact.
[/QUOTE]
I suggest you get acquainted with Islam.
[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
nitpik
MAC - Metropolitan Airports Commission. The airport isn’t in Minneapolis. The MAC licenses taxis for airport service.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Dangerosa. I’m glad someone is still interested in the actual topic of the thread. I’m not holding out much hope for getting back to it, though. They might as well close it at this point, but I think even Tom might have given up by now. 
[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
Thanks, Dangerosa. I’m glad someone is still interested in the actual topic of the thread. I’m not holding out much hope for getting back to it, though. They might as well close it at this point, but I think even Tom might have given up by now.
[/QUOTE]
I just find it funny because I fly in and out all the time from that airport - usually taking cabs. This really isn’t a big deal - the dispatcher just needs to make sure that in addition to a van, a HC accessible van, there is also a taxi, van and HC accessible van lined up to take a passenger carrying liquor.
Plenty of cabs in the Twin Cities. If these guys want to turn down fares, it isn’t like they have a monopoly.
(Actually, Minneapolis hasn’t given out new cab licenses in years - but the Somali’s driving the cabs don’t own the licenses. They don’t make enough profit for the companies that do, those licenses will go to other cabbies. Had a friend who drove cab - it isn’t an easy way to make a living and you can’t be turning up your nose at people simply carrying alcohol - people who are going to vomit on the inside of your cab cause they are so darn drunk - those you can not pick up. The market will take care of this PDQ - if its a problem at all. It will be a lesson in economics for our new Somali future citizens (who, by the way, are extremely pleasant as a rule, everyone I’ve met, and my mother in law works with Somali immigrants - are kind and hardworking.))
(these guys, for instance: http://www.gopherstatetaxi.com/ they really do wear overalls. A little to bigoted for my taste, but they have a really good dispatch service).
[QUOTE=Anduril]
They still operate under a franchise, and those franchises can be revoked. I would imagine that a regulatory agency exists that governs them. What’s wrong with compelling them to take passengers who carry an unopened bottle of liquor?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. They operate under the auspices of the State of Minnesota (or perhaps the city). They have no right to refuse a fair unless they fear their lives are in danger.
How is this different than someone refusing to pick up a black person?
[QUOTE=Lochdale]
How is this different than someone refusing to pick up a black person?
[/QUOTE]
Because race is a protected class. “carrying alcohol” is not.
[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
(Actually, Minneapolis hasn’t given out new cab licenses in years - but the Somali’s driving the cabs don’t own the licenses. They don’t make enough profit for the companies that do, those licenses will go to other cabbies. Had a friend who drove cab - it isn’t an easy way to make a living and you can’t be turning up your nose at people simply carrying alcohol - people who are going to vomit on the inside of your cab cause they are so darn drunk - those you can not pick up. The market will take care of this PDQ - if its a problem at all. It will be a lesson in economics for our new Somali future citizens (who, by the way, are extremely pleasant as a rule, everyone I’ve met, and my mother in law works with Somali immigrants - are kind and hardworking.))
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm…interesting. If these drivers are actually employees of the cab companies and not independent contractors, then the companies they work for, if they have at least 15 employees, are required by federal law (the 1961 Civil Rights Act) to accomodate the religious beliefs and practices of the drivers unless they can show that doing show would cause undue hardship to the bussiness. That law trumps any regulations at the state or local level, including the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
[QUOTE=Lochdale]
Exactly. They operate under the auspices of the State of Minnesota (or perhaps the city). They have no right to refuse a fair unless they fear their lives are in danger.
How is this different than someone refusing to pick up a black person?
[/QUOTE]
Wait a minute…you actually think they have to have fear for their lives in order to turn down a fare? That’s not what even the most restrictive reading of the Minneapolis code suggests. (And it turns out the airport isn’t even in Minneapolis, so the rule about accepting all orderly passengers may not apply anyway.
Really…I wish people would read the thread and think about things a little bit before posting ridiculous opinions with no basis in either law or fact. But then this would have been a much shorter thread. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
Hmmm…interesting. If these drivers are actually employees of the cab companies and not independent contractors, then the companies they work for, if they have at least 15 employees, are required by federal law (the 1961 Civil Rights Act) to accomodate the religious beliefs and practices of the drivers unless they can show that doing show would cause undue hardship to the bussiness.
[/QUOTE]
Losing your license sounds like a hardship to me.