Then whatevef authority/municipality controls the airport will have regulations thats govern. My point was, other than a genuine concern/fear for the cab or the cab driver they have no grounds to stand on. A cab driver is licensed under the rules of the regulatory authority which trumps their own regulations.
Um, what?
The cab company has to allow the drivers to exercise their religious beliefs, unless accomodating them would place an undue hardship upon the cab company. The company wouldn’t lose its licence, becasue the MAC has already ruled that these drivers can be accomodated, and if they hadn’t the federal law would trump the MAC regulations anyway.
Jesus Christ, is anybody actually reading the thread before they post? :rolleyes:
Um, what?
The cab company has to allow the drivers to exercise their religious beliefs, unless accomodating them would place an undue hardship upon the cab company. The company wouldn’t lose its licence, becasue the MAC has already ruled that these drivers can be accomodated, and if they hadn’t the federal law would trump the MAC regulations anyway.
Jesus Christ, is anybody actually reading the thread before they post? :rolleyes:
“This is Abuse; Arguments are down the hall.”
Was somebody proposing that the cab companies fire their drivers even with the accomodation? I’m arguing that the accomodation should not have been made, and the drivers should either do their jobs or get new jobs.
I don’t think the feds have a case because the MAC is approving licenses to provide a service. Part of the requirements to be a service vendor is to serve all customers. Anyone who is unwilling to serve all customers can go get a different job of their choice. Where is the discrimination? It’s not like this is some NEW rule, it’s always been the rule, and these people have chosen to take on this job, following those rules, for decades.
I am, and I am obviously far more acquainted with Islam than you are. I have also served with Muslims while I was on Active Duty in the US Armed Forces. I have had a number of discussions with them about both their faith and mine. I have also researched the religion to include reading the Qur’an. What I don’t do is make baseless insults against it.
Your comment about Islam and your comment to me both indicate you really have no clue about Islam. There are more than a couple of posters on this board who have managed to explain that religion in a fairly easy to understand manner. Perhaps you should take a few minutes out of your day and learn about it before you whip off another one liner.
Best post yet.
Who cares about the legality of the situation? The cab drivers are acting like superstitious jerks. If this were some Fundie Christian cabbie refusing to pick up a fair carrying rock CD’s because he read in a Chick tract that rock and roll is the devil’s music, there wouldn’t even be a debate. We’d just pit him and be done with it. Why isn’t that the case here?
Look even if there is a God, it’s not going to send you to hell for all eternity just 'cause your carrying a box of wine in your cab. That’s just silly. It’s just as stupid as believing that blonds are space aliens and it should not be respected by the law or civilized intelligent people.
Several posters have argued that the law is on the cabbies side. If this is true, it’s unfortunate. It seems to me that if one’s business is providing a licenced public service, one’s contract with the state should require that you not impose your superstitions on the people you serve. If you’re in the business of providing public transportation you should be required to carry any safe legal cargo. If the law says differently, than the law needs to be changed. Until it is, I guess when aunt Millie returns to Minnesota from vacation with the case of California wine she picked up, she’s shit out of luck.
What if he refused service to a woman who was unaccompanied by a man and whose hair and/or face were uncovered? In that case, it wouldn’t matter whether or not she belonged to a “protected class.” He would obviously be trying to force his religious principles on her. And it would be no different from refusing to provide service to people who are transporting alcohol legally. What next? Is he allowed to refuse me service because he doesn’t like a book or magazine that I’m carrying? What if I’m headed to a bar? Is he entitled to refuse to carry me there?
I maintain that, to hold a hack’s license, he must be willing to provide service to anyone who isn’t doing anything illegal, is not behaving in a disruptive or abusive manner, and pays his fare. He isn’t allowed to choose his customers on the basis of his religious principles.
If he wants to do that, he can go back where he came from. And good riddance.
Does the same apply to pharmacists who refuse on the basis of their religious principles to fill legal prescriptions for “Plan B” morning-after pills or contraceptives?
This was brought up near the beginning of the thread, but not pursued. I sure hope anybody here who’s upset about Muslim cabbies being allowed to refuse service to non-lawbreaking alcohol-carrying customers is feeling equally indignant about Christian pharmacists being allowed to refuse service to non-lawbreaking emergency-contraception-seeking customers.
This is by no means a dead issue either, as legislators in nearly half the US states have introduced bills to legalize pharmacists’ “right to refuse” in their current legislative sessions.
I am immensely skeptical of this.
Yep, it sure does.
Yes absolutely. Why wouldn’t it? In fact the pharmacists are an even bigger problem, as the consequences of not getting a Plan B pill are far worse than the consequences of not getting a cab.
Nonsense is nonsense. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Christian nonsense, Jewish nonsense, or Islamic nonsense. You’re free to have your superstitions, but you shouldn’t work at a job which requires you to inflict them on the general public.
I have no problem with you being skeptical of it, to any degree. I should’ve said so that her family, not the people in the area, wouldn’t think that. Anywhere you go, you’re liable to find some backwards jerks. In the OP, the backwards jerks are the drivers. In my s-i-l’s case, the backwards jerks were the relatives who couldn’t be bothered to accept the fact that people are different.
I’m frankly amazed at how many people are a)opposed to current federal civil rights legislation, and b) want the government to step in and make sure no one is making business decisions based on irrational belief. (Really? You want the government doing this?)
I used to think this board was happily liberal-leaning with several outspoken libertarians and and a sizable minority of traditional conservatives. But these positions are . . . I don’t know what . . . . Bizarre, frankly. Are you really so unwilling to let other people make their own moral judgements, even when the inconvenience to you is, frankly, minimal? Do you really think the alternative is better?
If the alternative is to allow companies to fire people that won’t do their job, then yes, the alternative is better.
I don’t want to see the government protecting people that want to pass their moral judgements on me. The GOV shouldn’t have to step in. That’s the whole point. Business should be able to regulate this. I am not passing moral judgements on anyone by wanting to by a bottle in the duty free shop.
Myself, I would like to see these guys fired for not performing their duties while on the job. But, because of unions, it probably can’t be done. So, at the very least, they should have to go around the block and get in the back of the queue where they can ruminate about the job they picked or the religion they follow.
Again, I ask, why is this all of a sudden an issue? There have be muslim drivers in this country for decades. Did they all go to hell for carrying a bottle of wine in their cab?
And who should fire the independent cabbies? Or do you really want government stepping in after all?
It sounds like people want the cabbies to be punished in some way. The fact that the Minneapolis airport has adopted a system that means no one has to wait for a cab isn’t enough. The cabbies should have to go to the end of the line and think about what they’ve done, like a five-year old who threw a rocka t someone’s car.
I wonder if this would be happening if the cabbies in question were Jewish.
(And should Jews be forced to work on the Sabbath? What if the majority of cabbies in an area are Jewish, and it becomes hard to find a cab on Friday night?)
I also don’t see what difference it makes how long this has been going on. Maybe people just started complaining about it since it became know it was a religious issue (as opposed to just cab policy). Maybe there is a recent influx of immigrants from a part of Somalia where this is common Muslim belief. Maybe a prominant Imam just made a ruling on the matter. Who cares?
You really think the inconvenience of someone not getting a Plan B pill is minimal?
As far as the airport cab situation goes, if a sizable minority of cabbies are refusing to pick you up the inconvenience, while not rising to the level of being unable to get a morning after pill, is pretty damn annoying. It’s not what I’d call “minimal,” especially after a long flight with it’s delays and hassles.
I’m not sure what your point is. Governments regulate businesses all the time. The taxi business is heavily regualted in most major cities. The government determines the fare, licenses cabs, determines whether fares will be calculated by zones or meters, etc. etc. I don’t see why it’s so outlandish to require that cabbies be required to carry all safe and legal cargo. If a cab driver feels it’s impossible for him or her to carry a certain cargo, they should get a job that’s compatible with their beliefs.
No. Which is why I think the pharmacy issue is much more complicated. I still generally side with the pharmacy owners being able to set their own policy on the matter, though.
I’d consider it minimal compared to restricting someone’s abilty either to run their bussiness the way they want or to practice their religious beliefs. But that’s not the point. All the evidence suggests that the Minneapolis airport (where no one has demonstrated that cabbies have any requirements to pick up all passengers) has found a solution that doesn’t cause anyone to be delayed. It may be a hassle for the person running the cab line, but not for you. Strangely, that doesn’t seem to satisfy some people.
It isn’t. But no one has shown it’s the case (the law cited applies to the city of Minneapolis, not the outlying Minneapolis Airport) and I don’t find it outlandish not to have such a regulation. As long as cabbies aren’t discriminating against a protected class, I’d think it is perfectly reasonable to allow them pretty wide discression in who they allow into their car, just like pilots do on an airplane. I’ve had cabbies pick me up when they had no idea how to get to my (admittedly out of the way) destination. Maybe it’s because they were required to by some assinine regulation.
Again, should Jews be forced to work Saturdays?
You served with Muslims? I am Muslim. I don’t make baseless insults. I do not want to further hijack this thread. I will start a new thread about this and let’s discuss it there.
Guess what, if they run a government linked business which it is deemed important for service to be rendered on Saturday, which service has always been rendered on Saturday, and they agree (upon beginning the business) to provide service on Saturday, then yes, they need to work Saturday, or choose a business where Saturday hours are discretionary.
For example, I’m sure the goverment, on some of their computer systems, purchase 24x7 maintenance contracts. If they purchase those contracts from a jewish owned company, and the company decides a decade later to suspend Saturday operations, the government should be within their rights to demand Saturday service, or cancel the contract for a new provider.
If the work contract violates your religious beliefs, find work that is agreeable instead.