Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam
Oh geez. You know, private industry discriminates all the time for a wide range of reasons. I really don't see how this is any different. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, it's unreasonable. But companies are free to be as stupid and unreasonable as they want.
I'll give you an example. I want to get the space below the room over my garage spray foamed. I phone every place in town. They all told me to take a hike. Why? Because the job was too small for them. None of them will take a job below $1500. I got discriminated against.
How about the Calgary Petroleum Club? They didn't allow women to join for decades, and I didn't see anyone here outraged over it.
I invest in the Chou RRSP fund. They require a minimum investment of $15K. What about all those poor little investors that want to invest in it? They're discriminated against.
Yeah, you can throw the "but it's religion!" into the mix. Big deal. I see secular forms of discrimination all the time. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, it's unreasonable. And I'll say it again, companies are free to be as stupid and unreasonable as they want.
I'm going to ask a question here: If those cabbies weren't Muslim, and they wanted to refuse customers that had alcohol on them because of some other reason (pick one), would you still be saying the same things you are now?
|
Once again, the issue is not the cabbies right to refuse service for whatever reason. The example of the Petroleum Club is a clear case of gender descrimination which is prohibited by law forcing the culd to include women. The example of businesses that refuse service to preserve a profit margin I think are good one in this case. All those private enterprises (cabs, foam sprayers, etc.) CAN, WILL and DO refuse service.
The real question here is should there be an accomodation made for those businesses so they are not financially penalized for refusing service.
In your cases those businesses lose out on the income provided by small jobs - creating a market for invesment companies that accept less than $15K investments or for a foam sprayer to cater to small jobs - but are not asking for special treatment in getting the next contract.
The cabbies are asking for special treatment - the creation of a system whereby their cabs are identified as "Muslim" cabs (yes, it starts out as "non-alcohol" cabs, but can escalate to "no-short-skirts", "no-dogs"). If the prospective passenger has no-alcohol the cab jocky calls for a cab with blue lights (a Muslim cab), if there is alcohol, then he calls for a cab without the lights.
So, let's look at your question: It is twofold - other cabbies refusing service and other religious cabbies asking for special treatment. The answer for non-religious cabbies is clear - refuse service go to the back of the line.
Special treatment for other religious cabbies - Jewish cabbies refuse service to passengers carrying Halifax lobsters. Should their cabs have a yellow light on the roof denoting that they are "non-lobster" cabs? Of course not.
Try asking this question - can a passenger not carrying alcohol refuse a ride from the "non-alcohol" "Muslim" cab and just take the next regular cab in line? I would think that as a passenger i could ride in whatever cab I wanted. But, the current industry standard is that the 2nd or 3rd cabbie in line will refuse you service and send you to the first cab in that line. If a cabbie can refuse me service for whatever reason, can't I refuse to ride in a particular cab for whatever reason?
Singling out Muslim cab drivers for special treatment creates a two tiered system and it is not that farfetched for the list of 'banned passenger substances' to go from booze to dogs to women who are not dressed in a burka. It is not that farfetched to go from 'Muslim cabs with blue lights' to 'Jewish cabs with yellow lights' to 'christian cabs with purple lights'. Improbable, but not impossible.
(as a side, I have noted that in many cities the cab declare that the passenger is entitled to a 'quite' ride - one where the drive does not try to bring you 'into the fold' or berate you with forgien policy debates - in those cases a devoute Evangelist would have a problem as they religiously believe in prostylization and need to ask everyone if they have "found the Lord". Should they be allowed to wait for a passenger who is willing the hear their message?)