"Muslim cabbies Want to Discriminate Against Customers"

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

What seems injust: Forcing these drivers to go against their religion, or making alcohol consumers take a different cab?

Letting them stay at the front of the line when other drivers would take those fares.

Here, there is a simple way to both appease the practising Muslims, that really doesn't affect anyone.

-It affects passengers in that city who have been drinking (or carrying alcohol) and are having trouble finding a cab
-It affects the other drivers who should be getting their spot at the front of the line.
It also forces an increased amount of drunk people into the cabs of those other drivers while reserving the sober people for the muslim driver. It's not fair to the other drivers that they would now have to transport an increased number of drunks.
I would imagine all cab drivers want a fair shot at getting the well behaved sober people, instead of be demoted to the drinkers.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

I never said anyone is forcing the cab drivers to drink, they are, however, forcing them to compromise their religion. The Muslims are not making anyone not comsume alcohol, they just will not do anything that goes against their beliefs. What seems injust: Forcing these drivers to go against their religion, or making alcohol consumers take a different cab?

Of corse we have to co-exist, so why are you so vehemently against allowing these Muslims an equal oppurtunity to do their jobs without facing moral dillemas? Forcing Muslim drivers to take passengers that are in direct contradiction to their religion is not "co-existing". Fine, 2% of people taking cabs are sober on a Friday night, but I am willing to bet that the percentage is much, much higher at the airport. Even so, if the percentage is this high, this still gives non-Muslim drivers an advantage as they clearly have a bigger customer base. Again, this isn't giving Muslim drivers an advantage, it is more or less rearranging the fares so that when a non-alcohol consumer is available, the Muslim driver can get it. Again, what is the problem with this?!?!? You might have to dumb down your response to this question as I do not understand why anyone would be upset about this.

This isn't anything at all like a vegetarian that is wondering why he/she should have to cut the meat - vegetarianism clearly is not a religion, and there are probably no alternative ways to make the vegetarian still be a butcher without crossing any moral lines. Here, there is a simple way to both appease the practising Muslims, that really doesn't affect anyone.

How exactly does giving a ride home to someone who has been drinking comprimise the religion?? I still don't get that. The person in the cab is not forcing the cabbie to drink. You admit that. So how does that person being in the cab comprimise the religion? Is their beer breath getting the cabbie drunk?? Does the cabbie lick the sweat off the seats and end up getting drunk? Seriously, how the F does this comprimise the cabbie's religion? This is what I mean by coexisting ... i get drunk, i get in cab, i don't expect the cabbie to drink, cabbie doesn't expect me to stop drinking, we go about our business. Thats how it should work.

The vegetarian analogy is legit. What is a religion other than a set of guidelines that you live your life by? Vegetarianism is the same thing. If you cannot admit that driving drunk people is a large part of the job description of a cabbie, you are living on another planet. You can't become a cabbie and not expect that. Its just plain ######ed.

[BlackEleven]

What if I'm a corner-store owner, for example, and a Christian? Should I be allowed to refuse service to people based on my religion? Say, homosexuals? Can I put a sign in the window that says 'No homosexuals allowed'?

In a society where many religions exists, situtations are bound to come up where religious beliefs of individuals are in conflict with the rights of others. This is one of those cases. The passengers have just as much right to consume and carry liquor as the cabbies have to practise their religion. In these situation of conflict, I think commonly held values of society have to take precendence over a single religion. And one of those commonly held values is that no one should be refused a service based on their sexual orientation, religion or what they happen to chose to do in their own personal time.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

What if I'm a corner-store owner, for example, and a Christian? Should I be allowed to refuse service to people based on my religion? Say, homosexuals? Can I put a sign in the window that says 'No homosexuals allowed'?

Apparently RMS believes that there should just be two kinds of stores, one that caters to homosexuals, and one that doesn't... real nice and 'free'. Sounds like religious apartheid to me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So rather than having a system that rearranges passengers at the airport so that Muslim drivers can have a fair chance and allow them to follow their beliefs, it's better if all Muslims just aren't cab drivers...

I don't think this is what North America is supposed to be about - it reminds me of some kind of dictatorship...

You know what reminds me of a dictatorship? People of a certain religion getting special treatment simply because they follow that religion.

This is a joke. If someone refuses to do the job (drive people home from the airport after they go to the duty-free shop) then they shouldn't have it.

A vegetarian shouldn't work at a slaughterhouse, a Bible-thumper shouldn't work at a porno store, a Mormon shouldn't be selling Pepsi and a person who refuses to allow booze in their cab shouldn't work where people with booze will be getting in their cab.

[Flashpoint]

Some interesting parallels here. The Drugstore guy who refused to fill a prescription for the morning after pill because he was pro life. The Canadian Legion voting to bar turbans because of their remove your headdress rule.

The difference here is that the cabbies are asking for special treatment – they have every right to refuse to pick up whomever they want for whatever reason they want. It is their right to be as bigoted as they choose. The problem arises where in making that choice, they no longer have to pay the consequence – going to the back of the line for 3 hours.

No way any public authority should support that.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You know what reminds me of a dictatorship? People of a certain religion getting special treatment simply because they follow that religion.

This is a joke. If someone refuses to do the job (drive people home from the airport after they go to the duty-free shop) then they shouldn't have it.

A vegetarian shouldn't work at a slaughterhouse, a Bible-thumper shouldn't work at a porno store, a Mormon shouldn't be selling Pepsi and a person who refuses to allow booze in their cab shouldn't work where people with booze will be getting in their cab.

Exactly, but it's not the gov't's job to decide whether they should have it. It is the owner of the business's job to decide. Taxi service is a little different because it is a private business that is publicly monitored and restricted.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You know what reminds me of a dictatorship? People of a certain religion getting special treatment simply because they follow that religion.

This is a joke. If someone refuses to do the job (drive people home from the airport after they go to the duty-free shop) then they shouldn't have it.

A vegetarian shouldn't work at a slaughterhouse, a Bible-thumper shouldn't work at a porno store, a Mormon shouldn't be selling Pepsi and a person who refuses to allow booze in their cab shouldn't work where people with booze will be getting in their cab.

Exactly.

[MoneyGuy]

So, cabbies make so much money that they can afford to refuse paying passengers?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

So, cabbies make so much money that they can afford to refuse paying passengers?

How much do they make anyway? The amount it costs to go from the Airport to downtown....you would think they are rich. Not to mention....they are so busy...try getting a cab on the weekend.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Off topic: Some of the cabbies in Vegas make a ton of money. They make deals with certain clubs and strip clubs to bring passengers and they get paid off by the clubs quite nicely.
On top of that, certain cab drivers will make deals with the guys at the hotels that hook you up with a cab. They direct the clubbers to their buddies cabs and that way they can just do club runs all day and night. Get about $20 a person and split in between them.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

What if I'm a corner-store owner, for example, and a Christian? Should I be allowed to refuse service to people based on my religion? Say, homosexuals? Can I put a sign in the window that says 'No homosexuals allowed'?

In a society where many religions exists, situtations are bound to come up where religious beliefs of individuals are in conflict with the rights of others. This is one of those cases. The passengers have just as much right to consume and carry liquor as the cabbies have to practise their religion. In these situation of conflict, I think commonly held values of society have to take precendence over a single religion. And one of those commonly held values is that no one should be refused a service based on their sexual orientation, religion or what they happen to chose to do in their own personal time.

You're joking, right? You aren't drawing parallels between homosexuals and people who choose to drink, are you?

I am not even going to touch that can of worms, but just so you know, it is illegal to judge someone based on their sexual orientation, as it is something they are born with. Judging people based on their actions, such as getting wasted, is the way it should be and is anything but illegal - Just so you're up to date with the 21st century. As far as I know, Christians are allowed to interact with homosexuals... marrying them is a different story. Muslims are not supposed interact with those who possess alcohol.

Of corse there are going to be situations where religion and rights conflict each other - I suggest you read the thread, and take note of the numerous times that riding a cab is not a right whatsoever was mentioned. The only time that you can use that argument is when there is a blatent breech of someone's rights - such as human sacrificing... not catching a cab...

I hate to break it to you, but what "people choose to do in their own personal time" is exactly what everybody should be judged on. If you kill a person in your "personal time" you're telling me that you shouldn't be judged on that?!?!

Oh, that's rich!

The only thing anyone SHOULD be judged on is what they do under their own free will.

Thanks for the good laugh!

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Of corse there are going to be situations where religion and rights conflict each other - I suggest you read the thread, and take note of the numerous times that riding a cab is not a right whatsoever was mentioned. The only time that you can use that argument is when there is a blatent breech of someone's rights - such as human sacrificing... not catching a cab...

Just to be clear; using a cab is not a right; however being able to hold a job as a taxi driver is?

I suppose one might argue that it is a right to be able to do whatever job a person wants to do. However somebody else might then argue that taxis fall into the category of public transportation. If it was a true private business then there wouldn't be a limit to the number of cabs on the street.

[Agamemnon]

Wow RMS... you've avoided a lot of solid arguments in this thread. Not surprising, your position is pretty weak on this topic. Why not respond to Rouge's post?

You know what reminds me of a dictatorship? People of a certain religion getting special treatment simply because they follow that religion.

This is a joke. If someone refuses to do the job (drive people home from the airport after they go to the duty-free shop) then they shouldn't have it.

A vegetarian shouldn't work at a slaughterhouse, a Bible-thumper shouldn't work at a porno store, a Mormon shouldn't be selling Pepsi and a person who refuses to allow booze in their cab shouldn't work where people with booze will be getting in their cab.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Letting them stay at the front of the line when other drivers would take those fares.

I don't think you are familiar with the painfully obvious in this situation: Let's say there are 10 cabs in line at the airport. The first customer had a free for all at the duty free shop and the first cab is a Muslim cab, but the second cab is not. Therfor the non-Muslim cab gets skipped to the front of the line. Now, instead of making the Muslim cab go all the way to the back - and chancing getting ANOTHER alcoholic fare, allowing him/her to wait for a non-alcoholic fare at the front of the line makes obvious sense, at least to me. It's not like the Muslim cab is skipping the line - they were there all along. How would this affect any other cabs in line if that cab was there in the first place? Logically, there is no negative effects either than maybe making it's way to the front of the line faster.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

-It affects passengers in that city who have been drinking (or carrying alcohol) and are having trouble finding a cab.

I kind of view this as irrelevant. I mean, the Muslim drivers are not going to pick up passengers that have been drinking. That's a given, this has to do with allowing them to cut the bureaucracy, if you will, of waiting in line again at the airport. You can not make these cab-drivers pick up these passengers. Yes, it sucks for those of us who like to drink, but how exactly does this affect passengers in the city that are having trouble finding a cab? If anything, this alleviates this problem. Instead of non-Muslim drivers taking fares that don't involve alcohol, the Muslim drivers will be ensured to take them (if they can stay in line) thus freeing up cabs that can pick up alcohol.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

-It affects the other drivers who should be getting their spot at the front of the line.

This is illogical, for logical reasons.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It also forces an increased amount of drunk people into the cabs of those other drivers while reserving the sober people for the muslim driver. It's not fair to the other drivers that they would now have to transport an increased number of drunks.
I would imagine all cab drivers want a fair shot at getting the well behaved sober people, instead of be demoted to the drinkers.

This is the only point that has been brought up in this entire thread that actually has some merit to it. But, I am going to use the excuse that many others have used here: if they don't want to deal with drunk people in their cab... maybe they shouldn't become cab drivers?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Just to be clear; using a cab is not a right; however being able to hold a job as a taxi driver is?

I suppose one might argue that it is a right to be able to do whatever job a person wants to do. However somebody else might then argue that taxis fall into the category of public transportation. If it was a true private business then there wouldn't be a limit to the number of cabs on the street.

I'm sorry Ken... I can't hear you over your BLATENT DISRESPECT FOR GAINER!!!



woot woot! Go Riders!

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How exactly does giving a ride home to someone who has been drinking comprimise the religion?? I still don't get that. The person in the cab is not forcing the cabbie to drink. You admit that. So how does that person being in the cab comprimise the religion? Is their beer breath getting the cabbie drunk?? Does the cabbie lick the sweat off the seats and end up getting drunk? Seriously, how the F does this comprimise the cabbie's religion? This is what I mean by coexisting ... i get drunk, i get in cab, i don't expect the cabbie to drink, cabbie doesn't expect me to stop drinking, we go about our business. Thats how it should work.

Did I stutter?

I don't exactly understand why Muslims have a problem with this, but for the last time, it's their religion that condemns it. It's like Catholics not marrying gays, it's against their religion, therefor if a priest was forced to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, that would be a compromise to his religious beliefs. What is so difficult to understand? Yes, it is wrong to drink, but apparently it is also wrong to associate with anyone possessing or under the influence of alcohol. Do you understand this? Forcing these cab drivers to take these fares are against their religious beliefs?

Originally Posted by Igottago

The vegetarian analogy is legit. What is a religion other than a set of guidelines that you live your life by? Vegetarianism is the same thing. If you cannot admit that driving drunk people is a large part of the job description of a cabbie, you are living on another planet. You can't become a cabbie and not expect that.

I am a vegetarian, and no it is not my religion. I do not worship cows or the animal gods... Honestly, I don't think I am even going to justify this with a response.

Originally Posted by Igottago

Its just plain ######ed.

I think the league should fine you $10 000 for that remark - and it's not even after a crappy call by a ref.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You're joking, right?

No.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You aren't drawing parallels between homosexuals and people who choose to drink, are you?

I'm drawing parallels between two different groups of people being discrimated against. What does it matter what the discrimination is based on? Sure, one is more severe that the other, but that the point of the analogy. You did the very same thing on page 2 of this thread when you said:

"Would you say that it is wrong for Christian cab drivers to deny fares to murderers?"

You aren't drawing parallels between murders and drinkers are you??? Oh my God, how dare you?!?! The humanity! Don't be such a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I am not even going to touch that can of worms, but just so you know, it is illegal to judge someone based on their sexual orientation, as it is something they are born with.

No it isn't. If you chose to be ignorant enough to base your judgements of people based on their sexual practises then you are free to do so. You are equally free to judge people based on your personal religious beliefs as the cabbies are doing. What we are talking about here is denying them a service based on these judgements. So my original analogy still stands, which you didn't address at all. Instead you just skirted around the issue by questioning my integrity. Attack the arguer, not the argument. How very "neo-con" of you. For someone that critizes them so much, you sure took a page right out of their playbook.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Judging people based on their actions, such as getting wasted, is the way it should be and is anything but illegal -

You can judge people on whatever you want, as I just pointed out. But can you deny them your services based on your judgements? That's the whole point, which you really like to avoid. And as an aside, here, once again you take things to exteme. Where I said "consuming or transporting alcohol" you replace it with "getting wasted". Can you argue in a reasonable fashion or do you always have turn into a drama queen at every possible turn?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Just so you're up to date with the 21st century.

Thanks for the update, Big Ben.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

As far as I know, Christians are allowed to interact with homosexuals... marrying them is a different story. Muslims are not supposed interact with those who possess alcohol.

Do you honestly believe there isn't a fundamentalist Christian organization out there that doesn't forbid it? I bet you wouldn't even have to look that hard to find out. Looks like you are the one that needs and update with the 21st century.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Of corse there are going to be situations where religion and rights conflict each other - I suggest you read the thread, and take note of the numerous times that riding a cab is not a right whatsoever was mentioned. The only time that you can use that argument is when there is a blatent breech of someone's rights - such as human sacrificing... not catching a cab...

Where did I say riding a cab was a right? I'm talking about denying a service to someone because your religious beliefs. Did you even read the original article? The same cabbies refuse to give rides to transgendered people? Is that okay with you too?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I hate to break it to you, but what "people choose to do in their own personal time" is exactly what everybody should be judged on. If you kill a person in your "personal time" you're telling me that you shouldn't be judged on that?!?!

You certainly have an obession with "judging", that's the fourth or fifth time you've used that word now. Where in my original post did I say anything about judging? That's right: nowhere. You twist the what I actually said, so you can actually come up with arguments. Certainly makes arguing easy when you can just make things, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Oh, that's rich!

The only thing that's rich here is the way you argue. Seriously. Read my post again and then read yours. You don't address anything in it. Instead you just make things up to argue with that I didn't say in the first place. But way to make yourself look like a hero.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

The only thing anyone SHOULD be judged on is what they do under their own free will.

Judging? Is this a new theme for you? I don't think I've heard you mention this yet....

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Thanks for the good laugh!

Trust me, the laughs are on you.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Did I stutter?

I don't exactly understand why Muslims have a problem with this, but for the last time, it's their religion that condemns it. It's like Catholics not marrying gays, it's against their religion, therefor if a priest was forced to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, that would be a compromise to his religious beliefs. What is so difficult to understand? Yes, it is wrong to drink, but apparently it is also wrong to associate with anyone possessing or under the influence of alcohol. Do you understand this? Forcing these cab drivers to take these fares are against their religious beliefs?






I am a vegetarian, and no it is not my religion. I do not worship cows or the animal gods... Honestly, I don't think I am even going to justify this with a response.



I think the league should fine you $10 000 for that remark - and it's not even after a crappy call by a ref.

Man you are hilarious..your counter arguments go on some wild tangents, but ive decided to keep playing.

Like I said earlier, if you drive a cab, you will deal with people who drink. That is a fact. So they are in the wrong line of work.

No where did I say vegetarianism was a religion, you conjured that up yourself. However, if you choose to be a vegetarian, its probably unwise for you to choose to work as a butcher. Right? So if you're a muslim who can't even associate with someone who drinks, is it a wise choice to be a cab driver? I can't really put it any more clearly than that.

And you keep bringing in this idea that I think the cabbie's should be forced to take the fares. I never once said that. But they should accept the loss of business that will go along with that. You can't just make an overhaul to the system to appease every minority. It's unrealistic. What if jewish cabbies were unwilling to take passengers who were uncircumcised? Should every religious group start to have its own designated cab service now?

Should the saddledome have a muslim section where muslims can still enjoy hockey without having to endure those who drink alcohol? How about the c-train ride home, do they get their own section of the train?

The funny thing is, its probably a really small minority of muslim cabbie's who are complaining. I bet other muslim cabbies are fine with it and don't really care.

And at the end of the day, if these cabbie's can't even associate with people who drink alcohol, they should pretty much stay confined to their homes, because they probably buy groceries from drinkers, get haircuts from them, send their children to school with children of drinkers, let drinkers teach their children, etc.

Its just such a stupid argument in the first place, these guys are ######bags and should just shut the F up and get another job, its unreal that this has even become an issue at all.

[Devils'Advocate]

I know a couple vegetarians that worked at Micky Ds. Their deal was that they wouldn't EAT meat, but they believed in the freedom of others to make up their own mind.

Not to put this all in Star Trek terms, but in this case the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The need for people get from point A to point B, the need for those that have had a few too many to have a safe way home, the need for those on the road that haven't been drinking to be safe from drunk drivers.... all outweigh the cabbies freedom of religion. If he cannot handle that, then perhaps he should find another profession.

If Christian pharmacies denied service to a homosexual, the needs of the few outweight the needs of the many. Again, the freedom of religion takes the back seat to the needs of the homosexual to have access to the drugs and health care products he needs to maintain his health.

The Muslims have the right to ask for this exemption based on freedom of religion. Cities have the right to deny it based on the needs of the community. Life will go on.