"Muslim cabbies Want to Discriminate Against Customers"

[Red Mile Style]

I can't believe I'm even wasting time reading this post, let alone responding to it... What the hell, I can't sleep and I need a good laugh.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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 clearly do not know the definition of "discrimination", so to save you from further embarassment down the line:

dis‧crim‧i‧na‧tion [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Discrimination applies to stereotyping a group of people (such as Muslims should not be cab drivers) not on the actions of those people (such as the decision to consume alcoholic beverages).

You can not say that people who drink are being discriminated against because these are individual choices. Maybe that is why the word "judgement" is used so frequently in my posts, because it's the appropriate terminology.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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.

Ok, for those of you keeping count: this is personal attack number 1

Wow, talk about spin-doctor!

So, I make the correlation between one religious group (Christians) not allowing someone into their cab that goes against their relgion (murderers) and you counterargue by saying that this analagy is equal to comparing homosexuals (who can be discriminated against) and people who consume alcohol (who can not be discriminated against)... hmmmm, I see a bigger simularity between apples and oranges. Your comparision is not a comparision at all. Until you realize that people can choose to consume alcohol, but people can not choose their sexual orientation, your theory will not make sense.

I was not comparing murderers to people who drink alcohol... that's a bigger leap than WMD and Iraq.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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.

Wow, that's another three personal insults, bringing us up to four! My favourite so far: neo-con! Ba ha ha! I take personal attacks as a compliment - only when someone is not confident in their argument do they concede to personal attacks, so thank-you.

In reality, we have this thing called "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms"... it's pretty nifty. In fact, here is some information that might benefit you about how discriminating based on sexual orientation is illegal:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...criminationtxt

This was one part I found interesting in the article:

Now human rights Acts and Codes explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in all jurisdictions except Alberta.

You see, discriminating against homosexuals is not legal, discriminating against personal choices (such as the decision to drink) is legal. Your analagy is bunk. I stand by my first post.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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?

Four more, for a total of 8 personal insults, and two mentions of the forbidden word "judge"... impressive.

There has to be a distinction between Muslims judging people who drink and following their religious beliefs. Should you make someone go against their religious beliefs if it is not compromising anyone else's rights? The obvious answer for me is no, because that in itself is a neglegance of that Religion's followers' rights.

For the last time, people who drink alcohol can not be discriminated against because it is a personal decision, rather than a variable that can not be controlled. Therefor, Muslims not allowing people into their cab that have been drinking is not discrimination, nor could it ever be, because they are actions - actions, which are NOT protected by any law. People are held responsible for their actions, not their race, religion, sexual orientation etc...

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Thanks for the update, Big Ben.

Nine.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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.

Ten.

If there is, they are pretty extreme and do not represent the entire Christian religion. I would not be surprised in the least if they did exist, but just like suicide bombers and the Muslim faith, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I watched a documentary just last night on Newsworld where a right-wing man from Calgary lived with a gay man from Vancouver (and vice versa). They both were Christians and while the Neo-con's church believed that homosexuality was a sin, they were still supposed to love homosexuals and pray that they find their way; while the homosexual's church was much more liberal and weren't so extreme. So do you think that whatever organization you are talking about should represent the entire Christian faith, all denominations?

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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?

Way to go a few sentences without any blatent personal attacks - just condescending remarks. Congrats!

You said that riding a cab is a right earlier in this thread:

"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."

ummmm... well, this is awkward because you just denied saying this.

Yep, but I'M the hypocrite...

This is not one of those cases where the rights of others are in conflict with religious beliefs - it is NOT a right to carry and consume liquor on a cab, that is a privelage. It IS a right to practise your religion free from fear of persecution.

Of corse cabbies that would refuse to give rides to transgendered people is wrong - as it is discrimatory (see definition above). Being transgendered and making a choice to drink are not the same thing - but rather far from it. I really hope I don't have to pound this in anymore. But according to the article that I apparently did not read, they don't have lights on the top of cabs that indicate if they accept transgendered individuals or not. This is where the laws of society have to step in and make sure that the minority of people (transgendered individuals) are protected from the majority.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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?

Four more to the board: 14 personal attacks (and we're not done yet).

I have an "obsession" for the use of judging because I believe in knowing the correct definitions of the words I'm using, if this offends you, I apologize.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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.

Five more personal attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but just clutter the debate! 19 total!

I guess I really can not respond to anything in this paragraph as it's all a bunch of hot air attempting to belittle me.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

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

Sarcastic, I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Trust me, the laughs are on you.

And 20!

[MatsNaslund]

At some point we as a society have to say stop. We as Canadians (or in this case Americans) are very accomdating people. But where does it end. Can the garbage man refuse to pick up my garbage because it contains empty liquor bottles and he finds that offensive? Garbage collection is not a "right" either; but it is a government regulated service.

Garbage man from the city actually has a limit for bags and a limit for weight of each bag along with the right to refuse anything that he doesn't think is safe to pick up. The fact that they don't enforce it is a different story but all you have to do (as one of my neighbors did) is to pick a fight with your garbage man and they will give you the book on it. They are unionized city workers and city can't do squat to them. No amount of calls to your alderman or 311 will make your garbage collection the same ever again.

Cabbies in Calgary can pickup someone through the following ways:

1). Airport - in a long lineup called the 'bullpen'. You're lucky if you get a trip to Mckenzie and very unlucky if you get a trip to the Sandman on Barlow and Mcknight. Often it is a long wait in the lineup.

2). Designated spots like: tower, greyhound terminal, hotels downtown, on friday and saturday nights certain drinking places like Cowboys which have their own cab lines

3). dispatched through their computer. This method is the best because you only pick up trips in assigned areas that you book yourself into.

4). & of course threw somone that waves them down.

5). Some of the mini-van cabbies get trips through the City's 'Access Calgary' program for disabled people.


I haven't taken a census but most of the cabbies are either somali or middle-eastern descent or east indians in Calgary. Probably a good number of them are Muslim. They seem to have no problem picking drunk people up from bars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnFBAmsNoN4

[Shazam]

Dunno what the big deal is... Okay, they don't want to drive around people with liquor. It's the cab driver that's losing the fare. They made a choice, and they're paying for it. What's the problem? So they don't have to go to the back of the line. The next cab just benefited anyhow, by being able to jump the line.

I'm still upset over the fact that I can't enter Safeway without a shirt and shoes. Now that's discriminatory. I have entered however with a shirt and shoes and nothing else. Take that evil corporation!

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, I hear ya, I hate it when people try to push their religion on you. But I really don't think this is what the Muslim drivers are trying to do here.

I just am having a problem with people that shouldn't be a cab-driver because of their religion. Yes, I understand that people's beliefs can conflict with their career choices, but here there is a way that Muslims can still practice their beliefs and drive a cab - so why all the oppostion? Instead of making Muslims go back to the line, waiting for hours until their next fare, why not just allow them to take the next available fare? I just don't understand why this basically simple concept has initiated such a fierce opposition. But I guess we all have our reasonings.

I have never seen a single episode of Star Trek, and while I believe what you say in terms of democracy, laws that protect human rights are there to protect the minority from the majority's rule. This all seems fundamental to me - this is why rights are often determined in courts, instead of democratic institutions to ensure that the will of the many is not forced on the minority, but what is fair, and right and ultimately what is just.

That's good advice though: Life will go on...

[transplant99]

Four more to the board: 14 personal attacks (and we're not done yet).

Umm...those werent personal attacks....in any way shape or form.

You are getting smoked in this debate...i suggest cuttting bait and running while behind.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Garbage man from the city actually has a limit for bags and a limit for weight of each bag along with the right to refuse anything that he doesn't think is safe to pick up. The fact that they don't enforce it is a different story

Funny you mention this. I left a very heavy load of garbage in my bin a couple of months ago. They didn't take it. I'm wondering, I'm very angry about this, so who can I sue so I can make some money off my pain and misery of having to go to the dump and dropping the trash off myself?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Umm...those werent personal attacks....in any way shape or form.

You are getting smoked in this debate...i suggest cuttting bait and running while behind.

Trying to fight for minority rights on a forum with the majority being from the Conservative heartland of Canada... I wonder why?!?!

I miss Calgary, but man, there are definately somethings about it I don't.

[transplant99]

So, here is an example of how ridiculous this is...

Catholics consume wine as part of religious ceremony...

Does the cabbie get to say no to them as well...when they are only doing what they did as part of their religion?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So, here is an example of how ridiculous this is...

Catholics consume wine as part of religious ceremony...

Does the cabbie get to say no to them as well...when they are only doing what they did as part of their religion?

I don't know, I'm not Muslim.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Dunno what the big deal is... Okay, they don't want to drive around people with liquor. It's the cab driver that's losing the fare. They made a choice, and they're paying for it. What's the problem? So they don't have to go to the back of the line. The next cab just benefited anyhow, by being able to jump the line.

I'm still upset over the fact that I can't enter Safeway without a shirt and shoes. Now that's discriminatory. I have entered however with a shirt and shoes and nothing else. Take that evil corporation!

ha ha ha! Stick it to da man!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I don't know, I'm not Muslim.

What??

You have just ben preaching how they can refuse service...now you don't know.

God Lord

[Bleeding Red]

OK, so what is the deal about Muslims and alcohol?

A couple of passages from the Quran:

5:90 "O you who believe, intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the devil’s work; so shun it that you may succeed."

4:43 " O you who believe, go not near prayer when you are intoxicated till you know what you say"

Now, everything else is interpretation. One could imply by this that at some point early Muslims did drink alcohol, but clearly it became a bad thing as it could confuse your prayer. It is the "devil's work" and a devout Muslim should "shun it" to "succeed".

Does that mean don't drink alcohol, don't hold an open beer bottle, don't hold an unopen wine bottle, do not be in a private space where alcohol can be found, do not associate with people who are dringking, do not associate with people who have had a few too many?

I think that all of that is up in the air until a Muslim has a personal conversation with his/her Imam. One end is clearly more extreme than the other.

FOr my part, if the cabbie wants to refuse service, then fine, but to jump the que for the next permissible fare is not fine. To create two cab lines sets up a two tier service and leads to a slippery slope. Remember this case is not about refusing drunks, it is about refusing passengers with unopened alcohol, blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs and leading to refusing scantily clad women (remember, if taking the extreme view, women with uncovered hair are scantily clad) .

Also, take a look at it from the other side - as it stands a passenger at the airport HAS to take the next cab in line - regardless of who the driver is. Other cabbies will refuse that person service if s/he tries to bump the line. In this case, could a passenger refuse to use a "non-alcohol" cab because they disagree with the policy?
Travelers would know that when visiting this city they should avoid the extremist cabbies because they refuse service to blind people.

The Quran also states 62:5 "The likeness of those who were charged with the Torah, then they observed it not, is as the likeness of the ass carrying books. Evil is the likeness of the people who reject the messages of Allah. And Allah guides not the iniquitous people."

Can those cabbies at the airport refuse service to Jews? Should they be allowed to?

It will cut both ways.

(all quotes from the Quran are from - http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/index.htm)

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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



woot woot! Go Riders!

Guys, I think it is quite clear that RMS does not have a rebuttal to my point; which makes the rest of her arguements against you guys are simply that; arguements.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Dunno what the big deal is... Okay, they don't want to drive around people with liquor. It's the cab driver that's losing the fare. They made a choice, and they're paying for it. What's the problem? So they don't have to go to the back of the line. The next cab just benefited anyhow, by being able to jump the line.

I'm still upset over the fact that I can't enter Safeway without a shirt and shoes. Now that's discriminatory. I have entered however with a shirt and shoes and nothing else. Take that evil corporation!

Not if the next 15 cabbies believe the same thing. You either are stuck waiting....or....you get rid of your booze. Not fair.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Guys, I think it is quite clear that RMS does not have a rebuttal to my point; which makes the rest of her arguements against you guys are simply that; arguements.

I comes down to your comment about having to live together as different people and different religions. Just repect each other. Not providing services to people because you don't believe in what they do......is NOT respect.

[Agamemnon]

Man... its a dark day when I'm agreeing with Tranny and Jolinar... still, this is ridiculous. I can't believe Muslim cab drivers should get special priveliges because they won't pick up legitimate fares. As far as I'm concerned its the same as a Catholic working at an abortion clinic; if you can't handle the job due to your religion, don't take it. Its not like its 'be a cab driver or be nothing'... What's next, separate places on buses so that each religion doesn't have to tolerate violations by people of other/non religions? Like I said before, sounds like religious apartheid to me. Keep that crap in the privacy of your own home.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So, here is an example of how ridiculous this is...

Catholics consume wine as part of religious ceremony...

Does the cabbie get to say no to them as well...when they are only doing what they did as part of their religion?

Ok here is an example that is ridiculous because it's not realistic. How the hell are they going to know you just drank a lil' bit of wine? These guys are not mind readers, if you have had a beer or are hiding beer on you they aren't going to know.

[Cheese]

Muslims against Muslims not wanting to transport people with alcohol.

Most Muslims don’t agree that cab drivers are prohibited from transporting alcohol. Islam merely prohibits Muslims from drinking alcohol and those drivers are seeking to impose their religious values on others. The Free Muslims Coalition is disgusted by their behavior.
When the cab drivers chose to drive a cab they interred into an agreement to perform a public service that is essential to the economy of any city. They have no right to refuse a fare because the passenger is holding a bottle of wine or other spirits.

The Free Muslims Coalition believes that the cab drivers should be banned all together from picking up passengers at the airport and we would even support the cancellation of their taxi permits.

[Cheese]

Mother is denied morning after pill by Muslim Pharmacist

A Muslim chemist repeatedly refused a mother the "morning after" pill because of his religious beliefs.

...a "conscience clause" in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's ethics code, saying: "It states that if supplying the morning-after pill is contrary to a pharmacist's personal, religious or moral beliefs they are entirely within their rights not to supply it."

[Cheese]

200 Muslim women with memberships at Fitness USA are demanding seperate workout times for men and women.

In Islam, there are codes of modesty for both genders," said Ammerah Saidi, 23, of Dearborn. "When you’re working out, you’re not dressed modestly, and you’re bending in provocative ways, so you can’t be working out with the opposite gender."

Muslim women want seperate work out times.

Why dont they just get a membership at an all womens club?