"Muslim cabbies Want to Discriminate Against Customers"

[Red Mile Style]

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'm sorry Ken, I can not hear you over your BLATENT FREEING OF CALF!!!

ha ha ha, I missed this the first time!

"I'm sorry Gainer, I will never doubt you again. Love, Calf"

woot woot! Go Riders!

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Igottago

RMS you take the cake, I've butted heads with plenty of people on these messageboards, on numerous occassions..but I have never seen someone argue as nonsensically as you. Its painfull to try to get through to you because you completely ignore any legitimate arguments that anyone has brought up, and then go off on some crazy tangent that somehow makes sense to you, and only you.

My thoughts exactly. At some point you just stop because what he says does not maret a reply. A bizarre combination of immaturity, ignorance and confidence.

At some point when you get piled on this bad shouldn't you just check yourself to see if there is a learning opportunity rather than try to convince a dozen people they are out of their mind (and racist to boot).

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Well this isn't so much about being conservative or liberal, its just common sense. Anyone who knows me knows I am anything but conservative, yet I think your arguments are completely shortsighted. I think you are trying to take a position to be more liberal on the issue, even though its a pretty weak position to take, by anyone's standards. You have pretty much been schooled by everyone in this thread, righties and lefties alike.

Actually I was thinking about this comment on the way home, and I think it does play a role in this situation.

For example, Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists all view equal rights different ways. Conservatives believe that no one should get an advantage over anyone else. Everyone should be subjected to the same treatment. So a Conservative viewpoint in this situation would be to not allow the Muslim cab drivers back into the line. Liberals believe that some exceptions should be made to equal the opportunities available for everyone. So a Liberal viewpoint in this situation would be to allow the Muslim cab driver back into the line so he/she can have the same opportunity to get a fare as non-Muslims. Socialists believe that since minorities, such as Muslims, have a more difficult time getting fares that extra help should be granted to help them achieve more fares. This is where things like affirmative action etc. come into play. So, maybe a socialist solution would be to start an all-Muslims cab company or something like that...

Now while I am a left-leaning individual, I am taking a relatively Liberal stance on this issue. My beliefs are neither extreme, but rather down the middle.

This is why I think the majority of people on this forum are having a difficult time with agreeing to this, as they are Right-minded individuals.

As for any center to left minded individuals that do not think Muslims should be afforded the same opportunities as non-Muslims, you are taking a Conservative stance on this point. Personally, I think discrimination does not divide clearly amoung party lines. I think it transcends and that is why people from all ideological stances are having a problem with this. Muslims have a pretty bad rap in North America, and people are generally scared to allow them to have the same rights as everybody else for no other reason than discrimination. This is the only rational, however irrational it sounds, explanation why someone would be so vehemently against this - especially if they consider themselves "ultra-Liberal" - and claim to be an environmentalist petroleum land administrator...

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

My thoughts exactly. At some point you just stop because what he says does not maret a reply. A bizarre combination of immaturity, ignorance and confidence.

At some point when you get piled on this bad shouldn't you just check yourself to see if there is a learning opportunity rather than try to convince a dozen people they are out of their mind (and racist to boot).

And here's Flames in 07 adding his usual to the debate, nothing.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

And here's Flames in 07 adding his usual to the debate, nothing.

I did earlier, your replies are poorly thought out at best, but generally immature, derogatory and off topic.

Besides, it's against my religion to discuss things at depth with closed minded people who don't work in the real world ... I'm sure you'll understand.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

A

Muslims have a pretty bad rap in North America, and people are generally scared to allow them to have the same rights as everybody else for no other reason than discrimination. This is the only rational, however irrational it sounds, explanation why someone would be so vehemently against this - especially if they consider themselves "ultra-Liberal" - and claim to be an environmentalist petroleum land administrator...

That is not the only rational explanation. It has been pointed out to you numerous times that there are legitimate concerns with this that have nothing to do with racism or disliking Muslims.

You could replace the word Muslim in this debate with any other religion and I'd have the same argument.

For a so-called "left-leaning" person, I'm surprised you are so interested in facilitating religious fundamentalism.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I did earlier, your replies are poorly thought out at best, but generally immature, derogatory and off topic.

You forgot terribly condescending and egotistical.

Besides, it's against my religion to discuss things at depth with closed minded people who don't work in the real world ... I'm sure you'll understand.

!! We should make a separate forum for your religion so you won't be offended by them! THAT seems like the easiest and fairest way to go...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

This is the only rational, however irrational it sounds, explanation why someone would be so vehemently against this - especially if they consider themselves "ultra-Liberal" - and claim to be an environmentalist petroleum land administrator...

Apparently to be on the Left politically and socially you also have to be on the Left environmentally. And an extremist to boot. Its people like you that give Conservatives/Right wing license to make us all (Left) look like kooks.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That is not the only rational explanation. It has been pointed out to you numerous times that there are legitimate concerns with this that have nothing to do with racism or disliking Muslims.

You could replace the word Muslim in this debate with any other religion and I'd have the same argument.

For a so-called "left-leaning" person, I'm surprised you are so interested in facilitating religious fundamentalism.

RMS, the way you argue has many flaws but I think the biggest problem is that you quickly associate those who don't agree with you as being racist, or hating the enviornment if they think your wind project is silly.

cabbies can practise whatever religion they want, but if religious views get in their way of performing their job, they simply should not do the job. Simple as that. Cab drives have a specific duty and should they choose not to perform then they should find a job that better suits their religion.

It's not as simple as a right vs left thing, it's not a racist thing, it's a allow society to perform efficiently and people should do their jobs properly thing.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Holy crap. I never resort to personal insults, but i'm getting close in this thread.

Where does it stop. Did you read my example posted earlier about Muslims at at hockey game? Should the Saddledome have a separate section for muslims who don't want to associate with drinkers? And then their own section on the c-train ride home? Please, answer this question. Don't ignore it like you do almost every other point being made.

And by the way, even though you are the defender of the muslim faith, I have plenty of muslim friends back in Calgary, and I guarantee you most of them have enough sense to agree with me on this issue. Like I said, co-existing peacefully is a two way street.

Here is my take on having a seperate section in the Saddledome, and all the other hypothetical situations that really are irrelevant since we are discussing this specific situation. Muslims can choose to go to hockey games, or on the c-train fully knowing that there will probably be alcohol consumption there. If they do not want to be around it, simply they do not attend the event or take a c-train. Sounds pretty simple to me. Applying this simple rationale to cab drivers is the same scenerio. If it goes against their religion, they can choose not to do it.

You're making it sound like Muslims are trying to infiltrate our culture and change it. They are simply trying to co-exist without contradicting their religious beliefs. What is the problem?

I am not the defender of the Muslim faith, I am a defender of basic human rights. Quit trying to make this personal.

Of corse all Muslims aren't going to be for or against this, maybe even most of them won't be for it, but some will. Just like all Christians aren't for or against same-sex marriage. Some denominations of Muslims do have a problem with it, just like some denominations of Christians have a problem with homosexuals getting married.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That is not the only rational explanation. It has been pointed out to you numerous times that there are legitimate concerns with this that have nothing to do with racism or disliking Muslims.

You could replace the word Muslim in this debate with any other religion and I'd have the same argument.

For a so-called "left-leaning" person, I'm surprised you are so interested in facilitating religious fundamentalism.

I am not facilitating religious fundamentalism, I am facilititating basic human rights that is what seperates us from many less fortunate cultures.

China for example, you are not allowed to practice Falun Gong - you could face persecution. Why the **** in North America are there traces of this happening? Less extreme I'll admit, but still happening.

Call me idealist, but people should be able to follow whatever religion they choose. That's true freedom.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Here is my take on having a seperate section in the Saddledome, and all the other hypothetical situations that really are irrelevant since we are discussing this specific situation. Muslims can choose to go to hockey games, or on the c-train fully knowing that there will probably be alcohol consumption there. If they do not want to be around it, simply they do not attend the event or take a c-train. Sounds pretty simple to me. Applying this simple rationale to cab drivers is the same scenerio. If it goes against their religion, they can choose not to do it.

You're making it sound like Muslims are trying to infiltrate our culture and change it. They are simply trying to co-exist without contradicting their religious beliefs. What is the problem?

I am not the defender of the Muslim faith, I am a defender of basic human rights. Quit trying to make this personal.

Of corse all Muslims aren't going to be for or against this, maybe even most of them won't be for it, but some will. Just like all Christians aren't for or against same-sex marriage. Some denominations of Muslims do have a problem with it, just like some denominations of Christians have a problem with homosexuals getting married.

Huh? So based on your first paragraph it's take it or leave it right? so they can "leave" being a cabbie if they don't like the environment ... right?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I am not facilitating religious fundamentalism, I am facilititating basic human rights that is what seperates us from many less fortunate cultures.

China for example, you are not allowed to practice Falun Gong - you could face persecution. Why the **** in North America are there traces of this happening? Less extreme I'll admit, but still happening.

Call me idealist, but people should be able to follow whatever religion they choose. That's true freedom.

How is this anywhere near a trace of not allowing someone to practice their religion? Are they being descriminated against because of their religion? Some would say yes. Are they descriminating against those who do not follow their religion? In the case of the cabbie not driving someone who has alcohol, absolutely they are.

Are these cabbies allowed to descriminate like this? I guess that's the question here. Should they be able to do it without any sort of penalty (being sent to the back of the line)? I think not. Logistical reasons aside, if you are unwilling to accomodate someone who is not of your faith, then why should you be accomodated?

Show me in the Koran (I know I misspelled it), where it says Muslims can't give a ride to someone who has a bottle of wine, and I might reconsider, but I doubt you'll be able to find it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I am not facilitating religious fundamentalism, I am facilititating basic human rights that is what seperates us from many less fortunate cultures.

China for example, you are not allowed to practice Falun Gong - you could face persecution. Why the **** in North America are there traces of this happening? Less extreme I'll admit, but still happening.

Call me idealist, but people should be able to follow whatever religion they choose. That's true freedom.

They are able to follow any religion they choose.

It's not a basic human right to be a cab driver and be able to dictate your own rules of employment. It's not a basic human right to volunteer or actively seek out employment that inherently clashes with your religion. It's certainly not a basic human right to be able to deny someone service because you don't agree with their religious practices (or lack thereof).

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That must be part of the problem then. You think anyone who doesn't want to employ a system of lights to identify the religion of a cab driver must be a racist.

There have been plenty of arguments put forth in this debate as to why people are against this system..

For the last time, "racist" refers to a person's race, not religion.

While many people outlashed about the idea of allowing Muslims to stay in a line-up they have already waited in, with the exception of one argument (that non-Muslim drivers would then have a higher increase of drunk customers) I feel as though none of those arguments were constructive, or at least made me flinch my stance. Everybody has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. I personally believe it is unjust to make the Muslim cab drivers go back and wait in line again, and I don't understand why anyone would logically have a problem with this... still.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

For me, one of the main ones is that I don't think the government should be in the business of making it easier for religious extremists to do their thing. Especially at a publicly owned facility like an airport..

Extremists? Not ALL Muslims are extremists! An extremist Muslim would be a cab driver that attaches a lot of c-4 to himself and drives into the airport, THAT is extremist. Deciding that picking up passengers with alcohol, is not extremist.

Well, this is also a simple illustration of ideological stances. I believe the government/courts should ensure that minority rights are upheld and if consessions can be made to alleviate religious conflicts, they should be done.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A big thing for you is that drinking is "an action" and it can't be discriminated against. Fair enough. Know what another "action" is? Putting a scarf on your head. Now you tell me -- if you want a ride home from the airport and the cabbie says "I won't drive you without your head covered", is that alright with you? It's just an action, after all. No big deal, eh? It's pretty simple to put a scarf on your head. A simple solution -- you get a ride home, he gets to feed his family, everyone is happy..

I am fundamentally against this, unless the person being asked to put a scarf on shares that same religion and does not have a problem with it. While everyone SHOULD have the right to practice their religion, nobody has the right to force their religion on others or discriminate against that person if they aren't of the same religion. I am not sure what makes you think that I would be for something like that....

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's no different than the booze thing, as far as I'm concerned, and a request like that probably wouldn't be far behind. You can use all your arguments that you've put forward to defend this "no booze" policy and apply it to headscarves, when the time comes.

What makes you think that putting a scarf on customers would be a natural advancement? Again, I do not think that the Muslim drivers are trying to force their religion on their customers, I believe they are just trying to follow their religious beliefs without suffering financial repremands. I personally can see a great difference between not picking up someone that goes against your religion and forcing someone who comes into your cab to do something...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

What makes you think that putting a scarf on customers would be a natural advancement? Again, I do not think that the Muslim drivers are trying to force their religion on their customers, I believe they are just trying to follow their religious beliefs without suffering financial repremands. I personally can see a great difference between not picking up someone that goes against your religion and forcing someone who comes into your cab to do something...

It's a natural advancement because it's the same thing. What's the difference between accomodating this no-booze policy and expanding it to cover (literally) women's heads?

Nobody would be forced to wear a scarf, but if they want to get in that cab they either do it or they wait for the next cab, exactly like the booze thing. Then the cabbies can follow their religious beliefs without the financial reprimands. What is wrong with that?

Do you really not see how this could all be expanded? All based on the arguments you have been using for several pages now?

The arguments you have put forward could be applied to any old religious nut who decides he doesn't want to drive some segment of the population because it offends his religious sensibilities.

[Shazam]

Do you really not see how this could all be expanded?

He doesn't believe in the slippery slope argument in this context. Quite frankly, I'm not believing it either.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I am fundamentally against this, unless the person being asked to put a scarf on shares that same religion and does not have a problem with it. While everyone SHOULD have the right to practice their religion, nobody has the right to force their religion on others or discriminate against that person if they aren't of the same religion. I am not sure what makes you think that I would be for something like that....

What... you mean like "I do not agree with alcohol so if you get into my cab then you must agree too"?

[RougeUnderoos]

Well maybe the slippery slope doesn't exist, but I don't know why it wouldn't. Why just this one rule?

All kinds of people have all kinds of strange religious ideas. I don't know how the bureaucrats could get away with just granting this kind of thing to one group, and have it only apply to one little aspect of their religion.

I'd say giving members of one religion a "special status" would constitute religious discrimination. People will notice.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well I'd like to believe jom used something like the Interweb to find some stats on how many people convert from one religion to another, or the number of people who become "born again Muslims" or "born again Jews", but seeing as how he can't even figure out how to use Google to find out what "BTW" stands for, or recent stats for WEM attendance figures by typing "West Edmonton Mall attendance figures" into Google, I hold out little hope.

Screw you...my WEM stats were cited from multiple sources....so how does that fault me??

As for BTW.....I don't know all the computer lingo....how many other people can use google to answer their questions but instead ask it on CP.

Thanks for being an ass.