"Muslim cabbies Want to Discriminate Against Customers"

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

But that's the thing - it's not their fault either that their religion dictates that they aren't supposed pick up these passengers... so why is everyone so upset about it?

Because as Cheese posted in the following link, most Muslims do not believe these few drivers are followin their religion: The drivers, whose beliefs are not shared by most Muslims, say the airport should accommodate a deeply held religious tenet.

And others have indicated from their own anicdotal accounts, what these drivers are asking does not follow how most Muslims act. I myself have a couple of Muslim friends who do drink, but most do not. Of those who don't I can't think of a single one who hasn't at one point or another bought me a drink; either while out for dinner, or one example when I went over to a buddy's house to watch a hockey game he made sure he had beer in the fridge for me.

If this belief was shared by most Muslims, I don't think we would see what many of us consider a disproportionate number of Muslim cab drivers; because dealing with those who consume alcohol is part of a cab driver's daily job.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

But that's the thing - it's not their fault either that their religion dictates that they aren't supposed pick up these passengers... so why is everyone so upset about it? The issue here is that companies, in particular, discriminate over a variety of issues, and nobody seems to give a damn because hey, it's their policies or it's in the best interest of the company etc. But, when the rationale is Muslim ideology... people seem to take offence.

To me, I see this as every other discrimination in the history of the planet. People get scared of granting the same rights to everyone because of fear. What's next? Homosexual and straight pharmacies were suggested, seperate sections in the saddledome, taxi passengers having to wear a scarf over their head... People are scared that their way of life will be overcome by Muslim ideals, and because of the slippery slope, this is just going to become a Muslim society. Same old problem, different variables...

My only hope in all of this is that when I'm old, I look back and laugh about how people judged individuals because of their religion the way my Grandpa looks back about how people treated women, or people of different races...

It's not discrimination at all. The Muslim drivers are discriminating and asking for special privileges because of it. This isn't the same rights it is a special privilege they are requesting. Other cabbies have to go back to the end of the line if they refuse service to a customer based on some belief they hold, ie a vegan would have to go back to the end of the line if someone was carrying meat or leather...

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

It's too bad you can not leave the personal insults out of the equation, I enjoy debating with mature, intellectual people who are confident enough with their beliefs that they don't have to turn it personal.

Please show me where I insulted you.
Was it saying you remind me of Ann Coulter?
That's only an insult if you don't like Ann Coulter. If you don't, you may want to consider changing your debating style, because it has many clear similarities to the way Ann Coulter debates. This was an observation, not an insult.
And how is that any different then you accusing me of being conservative and anti-muslim? That's far more insulting since it is baseless.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You know what....keep the personal attacks out of it. I have been pretty respectful to you.

For a quick smattering of RMS comments in this thread;

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

And your blatent racist views do not surprise me in the least.

I was making a joke - you know, those things normal people laugh at

I'm sorry if you actually like that dump, but sometimes you need to embrace reality - not fear it.

You need to learn how to be tolerant, tolerant to other people's religions, morals, races, etc... Your arguments are just showing out how blatently discrimatory you are.

If you're so against freedom of religion, maybe it's YOU that is in the wrong society.

How very totalitarian of you.

what you fail to realize is that some people on this planet have these nifty little things called "morals" that are more important to some than money... obviously not you as you clearly lack in that department.

I think you are now on ignore, people like you just outrage me. Your blatent prejudices are anything but civilized or what living in North America is SUPPOSED to be about.

maybe you should stop with the outdated views?

Don't you think it would be better if you learned a little bit about the religion itself BEFORE making your judgements about it?

<insert DUH emoticon here>

Thanks for the good laugh!

Did I stutter?

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

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
(apparently all Calgarians are redneck Conservatives)

THIS is the issue, and maybe I am talking with a "smug superiority" because I feel as though if you can pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't, I am superior morally to you.

I would look in the dictionary for it but the dictionary is not "always right"... ( ) I think it starts with "ass" and ends with "clown"...

No I wasn't, you are jumping a variable. Here, I'll.. talk.. really.. slow..

I suggest you find some friends.

That... is... dumb. But, to be expected from you.

If you want to discuss me, get a life.

So, how much money are your morals worth to you exactly?

Here we have a self-proclaimed "ultra-Liberal". Has been quoted many a time to be a supporter of the green party. Yet, what does "ultra-Liberal" Agamemnon do for a living? Petroleum Land Administrator. Obviously, his morals are a lot cheaper than the Muslim cab-drivers.


What is so difficult about this? I am convinced that the only reason why anybody would be so against such an obvious system is simply prejudices against Muslims, because everything else just doesn't make sense.

I would expect true lefties, unlike those like Agamemnon that are only "lefties" when it is convienient for him, to understand the simple concepts of this equation.

Wow, way to lose any credibility by taking it to the extreme. Read the article.

People, please stop feeding the animals

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.

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...

Man, I have a feeling that if you weren't such a ######bag, we could be friends.

Do you have a crush on Red Mile Style? I mean, why else would you talk about me so much... I hope I didn't bust your bubble when I told you I was a chick.

You guys need to get laid. But I can kind of see why you wouldn't when you talk to girls like this.

Let me guess, you think all girls should just agree with you - hey what the hell, you don't need intelligence to bake a pie or do the laundry, right?

Hey, and why should we give religious freedoms to Muslims... after all, they are Muslim.

this... is... pointless. I'm just going way over your head.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Shazam

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?

Of Course. Please don't turn this issue into something it's not. As cheese linked, there are even muslims who think this is wrong. I'm pretty sure they're not anti-muslim, muslims.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yes.

This "you are just saying that because they are Muslims" garbage has been tried several times. It's bull****. The particular brand of religion is irrelevant to me. Honest.

If the story was "Christian cab drivers refuse to drive people with alcohol" I'd say exactly the same things. I swear.

Man, I'm not doing any work...

I do believe that you don't care about the particular brand of religion - so, from that, is it safe to say that you don't think people have the right to practice religious beliefs?

The way I see it, since there are 3 hours worth of cabs waiting in line, it is a safe assumption to make that there are plenty of non-Muslim cabs available and thus the argument that "people with alcohol will be waiting for hours" is void. If you want to throw the argument that "what if every cab in the 3 hour line up is Muslim" argument out there, I say you better start appeasing their religious beliefs, because you're going to have a lot of cabbies quitting their jobs. Since the Muslim cab drivers have waited in line to get to the front, it will not affect any of the cabs behind them either than if they are non-Muslim, they might get bumped in front of the Muslim at the front of the line to take a passenger with alcohol.

So, again, since you have no problems with the Muslim faith, and there is no proof whatsoever that anyone will be inconviened from this, what is the problem, exactly?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lucky boy

Okay Bleeding, I will bite and respond to your arguments

I am pretty sure that muslims try to stay as far from alcohol as they possibly can. A muslim man I work with was holding a small house party and had invited several guests. One of the guests had brought a bottle of wine as a gift, obviously not knowing that islam prohibits alcohol. The muslim was clearly very uncomfortable when the guest tried to hand him the bottle of wine. He politely refused the gift and asked his guest to place the wine on the nearest coffee table to the door. At the end of the night, he politely asked his guest to take the bottle of wine with him. Not once did he touch the bottle, not even to move it from one spot to another.

I am pretty sure islam prohibits muslims from going to areas where alcohol is being consumed, as well as any form of physical handling of the alcohol as well.

I think the article is a little overblown. I highly doubt cabbies ask all their passengers to open up their suitcases and start searching for alcohol. I would think it is more along the lines were the cabbie can visibly see the alcohol, possibly in a duty free bag, and immediately feel uncomfortable having it in his car.

Personally i think its silly for muslim cabbies to not give rides to people who have alcohol with them. Almost any line of work in any non-muslim society will probably have some sort of contradiction to some of the practices of Islam. It is part of the package that comes with living in a country that is different from your own.

I am pretty shocked with the reaction on this board to a silly issue like this. This isn't the end of the world. Muslim cabbies are not going to start rulling NA because they don't want to give rides to people with alcohol. Is this topic really worth 12 pages?

This is quite the misinterpretation. From the same page where you copied that verse from, it quite cleary explains that God "warns the muslims of the danger which brought the downfall of the jewish nation". This danger is as explained in the verse as those who read the books of God but do not observe its teachings. God compares those types of peoples to donkeys carrying books. This verse is not meant for only Jews, it is a stern reminder to Jews, Christians and Muslims to make sure they read the books of God and follow its teachings.

I am not overly interested in entering a religous debate with you Bleeding Red, but I am concerned that you threw in the "Muslims descriminate against Jews" card into the circle when not once in the article was there any mention of anything to do with Jewish people. Not only that, but you tried to make it sound as if the Quran commands muslims to descriminate against the Jews. I hope you don't answer to this post with quotes of anything to do with muslims vs jews, as it has nothing to do with the article at hand and I will not respond to it.

I would also like to ask people to stop quoting Jolinar, I really don't need to read his posts.

The point of all the quotes is, as YOU say, in the interpretation. The Muslim in your example still allowed the unopened bottle of wine in his home (in order not to embarass his guest - also a Muslim belief) the Muslim cabbie would have refused entry to the guest/patron holding the unopened bottle of wine. It is in the interpretation of the text where you get the religious belief - for example Rabbis read "do not boil a kid in it's mother's milk" and interpreted it to mean do not combine dairy foods with meats (no cheeseburgers). It is all in the interpretation. They could take a lienent view - drinking alcohol is ok so long as it is not before prayer time; a mederate view - you can be in a public place with alcohol so long as you yourself do not drink it (at a Flames game); or a strict view - you cannot be in the presence of alcohol.

(note - the second class status of 'Dhimis' (non-muslims) is a result of interpretation of lines from the Quran such as what I posted.)

Also, it is clear that we are discussing passengers holding bottles or duty free bags of alcohol in a visable manner. The article also noted two other examples - refusing service to the blind with seeing-eye dogs and a Muslim bus driver refusing to drive a bus with offensive advertising.

Muslim cabbies are not going to start rulling NA because they don't want to give rides to people with alcohol.

No. BUT - recently the Ontario Government declared that Sharia Law (and Jewish Beit Dins (houses of judgement) could no longer leagally arbitrate cases. These religious courts could arbitrate disputes regarding divorce, small claims, child custody. No longer.

And this is a case of should Sharia Law become a legal standard in NA? That cabbie is only following what his Imam (Muslim Clergy) taught him. If the Imam next decides that co-ed elementary classrooms are against Islamic belief should the school board have special segregated classrooms for Muslims? (Yes, they could go to private school, but the cabbie could also change jobs).

A two teir system - one for Muslims and one for everyone else - starts here.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You know what....keep the personal attacks out of it. I have been pretty respectful to you.

Since when is Atheism a religion? What if it is a priest with sacramental wine? Is the cabbie now unable to discriminate because the priest is carrying around one of his religious tools? That would be religious discrimination.

Touche, I just have said the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over...

I believe atheism is a religion... I believe there are Atheist churches. What does this have to do with anything? You think that since I do not follow any kind of organized religion, that I am an Atheist? I don't think so...The point is, I have the right to belong to whatever church and practice whatever crazy rituals (as long as it doesn't disregard others' rights) I want.

Again, it would be wrong to discriminate against the preist if it was because of his faith - following your religious beliefs and not allowing him into the cab because he is carrying wine is a different story.

Now I have a question for you that is about as relevant: What if a monkey in a purple suit wearing a top hat wanted to buy a watermelon from a Hindu, what color would the sky be?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Man, I'm not doing any work...

I do believe that you don't care about the particular brand of religion - so, from that, is it safe to say that you don't think people have the right to practice religious beliefs?

Oh for sure.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Man, I'm not doing any work...

I do believe that you don't care about the particular brand of religion - so, from that, is it safe to say that you don't think people have the right to practice religious beliefs?

The way I see it, since there are 3 hours worth of cabs waiting in line, it is a safe assumption to make that there are plenty of non-Muslim cabs available and thus the argument that "people with alcohol will be waiting for hours" is void. If you want to throw the argument that "what if every cab in the 3 hour line up is Muslim" argument out there, I say you better start appeasing their religious beliefs, because you're going to have a lot of cabbies quitting their jobs. Since the Muslim cab drivers have waited in line to get to the front, it will not affect any of the cabs behind them either than if they are non-Muslim, they might get bumped in front of the Muslim at the front of the line to take a passenger with alcohol.

So, again, since you have no problems with the Muslim faith, and there is no proof whatsoever that anyone will be inconviened from this, what is the problem, exactly?

You haven't answered this so I'll ask again. What if the cab driver is vegan and doesn't want leather or meat in his cab do we make special privileges for him or does he not have the same rights to practice his beliefs as the Muslims? If he does then whats going to happen is a law based on a general rule will be passed in the city saying "any driver at the airport who refuses to service a customer based on religious beliefs must remain at the front of the queue" than there you have your slippery slope.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Man, I'm not doing any work...

I do believe that you don't care about the particular brand of religion - so, from that, is it safe to say that you don't think people have the right to practice religious beliefs?

Oh and you wonder why your compared to Ann coulter?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Because as Cheese posted in the following link, most Muslims do not believe these few drivers are followin their religion: The drivers, whose beliefs are not shared by most Muslims, say the airport should accommodate a deeply held religious tenet.

And others have indicated from their own anicdotal accounts, what these drivers are asking does not follow how most Muslims act. I myself have a couple of Muslim friends who do drink, but most do not. Of those who don't I can't think of a single one who hasn't at one point or another bought me a drink; either while out for dinner, or one example when I went over to a buddy's house to watch a hockey game he made sure he had beer in the fridge for me.

If this belief was shared by most Muslims, I don't think we would see what many of us consider a disproportionate number of Muslim cab drivers; because dealing with those who consume alcohol is part of a cab driver's daily job.

I'm sorry ken, I can not hear you over YOUR BLATENT CHEERING OF THE LIONS!!!

woot woot! Go Riders!


Ah, just joking. You bring up a good point Ken, not all Muslims believe this way, or interpret the passages the same. One of my good friends is Muslim and we've actually gone drinking on a number of occasions. I mean, it's a pretty diverse religion, just like Christianity and it's many denominations. So just like you can not categorize all Muslims as extremists, it would be foolish to believe they all believe they can not take customers with alcohol. Unfortunately, there are some (albeit, not all) Muslims that believe it is against their religion. I do not see a problem with accomodating their religious beliefs.

The point of the large percentage of Muslim taxi drivers has been brought up, and I don't know anything about this, but what I do know is if people start throwing out the argument "just find another job" or "if you're Muslim, don't take a cab job" - the repercussions to the industry, by this rationale, would definately be devestated by such actions.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Interesting article in a similar vein, except in this case Orthodox Jews were the complaining party. Basically, a gym in Montreal put in opaque glass for a workout studio window to avoid offending a synagogue next door.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

Yet there ae some noteable differences. The two parties worked together to come to a compramise - no one asked for special treatment, for a sperate walkway or entance to be built. The offended party footed the bill (accepted financial penalty). Could they work out a better compramise - maybe.

BUT I think the onus is on the cogregation to either change the configuration of their building (they did tint their own windows) or mandate that their students use other exits and pathways. They are the ones who need to make an accomodation. Not the 'Y' or the city.

Now, I also believe that you cannot live with your head in the sand and protect your children from every little thing - as the Satmar's do. At some point you have to live in this world.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Excellent point!

Let's say cab drivers couldn't get insurance if they were carrying alcohol in the cabs... or it was illegal to drive with any kind of alcohol in a vehicle... There would NO WAY people would be so vehemently against this. But because it's for religous reasons... waa waa waa!

Man, I hate being right... it makes me look like an ass, or apparently Ann ****ing Coulter!

OK, let's say it is now illegal to carry alcohol in a cab. Would that not apply to ALL cab drivers? Once again the issue is a two teired system. Most don't want it for health care, many here don't want it for cab drivers.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by redforever

This is not a good example to use. The Petroleum Club is a private club and as such, can set their membership as they wish. This will be no different than those bars that convert to private clubs to get around the no smoking bylaw that will soon come into effect in Calgary.

As long as the private club is fully registered, with all of its bylaws, rules of membership, operating guidelines and policies meeting the governments conditions for a private club, then that private club is free to operate according to their own bylaws.

And it is no different than the Royal Canadian Legion allowing smoking within their premises either. They too are a private club and can set conditions inside their facility as the membership sees fit.

If that were the case then the PC still wouldn't allow Women or Jews or Blacks. As a private club you can allow your members to smoke but you cannot deny membership to a non-smoker - been tried here in ON.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It's not discrimination at all. The Muslim drivers are discriminating and asking for special privileges because of it. This isn't the same rights it is a special privilege they are requesting. Other cabbies have to go back to the end of the line if they refuse service to a customer based on some belief they hold, ie a vegan would have to go back to the end of the line if someone was carrying meat or leather...

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't discriminate based on actions. (I think there is an echo in here) I am pretty sure the word discriminate is being thrown around pretty literally due to lack of a better term.

I can not draw parallels between veganism and religious beliefs (again, this has already been addressed pages ago). I don't eat meat, so if I waited in line at a restaurant, and I get my order and it had meat in it. Would I walk to the back of the line and wait again, or do I just order again? If a cab was at the front of the line, and the next passenger had something that couldn't fit in the cab, should the cab go back to the end of the line? I don't think it makes much sense to not allow the cab to just take the next available fair - regardless of the motives for doing so. Again, as you will see on pages 1 through 12, it does not affect anyone, so what's the problem?!?!?!?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yes.

This "you are just saying that because they are Muslims" garbage has been tried several times. It's bull****. The particular brand of religion is irrelevant to me. Honest.

If the story was "Christian cab drivers refuse to drive people with alcohol" I'd say exactly the same things. I swear.

They ask this question and then ignore the answer, and continue to believe we are against it because we are somehow against muslims.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Please show me where I insulted you.
Was it saying you remind me of Ann Coulter?
That's only an insult if you don't like Ann Coulter. If you don't, you may want to consider changing your debating style, because it has many clear similarities to the way Ann Coulter debates. This was an observation, not an insult.
And how is that any different then you accusing me of being conservative and anti-muslim? That's far more insulting since it is baseless.

I think comparing me to Ann Coulter is off topic and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was a personal attack, and if you truly believe that I debate like Ann Coulter, may I remind you that you have never met me nor know what I do for a living - which to a certain extent involves debating. I completed my diplomatic training two weeks ago, and while I am far from being a master debater (...) I feel as though my debating style resembles anything but that of Ann Coulter. Comparing me to Ann Coulter was aimed to disregard my posts as some crazy, idelogue banter that is extreme. It was neither constructive nor added anything to the debate whatsoever. I feel as though the only reason why I got tagged is because I am a female, and following how you feel on the topic at hand, I am not surprised in the least to discover that you categorize every female that is passionate about a subject as Ann Coulter.

I gave you my reasons why I thought you were conservative and/or anti-Muslim. The anti-Muslim part is opinion, the conservative (at least on this issue) is fact. You have a problem with being conservative on the topic of equal rights, take it up with the Political Science Department at the UofC.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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't discriminate based on actions. (I think there is an echo in here) I am pretty sure the word discriminate is being thrown around pretty literally due to lack of a better term.

I can not draw parallels between veganism and religious beliefs (again, this has already been addressed pages ago). I don't eat meat, so if I waited in line at a restaurant, and I get my order and it had meat in it. Would I walk to the back of the line and wait again, or do I just order again? If a cab was at the front of the line, and the next passenger had something that couldn't fit in the cab, should the cab go back to the end of the line? I don't think it makes much sense to not allow the cab to just take the next available fair - regardless of the motives for doing so. Again, as you will see on pages 1 through 12, it does not affect anyone, so what's the problem?!?!?!?

What you don't understand is that the definition of discrimination you put doesn't work with what you are arguing. The city is not making a distinction of any sort you are, you are saying they should make a special distinction based on the religion of the cab drivers. That's discrimination read your own definition. Also that last argument doesn't work at all. The cab is the place of business not the customer the example you gave discusses the customer having a problem with the business.

The common policy is that if you refuse the fare you go back to the end of the line...

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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't discriminate based on actions. (I think there is an echo in here) I am pretty sure the word discriminate is being thrown around pretty literally due to lack of a better term.

From Webster's: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Discrimination

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Notice how the racial discrimination aspect comes third.
Read #1 - you can descriminate against peopel carrying alcohol. You can descriminate against people wearing oilers jerseys. I descriminate between small brewer's beer and the swill that is 'Blue'.

I can not draw parallels between veganism and religious beliefs (again, this has already been addressed pages ago). I don't eat meat, so if I waited in line at a restaurant, and I get my order and it had meat in it. Would I walk to the back of the line and wait again, or do I just order again? If a cab was at the front of the line, and the next passenger had something that couldn't fit in the cab, should the cab go back to the end of the line? I don't think it makes much sense to not allow the cab to just take the next available fair - regardless of the motives for doing so. Again, as you will see on pages 1 through 12, it does not affect anyone, so what's the problem?!?!?!?

The two teired cab system affects cabbies, cab jockeys, dispatchers and passengers.

Allowing a two teired system affects us all.