"Muslim cabbies Want to Discriminate Against Customers"

[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.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Is it really a choice for, say for example, Muslims in Iran? I understand the question, I just don't think its that socially acceptable to tell your devout muslim family that your converting to judaism.

Yeah, they may "technically" be free to do so, but realistically, they dont.

I know what your saying Jay....but it is still a choice....and if people didn't stand up to what they believe....well....Hitler would still be running the place....or Muslims wouldn't have a religion at all....as it is the last of the Three great Monotheisms.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Regardless if it is small in the GRAND SCALE of things. It's called a slippery slope. Already they can refuse blind people....blind people for hell sakes. It has to stop or it will just continue on.

And they got fined for refusing those blind people.

And you will need to decide whether or not you're using the slippery slope argument correctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[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.

Tell me what is so "common sense" about making a cab driver, who has waited three hours to get a fare, go to the back of the line when he/she can simply stay in line until a non-alcoholic fare comes along? This is not common sense, this is non-sense!

Look, the cabbie has been waiting in line to make it to the front. To the drivers behind him, it shouldn't matter if he waits for the next available fare because he has been waiting in front them regardless. The non-Muslim cabbies are at an advantage because if there are only Muslim drivers in front of him/her, he can skip those drivers and go in front of them. Instead of non-Muslim drivers taking fares that can be taken by Muslim drivers, allowing the Muslim drivers to stay in line is the most efficient way for everyone.

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. This isn't disregarding anybody's rights, but ensuring the rights of Muslims. Not doing this, is in direct violation of a Muslim's right to follow his/her own religious beliefs. This is what this comes down to.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You're a pretty smart guy Agamemnon. Do you think this action, in the grand scale of Things That Matter, is really all that important?

Like most things argued to death on this board, it really doesn't matter at all... especially to anyone posting about it. If it were enacted it would set a precedence though that would be disturbing to me. How does it stop there? If a Muslim doesn't want to sit on a bus near someone who is intoxicated, should we make a special place on the bus for Muslims? If we don't, aren't we violating their 'right to ride the bus within the parameters of their religion'? If anything it should happen on the buses first given that they are truly 'public services'.

If cabbies are waiting three hours for a fare, that tells me there's a lot more cabs than there are customers over there. Looks like the only people being screwed here are those silly Muslims.

What if there are 3 cabs at the airport in the middle of the night and they're all driven by Somali Muslims? The potential passengers are screwed if they have liquor in their bags.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You're a pretty smart guy Agamemnon. Do you think this action, in the grand scale of Things That Matter, is really all that important?

If cabbies are waiting three hours for a fare, that tells me there's a lot more cabs than there are customers over there. Looks like the only people being screwed here are those silly Muslims.

Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
No, obviously the easier answer is to set up different ques at the airport based on your religion, religious apartheid = free society!


Who said anything about seperate ques?!?!?! Religious apartheid?!?!?

Oh, that's rich!

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

People, please stop feeding the animals...

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Like most things argued to death on this board, it really doesn't matter at all... especially to anyone posting about it. If it were enacted it would set a precedence though that would be disturbing to me. How does it stop there? If a Muslim doesn't want to sit on a bus near someone who is intoxicated, should we make a special place on the bus for Muslims? If we don't, aren't we violating their 'right to ride the bus within the parameters of their religion'? If anything it should happen on the buses first given that they are truly 'public services'.

Well, the bus service is truly public. Cab service is still a private business. Yes, I know everybody keeps bringing up the "but it's publicly regulated!" argument, but there's lots of other industries that are far more regulated than the cab industry (OSHA-regulated industries come to mind) and they can do whatever they want in terms of providing services.

What if there are 3 cabs at the airport in the middle of the night and they're all driven by Somali Muslims? The potential passengers are screwed if they have liquor in their bags.

I dunno. Do these edge cases exist? If I were a cab driver that does pick up passengers with alcohol, I'd head straight to the airport all the time to pick up these easy fares.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Tell me what is so "common sense" about making a cab driver, who has waited three hours to get a fare, go to the back of the line when he/she can simply stay in line until a non-alcoholic fare comes along? This is not common sense, this is non-sense!

Look, the cabbie has been waiting in line to make it to the front. To the drivers behind him, it shouldn't matter if he waits for the next available fare because he has been waiting in front them regardless. The non-Muslim cabbies are at an advantage because if there are only Muslim drivers in front of him/her, he can skip those drivers and go in front of them. Instead of non-Muslim drivers taking fares that can be taken by Muslim drivers, allowing the Muslim drivers to stay in line is the most efficient way for everyone.

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. This isn't disregarding anybody's rights, but ensuring the rights of Muslims. Not doing this, is in direct violation of a Muslim's right to follow his/her own religious beliefs. This is what this comes down to.

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.

[Superflyer]

I have no problem with the argument of if the cabbie at the front of the line will not take your fare because you are carrying alcohol to go the next and let them stay at the front, because as it has been said, he was there and it is fair to boot them to the back. The problem that I do have is waiting for 20 minutes until they make their way down the line until they find someone that will take you, because not to be racist, but most cabbies are muslim.

The other thing that I do not like is picture a single mom just getting out of Safeway with a cart full of food and 2 screaming kids. They wait for a cab for 15 minutes in the cold and when he arrives he says that he cannot take her home because she also bought a 4 pack of coolers. So she has to wait another 15 minutes, at least, in the cold until another cab can get there.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

However, in this completely different situation, there is a way that Muslims can be a cab driver AND practice their religious beliefs without any kind of repercussion whatsoever.

It was posted in this thread that the Muslim community actually has no technical rules against transporting people who are carrying liquor, the rule is that Muslims themselves are not allowed to have liquor.

Jeez, talk about taking the extreme ends. Seperate places on buses? Religious apartheid?

Yeah... I'm the extremist here...

Why not? If a Muslim cab driver shouldn't have to drive someone who doesn't conform to their religion, why should a Muslim be forced to sit by someone on a bus who doesn't conform to their religion (is intoxicated)? I assume we should set up an area of the bus that is 'safe' for them to practise their relgion, no? And if not, why not?

We're talking about a line-up of cabs that would continue as usual.

No, we're talking about new, special priveleges for certain groups based on their specific religion.

Did you even read the article or are you just adding your two cents because you have no one in real life to criticize?

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

For someone who whines about personal attacks in posts I defy you to find one personal attack from me towards you in this thread. Hypocrite.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Okay, so religion can not be used as a trump card to deny people a service - but it can, and that's not me speaking, that's society. The catholic church will not marry gay couples. "Society" sees these homosexuals as doing nothing wrong, yet they can not marry gays because that is there religious beliefs. This is the same thing, but again, I think the reason why people have an easier time allowing the Catholic church to practice their religion but not Muslims is because of the negative stereotypes associated with Muslims in North America.

This is a good point. However there is an "apples & Oranges" aspect to it.
The institution of marrage is not the same as a business service - religious institutions cannot "jump the que". But the parallel is reasonable - Freedom of religion allows one to deny service to another if one's religion prohibits it.

I do not think that is what is being argued here.

A reasonable exception in my mind, would be to allow Muslims to stay in line until an appropriate fare comes along, rather than putting them in an uphill battle and making them go to the back of the line risking the same thing repeatedly. To me, this is efficient and that way Muslims do not have to choose between their religion and feeding their families. If a cab driver consistantly has to go to the back of the line and wait for hours, you will be forcing them to go against their religious beliefs - something you are saying you are against.

This is the crux of the argument - Allowing the Muslim (or Jewish, or Buhdist, etc.) cabbie to stay at the front of the que until that cabbie decides that who is an "appropriate fare". Say this is allowed. That cabbie can sit there at the front of the line while out comes - a person carrying a wine bottle, a blind person with a seeing-eye dog, a woman in a short skirt, a Jew wearing a kippah, a black man who may be going to an udesierable part of town, a person dressed in a military uniform, a clearly gay couple... the list could go on. That cabbie can wait there until a good devout Muslim steps out the door looking of a ride. You could argue that that cabbie will likely take a fare from one of the above examples, but the bottom line is that cabbie can refuse a fare without penalty.

You could say that the loss of a fare, the loss of a sale, the loss of business is society's way of saying "hey, you may want to re-think (your job or religious stance) or you may not eat."

And yes, the concern about a slippery slope is real - what is next? Bus drivers refusing fares? Doctors refusing to treat patients? Restaurants segragating patrons?

You may not think it could happen, but then that is when it usually does.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
No, obviously the easier answer is to set up different ques at the airport based on your religion, religious apartheid = free society!


Who said anything about seperate ques?!?!?! Religious apartheid?!?!?

Oh, that's rich!

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

People, please stop feeding the animals...

Why put me on ignore and then respond to everything I say? Make up your mind you crazy nut.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, the bus service is truly public. Cab service is still a private business. Yes, I know everybody keeps bringing up the "but it's publicly regulated!" argument, but there's lots of other industries that are far more regulated than the cab industry (OSHA-regulated industries come to mind) and they can do whatever they want in terms of providing services.

Yeah, thats my point. The bus service is public, so everyone should be accomodated and be comfortable, right? If we're going to mandate that a private service like cabs be regulated based on religion of the cab driver, shouldn't public services like buses definitely be regulated to accomodate various religions using them? Why is it ok to regulate cabs based on religion but not bus seating arrangements?

[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.

[Agamemnon]

No doubt... you know when the Left AND the Right are joining up that something's screwy with her argument.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Jeez, talk about taking the extreme ends. Seperate places on buses? Religious apartheid? Did you even read the article or are you just adding your two cents because you have no one in real life to criticize? We're talking about a line-up of cabs that would continue as usual. If the next passenger has alcohol, then the next non-Muslim in line gets that fair - benefitting both that cab driver and the person who needs a cab. Now, since in the article that you neglected to read, it said these cabs usually wait up to three hours until they get a fare. You're telling me that instead of allowing the Muslim to stay at the front of the line (where he/she has waited for, and would not have any influence on cabs behind him either than maybe allowing them to go ahead of him/her) that the cab driver should go to the back of the line and wait for another three hours, hoping that the next fare is appropriate?

Did you read the article?

"And what if Muslim drivers demand the right not to transport women wearing short skirts or tank tops, or unmarried couples? After taxis, why not buses, trains and planes? Eventually, in some respects, our society could be divided along religious lines. The negative reaction to the two-tiered solution does not spring from hostility to Muslims. Muslims have thrived in America. On average, they are well-integrated and have higher incomes and more education than other Americans, according to Peter Mandaville, director of the Center for Global Studies at George Mason University in Virginia.
America offers Muslims an important advantage beyond economic opportunity. We are a more religious people than Europeans, and so more respectful of religious belief. The first freedom guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, after all, is the free exercise of religion.
But the issue at the MAC seems to raise nagging "Chapter Two"-related questions. It suggests that -- if we don't handle such matters right -- down the road could lie a legally sanctioned religious separatism that is incompatible with America's unifying civic vision."




Whereas you see this argument as being ONLY about Muslim cabbies and passengers carrying alcohol, others that there may be more to it. You can see the parrallels in bold.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

As it relates strictly to the airport, the problem as I see it with this arguement is two fold.

1) It does present somewhat of a slippery slope. If it is okay for a Muslim driver to decline a fare without penalty, becasue the person looking for the ride is doing something that is not allowed in their religion, then what is stopping a Catholic driver from denying fares from gay patrons? Can Jews decline fares from pig farmers? And has been mentioned before, what about women who's heads aren't covered?

2) Logistics. Those who say that this should be allowed are overlooking a very important fact about the way cabs are set up in airports. They are in a single line and called up when needed. If every driver is allowed to decline fares based on religious beliefs then very quickly you could end up with quite a jumble of cabs waiting for a fare. What is an attendant supposed to do? Get profiles for each cabbie in the line and match them up to passengers?

Okay, so you're a gay pig farmer, and you've got a bottle of wine in your suitcase.....sorry, we don't have any drivers for you.

How bout you? Hmmm...a woman....can you cover your head....No?...okay, 4th cab in the line.

How bout you sir? White male, no booze, and don't like bacon? Okay, you can have the first cab.

It causes too many problems when it is just the booze issue, let alone the problems it has the potential to cause.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Yeah, thats my point. The bus service is public, so everyone should be accomodated and be comfortable, right? If we're going to mandate that a private service like cabs be regulated based on religion of the cab driver, shouldn't public services like buses definitely be regulated to accomodate various religions using them? Why is it ok to regulate cabs based on religion but not bus seating arrangements?

Well, private industry has always had more leeway in who they do and don't serve, for whatever arbitrary reasons, including those that violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shazam

And they got fined for refusing those blind people.

And you will need to decide whether or not you're using the slippery slope argument correctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Uhhh....did you read it on wikipedia??? Yes it is a slippery slope.