Cabbie ordered to pay $10,000 for telling lesbians to stop kissing

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

I just lost a huge major post by slipping and hitting some random button, sigh... so I'll just try and much shorter version.

That really sucks, doesn't it.

I'm kind of tired of this subject, sorry.

But, I did not say a straight couple complaint would make the media.

I pointed out his lawyer said he had a 17 year clean record.

a reply to: Annee

I've been there, tired of a subject. I'm not saying this is true in your case, but when it happens to me, it's often when I realize I've been arguing on the wrong side of the discussion. Is a hard bitter pill to swallow. I've been there many, many times. It's due to having been there that I believe much of what I do. I learned the hard way.

Once again not saying that's where you are, but if it is, it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, if you can accept it. It's a chance to either grow, and become better, or deny, and regress.

Either way, if you have been upset by any of this, if your being tired is from frustration or the like, then hugs, and know I'm sorry for anything that may have upset or frustrated you.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

I've been there, tired of a subject. I'm not saying this is true in your case, but when it happens to me, it's often when I realize I've been arguing on the wrong side of the discussion.

Definitely not the case.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nenothtu

Ok how about having a buffet which promotes gluttony, or having ever been divorced.

"Gluttony" is more a cultural thing than a religious one - it seems to be restricted to Catholic culture, as one of their "seven deadly sins", so if the baker is Catholic it might apply. Same with the divorce thing - it seems to depend on denomination, where some of them appear to allow it. On the other hand, I know of preachers who have refused to perform weddings for hetero couples if one or the other have been previously married. According to their religion, they would have been promoting adultery to perform another wedding for that couple.

Oh and the second the business owner has an affair, ect. Or servicing someone who's had an affair. Or serving someone who ordered excess food for themselves. There's so many things other than being gay that they need to prove they hold in equal contempt and treat with the same prejudice in order to use religion as a defense. One can not pick and choose and use their religion to defend their prejudice while ignoring it whenever it's inconvenient.

Agreed - but all these various religions vary as to tenets. For any individual, he should strive to adhere to his own tenets, and not vary from them. To do so is hypocritical. We just have to be careful not to try to apply the tenets of someone else's religion to that person in the testing. There are no "blanket Christians" any more than there are "blanket Muslims".

At work yesterday religion came up slightly and not a single christian that worked with me the agnostic had ever read the bible or knew the first thing about Jesus, but it certainly didn't stop them from claiming christianity and judging others.

Sad, isn't it?

Someone needs to prove that one, they actually are christian, and two, they aren't picking and choosing for their own benefit and thus a hypocrite.

In American jurisprudence, the burden of proof is upon the accuser. They don't have to prove they are a Christian, or what kind, the accuser has to prove they are NOT, or that they are violating their own moral code.

Using religious beliefs to defend bigotry is not a simple thing. People think they can just say it's against my beliefs and that should be it without them needing to defend or prove that they are truly committed to those beliefs and not just using them as a weapon and or shield.

For most Christians, I think that defending their belief is a built-in thing, and so there should really be no problem with that I would think.

I would note that most bibles specify that God lets the sun shine on "the just and the unjust alike" - if it's good enough for God, why is it not good enough for the Christians who claim to follow It? Furthermore, most bibles also specify that the "wicked" get all of their rewards here on Earth, and have nothing to look forward to beyond death -would it not be criminal, if one believed the bible, to deny non-Christians what little joy and reward they can grab under the Christian philosophy, while they can grab it? In other words, if God allows, who is the Christian to countermand that decree of God and prevent?

That's the angle I would approach it from - philosophical and logical rather than legalistic, because Christian "laws" vary by denomination and even individual, but the basic philosophy does not.

originally posted by: wasaka

originally posted by: nenothtu


His cab, his rules.

Not in New York City.

You're not allowed to own taxi cabs in New York City? I guess I'm really not surprised - I hear you can't buy reasonably sized soft drinks there, either.

Ridiculous stuff like that is probably the very reason I avoid new York and any place like it.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Was just thinking, the very act of having a pizza place and restaurant where you allow people to buy and eat as much as they want is participating, promoting and profiting from gluttony one of the seven deadly sins.

Last I checked, deadly sin was worse than random passages on sodomy, or am I mistaken?

Participating, promoting and profiting from a deadly sin is acceptable, but Participating and profiting from a lesser sin is not?

A long, long time ago I was a Christian. There were no "deadly sins" in that philosophy. Sin was sin, and one was no deadlier than another. Hierarchical sinning seems to be a Catholic innovation for their denomination, although there may be some few other denominations that go with that philosophy, too.

Having "bad" sins would imply there are "good" sins, wouldn't it?

a reply to: nenothtu

Even if we assume a sin is a sin, Jesus supposedly said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If being gay is no more a sin than thinking bad thoughts about your neighbor's spouse, then no one has the right to judge gay's any different than any other purpose who enters their store, nor any right to judge their lifestyle and marriage. It is God's place to make that call and not man. Let God judge the sinner as commanded by Him. Heck saying God Dammit when you hit your thumb with a hammer is a sin. Where do Christian's get off singling gays out if a sin is a sin?

a reply to: crayzeed

See, the first half of your post there was more or less the point I was trying to make. What happens outside the vehicle should be much more of a concern than what is going on in the back seat. I have driven friends and their dates home from town more than once, and I prefer to pay attention to the drunken people walking around in traffic, rather than what happens in my back seat.

Well no one's said it yet, except maybe that person who got their post removed for a T&C violation, so I guess I've got to be that person.

originally posted by: Expat888
Dummy should have taken video and enjoyed the show maybe theyd have even let him join in .. serves the idiot right getting fined ..

originally posted by: Answer
His man card should also be permanently revoked.

But wait a minute! What if they were fat, ugly girls making out?!? Kinda ruins the visual (unless you're into that sort of thing), don't you think? Sort of gives you a different perspective...

Don't hate me please, it had to be done, chuckle chuckle y'all, better to laugh about it than cry...

I noticed the original link seems to have been taken down, so I looked up the headline for a few links.
NY Daily News
New dnainfo link
Rainbow Times Mass.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Rocker2013

It greatly depends on the amount of PDA for me. I doubt I would be bothered by this, but everyone is different.

You people from other countries need to stop telling Americans how to think and feel.

You just tried to tell Americans how to think and feel. Hello Domo1...

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nenothtu

Even if we assume a sin is a sin, Jesus supposedly said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If being gay is no more a sin than thinking bad thoughts about your neighbor's spouse, then no one has the right to judge gay's any different than any other purpose who enters their store, nor any right to judge their lifestyle and marriage. It is God's place to make that call and not man. Let God judge the sinner as commanded by Him.

Christians are supposed to "hate the sin, but love the sinner". Refusing to participate in what one considers a sin, is not "judging" the other, it is, for the Christian, safeguarding the self. Attempting to, for instance, call down hell fire (where does that phrase come from, anyhow? why would HELL fire be coming DOWN?) on a gay person would be wrong, as it would be judging them,which is reserved to God in their philosophy - if they're devout Christians, that is. Simply refusing to participate, support, or promote their sin is not the same thing. They are free to come, free to go, and free to do whatever they like in their own lives. They are not free to force participation of a third party in it, however.

Heck saying God Dammit when you hit your thumb with a hammer is a sin. Where do Christian's get off singling gays out if a sin is a sin?

I dunno. I reckon it depends on their flavor of Christianity. I suppose in some circles it could be considered prayer or supplication. probably depends on intent. I just don't know.

In any event, their sins are their own to answer for, gay or straight, so I suppose it would be best to leave which sins they want to commit up to them.

From the original story:

The incident occurred on Sept. 18, 2011, after Spitzer and her dog climbed into Dahbi's cab at Columbus Circle and drove south to pick up Thornton in Chelsea. When they arrived in Chelsea, Thornton, who had been traveling, put her luggage in the taxi's trunk, and Dahbi began driving them to Thornton's home in Sunset Park.

The women testified at the trial that, at West 15th Street in the Meatpacking District, the cabbie told them to stop kissing and "save that behavior for the bedroom."

Dahbi claimed during the hearing that he couldn't keep his eyes on the road because Spitzer and Thornton were kissing "heavily" and "touching all over each other." Dahbi told the judge that he found their behavior "distracting" and feared it would make him have an accident.

Spitzer and Thornton both testified at the trial that they had just kissed each other with a "peck on the lips."

Spitzer told DNAinfo that she was certain it was only a light smooch because she had just had massive dental work done.

"That’s why I’m so aware of what my behavior was in the taxi," she said.

Here's the first thing that bothers me about this one. Cabbie says it was heavy kissing, couple says it was just a peck. The article does not say exactly where the cabbie picked Thornton up, but it does say that he began taking them where they needed to go. If it were just a peck, you would assume it would have happened fairly early into the ride, so it seeems odd that he would have asked them to stop at a different spot than where he picked Thornton up from. I would also think that if it were just a peck it would have been over with right after it began. Interesting that the administrative judge did not discern this.

The article does say that he did not refuse them service altogether, he simply asked them to refrain from engaging in what he considered to be lewd behavior if they wished to continue the transportation that he was providing them. What the law says that is in that area and whether or not they were actually engaged in such behavior, I wouldn't know. I do feel sorry for this guy though. So I come get you in my conveyance and you're just supposed to be able to do whatever it is that I'm uncomfortable with back there and I have no say about it, and if I do happen to speak up and demand some respect for my personal sense of propriety I will be fined into oblivion? That is terrible. If I were that guy I'm not sure I'd want to go to work anymore. Right or wrong, legalities aside, I feel sorry for the guy.

I've gotten to know a few coachmen in this life, and it is not an easy job. You could be shot, stabbed, beaten to death, robbed, maimed in an accident, have your cab peed in/pooped in/puked in/stained with love juices or totalled in a wreck, all on a daily basis. In fact, when you think about the odds, most of these things become a statistical likelihood, not if but when. I think if anything this case also helps to illustrate the sometimes thankless nature of that profession. Those poor cabbies. (ATS needs a single tear emoticon, but since I don't see one I'm just going to type about it here. Like a sad face but with a tear from only one eye type of thing. That here.)

Then there's this:

Spitzer, a TV executive

and this:

Thornton, an actress, stated that she made the tweets at the suggestion of her agent to be funnier on social media.

Seems like these ladies were not your average janes, that they had the clout and resource to get behind the case and push, and they did. Looks like they succeeded in SENDING A MESSAGE, as Annee suggested, but one that sets a nasty precedent, in my opinion.

Speaking of nasty precedents, I think I'm gonna grab my other and head on down to the real estate office/repair shop waiting room/courtroom and we will express our affection for each other, and nobody better say a damn word or...hey wait a minute...I'm a straight male...guess that's not gonna work for me. Expletive!!! It's not FAIR!!!

Seriously though, I keep trying to codify exaxctly what it really is that bothers me so much about this story. I think it's wrong to force a person to witness or experience close at hand behavior that they find disturbing, whether it's legal or not. If I were a cab driver, two girls making out in my backseat wouldn't bother me much, two guys making out would be disturbing to me. A passenger skinning rabbits in the backseat or taking their pet boa constrictor out of its cage would also be somewhat disturbing in my opinion. Propriety is all relative though, I think. Forcing all female passengers to cover their faces would probably be going too far, though to many fundamental Muslims, a woman exposing her face would seem provocative. Imagine how disturbing a kiss might be to someone so "repressed"(by our standard). I'm not saying it's right I'm just trying to point out the relative nature of people's sense of what is proper.

Almost makes a constitutional paradox, I think. Do we protect the individual's right to be secure in his effects at the expense of the individual's freedom of expression, or do we protect the individual's freedom of expression at the expense of the individual's right to be secure in his effects. I would rule for property rights, this judge ruled for the other side. The civil rights movement also made that ruling, and rightly so in my opinion. Take that argument to its extreme, and everyone can blank in the street or on the hood of the cab and no complaints should be tolerated. Take my argument to it's extreme, however, and Snipmart can make all their female customers wear burkas in the store if they wanted and that would be legal; or Snipworth's could decide that they once again don't want to allow black people to sit at their lunch counter and that would be legal. There's right and wrong on both sides of this issue when you break it down, in my opinion.

I think in this case, however, property should trump expression, as the coachman has a responsibility to deliver his human cargo safely to its destination. Therefore, any reasonable request that facilitates that end should be honored, for the sake of promoting the general welfare. Asking the passengers to refrain from behavior that the coachman considers to be disturbing does not seem unreasonable to me.

How about a Pentecostal cab driver: "Ma'am, I'm not taking you anywhere until you remove all of your makeup and jewelry, and put on a proper simple skirt and blouse!"

Or: "Ma'am, I'm going to have to escort you out of the store. You've removed your burka, and we here at Snipmart don't allow women to have their faces exposed."

a reply to: nenothtu

And I'll argue til the end of time unless they themselves are getting married or engaging in homosexual sex, they are not guilty of homosexual sinning, to say they are is ridiculous.

a reply to: Puppylove

All things considered, unless you personally are their preacher or their god or whatever, they probably aren't going to care much about your personal opinion of what amounts to them to be a charge of "accessory after the fact".

Matter of fact, I kind of doubt that argument would hold up in a secular court if a getaway car driver tried to use it, saying HE wasn't the one that actually robbed anything at all. I have a sneaky feeling the judge wouldn't just say "oh, okay! I just didn't understand your position - you're free to go!"