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

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh I am sure. Annee's point was that that taxicab driver have seen s*** over the years he drove in NYC. 17 years and that driver was bothered by this? Something is funny.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I would donate to this guy. I don't liKe PDAs either and it is disrespectful to do that in front of another human being...especially if it makes them uncomfortable. Common decency would be to stop if asked. As far as tyranny? Being fined 10k for asking someone to show some respect is exactly what tyranny is to me.

SMH

As a transgender bisexual let me say, this is completely utterly ridiculous and in my opinion the case should have been thrown out. There's no proof this had anything to do with discrimination against anything besides PDA if it were about them being gay, he'd have just kicked them out of the cab without the ultimatum.

He didn't refuse them service, he just said basically, "my cab is not your hotel room, don't treat it like one" which I for one think should have been respected.

It's crap like this that slows progress down, every time crap like this happens more support is lost and the less likely real true discrimination cases will have the claws it needs to succeed when it occurs.

It's also stuff like this that creates that whole "homosexual agenda" bull# that's floating around. People misusing the protections and laws that are supposed to protect us. The more such laws are abused, the less likely they'll be enforced as more and more people begin to reject them and see them only for the corruption and abuse they allow.

Is like the whole SNAP situation on the food stamp thread. The only reason it's a problem is because of the few criminals abusing the system and breaking the law making it look bad, which threatens SNAP benefits for everyone using it legitimately and are truly both in need of it and deserving of the assistance the program provides.

The truth is, these girls saw a chance to scream bigot and get a nice big check cashed. They are nothing more than selfish, disrespectful opportunists that give a bad name to everyone who shares their sexuality and have been in situations that are truly deserving of the protections these laws provide.

I only have this to say to those girls, "Shame on you and the harm you've done us all. You are not my sisters, you are parasites, may you suffer true discrimination one day so you can know what real discrimination is and the harm you have done."

a reply to: Domo1

That is probably the most ridiculous thing I"ve read this week.

There's the definition of an activist judge for you.

As a member of the LGBT community, anybody who thinks this is a good thing, should be ashamed. This is exactly the kind of thing that can be rightfully used against the LGBT community.

Nobody should be forced to watch two people sucking face, regardless of gender or sexual identity. The fact that he was just labelled a bigot for no other reason than that's what the judge thought, is disgusting.

~Tenth

The question that occurs to me, reading some of your responses here: what level of discrimination is too much?

Statements here are that the couple shouldn't have brought this to the Administrative Court in NYC because:

1)This could be seen as LGBT demanding "special rights" (what, to kiss someone in public?).

2)This could be seen as trying to use governmental/legal systems against the public unfairly?

What needed to happen to them for them to make an issue of being treated differently because of their sexual orientation?

I mean, what did he have to do? He told them to quit or get out of the cab. He stopped, and they got out.

He apparently called them a few choice names, and they may have called him some as well (even though he walked that claim back at the hearing).

So, what did the cabbie need to do to the couple to have it be "legitimately bad" discrimination?

a reply to: Gryphon66

When did the name calling start? We need more info, ect. Did he first tell them no kissing or they needed to get out, and then things blew up? Who actually started it? And no, asking them to get out if they don't quit with the PDA is not starting it.

If they instigated it by disrespecting his reasonable request in his cab then I'd place it on them not him for starting the fight. Once a fight begins then people say stupid #, is human nature, the instigator is the most wrong.

PDA is a thing that is reasonably allowed to be requested by people to stop in businesses and places everywhere. I've seen straight people asked to quit before, I've been asked to quit before with my opposite sex partner, it's nothing to get upset about.

So it's a chicken or the egg scenario.

If the guy requested it then they turned it into a big deal and the situation exploded it's on them, they did the wrong, not him.

If he said, "no homo's kissing in my cab, quit or get the # out you trampy whores" for example, then it's he who wronged them.

The instigator is the one who started the fight and thus is in the wrong, or at the very minimum makes it a zero sum event.

The request was a reasonable one, whether straight or gay. If they blew up on him and then he blew up and said prejudiced things back, then he has now in theory (I disagree as is returned defensive anger stupidity but whatever) it could be argued he has now wronged them as well, thus making it both wronging each other and thus a zero sum event. No lawsuit should occur.

ONLY in the, he made the request in a derogatory manner while clearly demeaning them for their sexuality, situation is it a positive sum situation in the gay couple's favor. In most scenarios it leans in the cabby's favor not theirs, so without evidence and simply hearsay, he said/she said type scenario the ruling should be made in favor of the cabby due to what is most likely a zero sum situation.

Unless you think asking people to quit PDA is an unreasonable request to make.

a reply to: Puppylove

Would much rather see pda than the rampant idiocy thats run amok in the world ..

Tbh both the cabbie and the girls are idiots .. meh first world problems people getting worked up over # that doesnt mean a damn thing ..

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh I am sure. Annee's point was that that taxicab driver have seen s*** over the years he drove in NYC. 17 years and that driver was bothered by this? Something is funny.

Quite possibly, but the facts are, if you assume something bad about someones motivations and are wrong, it is you who have wronged them. If, however, you give them the benefit of the doubt, and then it turns out, they have wronged you, then it is they who have done bad. So if you're going to accuse someone of something and while doing so, attempt to punish them for it, you had best make damn sure you are right or you are the bad guy, because you have just punished an innocent person because you decided to assume the worst of someone because of very shaky assumptions without proof.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

I would donate to this guy. I don't liKe PDAs either and it is disrespectful to do that in front of another human being...especially if it makes them uncomfortable. Common decency would be to stop if asked. As far as tyranny? Being fined 10k for asking someone to show some respect is exactly what tyranny is to me.

SMH

I call that Homofasicms.

a way of organizing a society in which homosexuals impose their agenda with which no one is allowed to disagree or have any appeal to the contrary without being subject to severe consequences of ridicule, slander, libel, fines , public demonstrations, distortions, denial of free speech rights, loss of employment/sponsorship, or having the word "hate" attached to you in some way or form.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Expat888

I have no problem with PDA myself, but it's still a reasonable request, and being asked to stop is not a 10,000 dollar fine worth event and that's where the situation is.

Is it really reasonable to punish people for asking a gay couple to quit with PDA when it's a perfectly normal, reasonable and accepted request with straights?

I'm not prejudiced, if people can ask straights to quit with the PDA then I expect it to be acceptable if I'm kissing my girlfriend as well. Anything else would be true prejudice.

a reply to: Puppylove

True .. though if was judge would have fined both parties the same amount for being idiots and wasting the courts time .. then tossed them out of the courthouse ..

a reply to: Puppylove

Thanks for your response, but it seems to me you're analyzing and evaluating what happened as reported in the court case and the article.

I admit it seems like both parties were culpable.

The cabbie's offical Answer in court alledged many things (being called Muslim racial slurs, for example) that he wouldn't stand behind in the actual courtroom and that may have had an impact on the Judge's decision, as well as the man's comportment in court, as well as a dozen other factors that the judge perceived in court that we can only guess at.

My question goes more to the underlying idea here ... that we LGBT have fought long and hard for equal rights under the laws, and we've had some success, but like many straight opponents like to remind us, the real issue is an implicit threat that all our new "rights and equalities" are really only at the pleasure of the public, and if we do anything to peeve them off, well, we might just find ourselves back where we were 50-60 years ago, that is, if we make too much of a nuisance of ourselves.

In that light, what would have turned the tide against the cabbie in your eyes? If he had started with some sort of verbal slur? Actually threatened violence? Pulled out a gun and assaulted them?

I don't think that hugs, quick greeting kisses, or hand-holding should be considered PDA no. However, since what you're referring to (I think) is the equivalent of foreplay in public, then no, that's not acceptable to me FOR MYSELF. I don't think I have the right to tell anyone else what they can do per se in a public place though. Discomfiture is not damage.

a reply to: Expat888

Only one that wasted the courts time was the gay couple in that scenario, the cabby certainly didn't try to sue anyone. Being at the courthouse would not have been the cabby's fault.

a reply to: Telos

Hmmm... your "homofascism" sounds a lot like the ways that gays and lesbians (and bis and trans*) were treated until the late 20th century in some cases and 2003 in others (SCOTUS decision that sodomy laws are unconstitutional), and still today by some every chance they get.

That would suck if it were happening, I admit. Any examples of this fascism?

a reply to: Puppylove

Ahh .. think missed that when read the account .. mistranslated the context english is a confusing language at times misunderstand the context of situations when read / use english ..
In that case yes the girls should have been fined .. time for another beer english doing my head in again ..

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right we ultimately need more information, but much of this is a hearsay, he/said she/said event where very little actual harm was done, whether the cabby was an ass or not.

10,000 dollars is a ridiculous fine for this by any stretch.

Sounds like you're implying some shady courtroom behavior that influenced the judge, but even still he didn't purger himself on the stand as far as we can prove, though the change does demonstrates he may have been complicit due to his earlier statements, but even still, the biggest issue is this sets the precedent that you can fine someone up to 10,000 dollars for merely stating they said prejudiced things to you with no proof of any sort.

The fine should be affected by the evidence. If all you have is hearsay and some shady behavior, perhaps fining people, especially in our terrible economy 10,000 dollars is a bit much. The guy's a cabby he might never get out of that debt and his life will be affected by this for years at a minimum for what, hurt feelings for a bit?

This is no more fine worthy than a speeding ticket. The fine should not be 2000 times the damage done.

Oh and your personal cab is not a public place, it's one's personal business, and they only get in your cab if you open your doors to them.

A public place is like a library or restaurant with an open door policy. A cab is a very different thing.

a reply to: Puppylove

I'm not sure the Administrative Court held a hearing and made this decision based only on hearsay. I'll see if I can find us a transcript of the proceedings somewhere.

The case was brought by NYC's Commission on Human Rights, I'm guessing that they would have looked for more material facts in the situation than just she said/she said/he said.

The only implications I made were made in the article from the OP. It sounds to me like there were a lot of countercharges made in the Cabbie's answer that he subsequently wouldn't stand behind in actual Court; he testified that he had been volunteering "for the last few weeks" at an MCC food bank etc., which sounds like a stunt (probably prompted by his atty) to be able to say "See your Honor, I've been working to feed homeless people."

Like I said, that's guess work.

The fine was actualy $5000 to the city and $10000 damages to the couple. To know whether that is "over the top" or not in these cases, I'd have to do more research.

But again, my interest was what would the guy have had to do to be guilty of something that should have been taken through the legal system? Would he have had to scream "Lesbian blankety-blanks" before commanding them to get out of his cab?

I'm looking for common ground on where we would agree that the cabbie is in the wrong rather than just "a victim" of the roving bands of LGBT looking for a fight.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Oh and your personal cab is not a public place, it's one's personal business, and they only get in your cab if you open your doors to them.

A public place is like a library or restaurant with an open door policy. A cab is a very different thing.

Cabs and cartages are actually one of the oldest recognized examples of public accommodation in English Common law.

But goodness sakes let's not fight that one out again here, LOL.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong or right is a matter of evidence, like I said is possible for either party to have been/be in the wrong, is also possible for both parties to be in the wrong.

In any of the above cases, the biggest problem is the fine is so far above and beyond what it should be even IF we assume wrong on the part of the cabby.

All that's really going on here is the state is taking advantage of the law to rule in favor of the gay couple so they can lay claim on a ridiculous amount of money for the state in the process.

If it were just about what was right, and not about getting money, then the fine and court fees would be more reasonable.