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

Gay or straight, I don't want to be annoyed by people making out. They have PLENTY of privacy yet they feel the need to do it in front of people. Actually straight couples are the worst. I know a married couple that doesn't even sleep in the same bed, yet in public she is always scratching his back and kissing on him, her husband actually thinks its weird too. Gay people just want the right to annoy people like str8 people do by being affectionate In public when they don't touch each other at home. Can anyone say FAKE POSER ?

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Really?

So based on his basic human right to feel uncomfortable in the situations he chooses (because THAT IS HOW IT WORKS), he gets a sever financial punishment for it...which in fact doesn't do a damn thing to rectify the issue at hand, for either party...just the corporation of New York City.

Do explain how he got what he deserved.

He was not fined because he felt uncomfortable, but because he reacted the way he did.

Just imagine if drivers of Islam religion started not just to feel uncomfortable about women not wearing proper cloth, but starts reacting like this driver, what would happen?? Do you support them objecting to what they think is 'uncomfortable'??

Yes...imagination IS key to your response.

No imagination required to know that you would support his rights, ... right???

Care to explain to me what double standard means?? I am not that good in English language...

a reply to: Domo1

All this is going to do is give him reason to hate them even more. Nothing was solved.

CHELSEA — A taxi driver must pay a lesbian couple $10,000 for telling them to either stop smooching in the backseat of his cab or kiss their ride goodbye, a city administrative judge ruled last month.

From what I understand ...for cab drivers, this is not a legal ruling, but a sub-specific-administrative court tethered to their Cabbie permit.

This not a legal ruling per-se, but a "cab driver" court where their permits are reviewed and fines given out for bad practices and behavior etc.

Doesn't speak tot he justice of it, but people shouldn't see this as a legal judgment in the traditional sense. It is a "Cab driver" judge handling cab driver violations and complaints.

fall under the directive and judgment of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. The judge found him not to be credible, mainly because he claimed in his written statement that the women called him Islamophobic names, but then in the trial, he backed off that completely. His "reasoning" for asking the women to stop was "he couldn't concentrate on the road" and thus might have an accident. LOL. The judge saw through it and fined him appropriately.

On a different note...

The Media is looking to push culture war buttons...for them doing so equals profits, but it nurtures division in this country.

We should make a habit of always scratching beyond the surface of these types of stories.

The problem with stuff like this is, it shows lives being ruined for what as a LGBT speaking is truly nothing more than a bit on annoyance that will upset me for maybe a day or two and then become a conversation starter.

These lawsuits are so extreme that they end up doing more harm than good because the punishment is so severe in comparison to the crime.

It sends us back, because instead of promoting acceptance it promotes fear, anger, frustration and hate. Offend one of us, even accidentally, for but a moment, and if public perception is on our side, you can find yourself in debt for years and jobless, and it may have been nothing more than a slip of the tongue or a bad day. Not to mention who you are could end up plastered everywhere, labelled forever as a bigot.

Something needs to be done about these extreme punishments, wherever they come from.

Oh right, and this severe punishment is only severe if you're middle or working class, if you're rich the fines are still laughable and you can be a bigot at will.

So due to our oversensitivity and willingness to allow corrupt and broken laws or organizations to "protect" us without speaking against them for being extreme and ruining people for what is at worst hurt feelings makes us the bad guys.

You ever hear the saying, "Sticks and stones will break our bones, but names will never hurt me?"

Well we're allowing names launched at us to be responded to with sticks and stones.

The only "message" sent by the judge is, if someone gay decides to take offense to something you say, the state will ruin you.

Here it is folks ... The law has surrendered for the sake of political correctness.

It will only get worse - any little issue becomes now a discrimination case blown out of proportions hurting and dividing society even more.

It will be not long when a straight couple is kissing in public and a gay couple is offended by that - suing the straight couple and win the case. It's the "war of orientation" and no one will win this one.

People really need to come down and stop acting like 4 year olds (please don't sue me for this potential discrimination). If someone doesn't like what you doing then respect it and vice versa. That's not discrimination but is called dealing with each other.

originally posted by: Puppylove
The problem with stuff like this is, it shows lives being ruined for what as a LGBT speaking is truly nothing more than a bit on annoyance that will upset me for maybe a day or two and then become a conversation starter.

These lawsuits are so extreme that they end up doing more harm than good because the punishment is so severe in comparison to the crime..

Did LGBT make the law or assign the fine amount?

They filed a discrimination complaint. But, they are not responsible for the outcome.

Just a point.

a reply to: Annee

Whether we are directly responsible for the legal outcome is irrelevant to the unjust laws that, that complaint results in.

If say you punched me in the face, and I complained to my mobster friend knowing he tended to go a bit crazy and overboard, and then he showed up at your door with a baseball bat, beat you within and inch of your life, and put you in the hospital, would you just say, "Oh you just complained to your friend is all, it's not your fault."

As long as the legal system acts with strong arm mobster like force for even minor discrepancy's we are responsible when we choose to use said system to handle our problems.

If we want to use the legal system, and file complaints to protect ourselves, we need to also protect our own interests by making sure the laws they enforce to defend us are fair and just.

It is not a fair point to say, oh we just filed a complaint, it's not our fault the legal system is extreme.

We all know how ridiculous the government's fines are, ignorance is not an excuse. Big payouts are advertized everywhere.

Why not report it, you might get lucky and get a big payout, or at least get a bigot in trouble, as for you, it took three second to file a complaint and potentially ruin someone's life.

And that's the problem, the governments laws are so overboard we cannot defend ourselves legally without ruining someone else life unfairly. The laws do us and no one no justice.

But we don't fight these unjust laws, cause who doesn't want a chance to win the anti-discrimination lotto and make big bucks. And that's where the rub is, this is the perception, someone minorly offends a minority and lives are ruined. The law did it is not an excuse when we're the ones going to the law for protection in the first place and not arguing when we ruin someone else life while we win it big.

Who has said, ok this fine is excessive and returned most of the money to say, "destroying your life was not the point, it was you wronging me that was. I'm sorry for the state's excessive sociopathy" the answer, no one, everyone just happily takes the big payout and pretend they're all good for ruin someone's business and life for an ultimately minor grievance.

originally posted by: Domo1
This is complete BS. I don't care if the guy was actually being homophobic (and he doesn't appear to have been), this is overkill.

I don't care if it was a quick peck on the lips, it's overkill.

If someone is uncomfortable with PDA and asks you to knock it off, the appropriate response should be to knock it off. Especially in a cab or other closed in space.

CHELSEA — A taxi driver must pay a lesbian couple $10,000 for telling them to either stop smooching in the backseat of his cab or kiss their ride goodbye, a city administrative judge ruled last month.

His cab, his rules. Maybe PDA, regardless of context makes him uncomfortable.



This next part seems like pure BS.

However, the judge disagreed.

"The more likely reason for [Dahbi] stopping the taxicab and directing Ms. Spitzer and Ms. Thornton to stop kissing was, not that he objected to all kissing, but that he was uncomfortable with two women sharing a romantic kiss," Spooner said his decision.

The more likely reason? Is this a joke? There is no proof, no real evidence but because the judge thinks it's a more likely reason?

After Dahbi gave his ultimatum, Thornton told him that he was discriminating against them because they were gay, according to the decision.

"Don't make me out to be an a--hole," Dahbi responded to her, the decision says.

So if all parties agreed he said that, doesn't that make it seem like the reason was because of the PDA and not because of sexual orientation?

One comment I saw from someone who is apparently a member of the LGBT community said he thought it was disgusting to see people wielding their sexuality as a weapon. I completely agree.

$10,000 for mildly insulting someone (at worst). Thats a pretty hefty fine, especially for someone driving a cab to have to deal with.

www.dnainfo.com... ork/20150410/chelsea/cabbie-ordered-pay-lesbian-couple-10k-for-telling-them-stop-kissing

a reply to: Domo1

How can a judge decide what someone else was THINKING? Orwellian much?

Probably has more to do with social and cultural customs than discrimination. He even said "don't make me out to be an asshole..."

This is (in)just utterly ridiculous.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: Domo1

On the other hand, it's New York City. The taxis are regulated by the city and are essential for transportation and no doubt for the tourism industry as well. If he wants to enforce a Muslim "standard of decency" in his presence maybe he should get another job instead of driving cab in NYC.

So if a gay person wishes to express their love for another gay person, they should find another bakery? Fair is fair...or is it?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: Domo1

On the other hand, it's New York City. The taxis are regulated by the city and are essential for transportation and no doubt for the tourism industry as well. If he wants to enforce a Muslim "standard of decency" in his presence maybe he should get another job instead of driving cab in NYC.

So if a gay person wishes to express their love for another gay person, they should find another bakery? Fair is fair...or is it?

The issue is that it becomes an "gay" issue! Who cares if you are gay or not. You don't go the bakery because you want to exercise your "gay rights" .. you go to the bakery to buy something yummy. The issue is that these and other groups need special treatment .. stop stop stop .. the 2% obviously.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Oh, and I forgot to mention, some states have laws protecting the rights of all citizens, not just LGBT people. If the guy really is that offended or upset by two people kissing, maybe he should get another job? If you provide a service to the public, you don't get to pick and choose which members of the public you will serve based on your own bigotries.

I do, but that's really neither here nor there. The cabbie was not refusing service to a member of the public, he was enforcing decorum in his workplace. The last time I checked, which admittedly was quite some time ago, decorum didn't have a sexual orientation.

originally posted by: Puppylove

As for catering, as in the pizza place set up fiasco, that's trying to force someone to actively participate in the wedding itself, I have no problem with them refusing service so long as they can prove that they aren't cherry picking their religious convictions. Which is the rub. If say you can prove the owners eat shellfish or pork then, that alone makes their convictions using the christian religion to not cater to the event invalid. Especially if the place serves shellfish or pork products.

On the whole, I agree with everything you've said. You seem to be supremely reasonable and equitable, which is refreshing.

I have to take slight issue with this statement, however. Prohibitions against shellfish and pork are Jewish prohibitions, not Christian. Christians are allowed to eat whatever they like, based upon the passage in their texts that says that whatever comes OUT of a man's mouth is what makes him unclean, rather than whatever goes INTO it. That particular test is an invalid one for Christians.

Musilms have a saying that they can eat with a Jew, but not sleep under his roof, and they can sleep under a Christian roof, but not eat with them. The dietary prohibitions are the reason - they are the same for Muslims and Jews, but not for Christians.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

Just imagine if drivers of Islam religion started not just to feel uncomfortable about women not wearing proper cloth, but starts reacting like this driver, what would happen?? Do you support them objecting to what they think is 'uncomfortable'??

Yes.

His cab, his rules.

He probably wouldn't stay in business long that way, since America is not being overrun with hijab wearing women, but that would be his business decision to make.

His cab, his rules.

I'm fed up with this whole LGBT/LMFAO/RSVP/WHATEVER label people keep shoving on themselves or others. It promotes a them and us attitude and increases division, which is surely completely against the intention of those who campaigned over the years to be accepted as people, not a sexual orientation.

I feel embarrassed that we live in a world where we feel the need to define ourselves by who we rub up against.

As for the cab thing - this happens with straight couples all the time where I live. If a cabbie doesn't want to look at 2 people all over each other while he is working then he has the right to say so. The couple involved should have the common courtesy to give it a break until they get where they are going. If that is so difficult then they are displaying a degree of immaturity that speaks volumes about them.

Remember this is his place of work and he puts up with all kinds of crap daily. People need to grow up and have some respect for others if they are asked to ease it off.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Ten thousand is definitely overkill.

BUT--Manhattan is a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" type of destination. The taxi system there is a quasi-public utility. He's working under a city medallion and they have a say about any "standard of decency" he's trying to enforce. If he doesn't like it, get another job. If this guy is uncomfortable with something like people kissing in his cab he shouldn't be hacking in New York.

Correct. The key here is New York City.

A city medallion was $1 Million a few years ago...
..that kinda puts the $10k fine into perspective.

Many cities require the purchase of a license called a medallion to operate a taxicab. Restricted supply of medallions has caused them to rise in price for decades, though prices have declined in the last two years as car-service apps (like Uber, etc) have increased the effective supply of vehicles for hire.

New York City individual taxi medallions, whose owners must drive a taxi for at least part of the year, fell to $805,000, down 23 percent from 2013’s peak of $1.05 million. Corporate medallions, which may be owned in fleets, traded on average at $950,000, down 28 percent from their peak.

originally posted by: nenothtu


His cab, his rules.

Not in New York City.

Don't get me wrong here but isn't a cabbie supposed to concentrate on safely driving his cab rather than ogling what's going on in the back of his cab. Is there not a privacy screen between the driver and his passengers so that the driver cannot evedrop on their conversation. From what I gather from the information provided the cabbie turned it into a religious objection not a gay thing and THAT'S what he was punished for. Rightly so.