Muslim Cabbies Refuse Passengers With Alcohol Or Dogs

Originally posted by Odium
It might be, but it is also the truth.

Unless there is a piece of law, which states they can not do that. Then it is not against the law. What have they broken? Nothing. You're claiming they're committing a crime, without any piece of legislation being in place. The First Amendment is not superseded by the Disability Act.

Here is a definition from the ADA that would appear to include disable discrimnation as being comminted by a taxi. It's a little hard to read but if you want the full text go the ADA link after the text. Basically in Subchapter III of the ADA there is a definition that, to me, appears to include taxicabs and then it lists later that not providing services to the disabled would be considered discrimination.

SUBCHAPTER III - PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES OPERATED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES

Sec. 12181. Definitions

As used in this subchapter:

----cut-----

(3) Demand responsive system

The term "demand responsive system" means any system of providing transportation of individuals by a vehicle, other than a system which is a fixed route system.

----cut-----



(C) Demand responsive system

For purposes of subsection (a) of this section, discrimination includes

(i) a failure of a private entity which operates a demand responsive system and which is not subject to section 12184 of this title to operate such system so that, when viewed in its entirety, such system ensures a level of service to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, equivalent to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities; and

ADA - Subchapter III

The hard part would be proving that a cabbie drove past a fare who was blind because he didn't want a disabled person in their veh (or their dog) and not because he didn't see them. But refusing them out right at an airport would be an obvious violation.

The point in question here isn't about refusal of service to drunks. It's about refusal of service to someone in possession of alcohol, regardless of their sobriety.

Originally posted by GT100FV
The point in question here isn't about refusal of service to drunks. It's about refusal of service to someone in possession of alcohol, regardless of their sobriety.

Good point GT...





I personally do not agree with the cabbies in question; however, I believe that they have the full right to do whatever they want.

I would like to add that this is not a wise economic decision on the part of the participating cabbies.

Capitalism is still capitalism

Originally posted by GT100FV
The point in question here isn't about refusal of service to drunks. It's about refusal of service to someone in possession of alcohol, regardless of their sobriety.

I tried to point that out already, but apparently the apologists for Islam that run rampant around here don't care...

Good try though!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I tried to point that out already, but apparently the apologists for Islam that run rampant around here don't care...

If you were a Christian cab driver, would you let two gay men on a date enter the cab?

Originally posted by DJMessiah
If you were a Christian cab driver, would you let two gay men on a date enter the cab?

Yes absolutely.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yes absolutely.

I applaud you for that. Still, how many Christians would you say would do the same?

Originally posted by Hellmutt
It's a well known fact in Denmark that muslim cab drivers refuse to drive dogs. Some people who don't want a muslim cab driver, say that they have a dog (even if they don't) when they call for a cab. This assures that the cab will be driven by a non-muslim cab driver. And please don't shoot the messenger. This is a fact and it has been all over the news in Denmark after it was "officially" known. This practice of "faking a dog" have been going on for many years. Ask any dane, and they will confirm that this is true.

Yes, because in Denmark it would be an offence of the anti-discrimination laws if you ask for a non-colored or non-muslim driver.

It has been an issue some cab companies refused to employ "colored", which is a violation of the law.

But it is the right of any cab driver to refuse service to drunken people.

The alcohol issue is not something I care to dispute. If a cab driver feels it violates his religion to transport alcohol, let someone else pick up that fare. You'd be hard pressed to argue that you have the explicit right to transport alcohol, whereas the blind who use seeing eye dogs DO have the explicit right to transport their animals.

If my religion stated that I had to sacrifice an unwilling virgin every full moon, would the first amendment protect me? Nonsense...

What if someone had a religion that stated Muslims were unclean, and used that judgement as a basis for discrimination? How would they like to be on the other end of the situation?

Originally posted by sardion2000
I wonder what the motivation of posting this article was?

It's a good article for discussion. I like that it was posted. Religious rights vs the law for people with disabilities vs Imagine what if Christian cabbies started to not pick up Muslims ... Good topic.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Driving a cab is definitely a regulated business and a privilege, not a right.

Very true. What if your local pharacy chain suddenly started to say that they would refuse to allow people with seeing eye dogs into their store? Or that they would refuse to sell candy because it was against their faith to provide sugar to people (or whatever)?

If people don't like the way these taxi cab drivers discriminate, then they should boycott those drivers. Pull a 'fake the dog' thing ... Eventually the drivers will need the money and either give up and find another job or cave in and accept seeing eye dogs, etc. The power of MONEY!

Originally posted by soficrow
I too wonder if this article isn't just more hate-mongering.

Happy New Years Soficrow. My opinion - reporting facts isn't hate mongering. The way facts are reported can sometimes be that, but educating the public to something that could be a violation of the law and/or their rigthts doesn't seem like hate-mongering to me.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It's not rowdy drunk people who are the issue, it's people who are simply carrying bottles of alcohol, such as purchased at a duty-free shop.

AND there is the difference. If I was driving and drunk rowdies wanted a ride I would think twice ... for my own safety. And if there were OPEN containers of alcohol I definately wouldn't want them in my cab all drunk and spilling alcohol everywhere. However, transporting closed containers and transporting people who are too drunk to drive .... there is no legal reason not to.

As far as it being against their religion ... heck ... that's a poor excuse for THEIR INTOLERANCE. It is definately INTOLERANT OF THEM not to give rides to people with alcohol. It's THEIR INTOLERANCE that is being showcased.


[edit on 1/6/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by DJMessiah
If you were a Christian cab driver, would you let two gay men on a date enter the cab?

Sure. As long as they didn't have sex in the backseat. I wouldn't want ANYONE having sex in the backseat. YUK.

Originally posted by omega1
I would like to add that this is not a wise economic decision on the part of the participating cabbies. Capitalism is still capitalism

THAT is the bottom line. BOYCOTT those INTOLERANT of seeing eye dogs and people carrying closed alcohol containers. Make it hurt in their wallets.

Is this really a story? I mean really. We have Christian fundamentalist pharmacists refusing to dispense legal and prescribed and over the counter medications (birth control and the morning after pills) based on their religious beliefs. AND that is a far more serious transgression than a Muslim cabbie refusing to carry a drunk or someone with alcohol. As for the dog, mine is a 50 lb powderpuff and I have had cabbies refuse me service with him. Its a matter of choice, If they want to lose that money that's their business. Did i like it? No but I could live with it.

Also, at least around here (Roanoke Va) the cabbie essentially rents the cab for the duration of his shift so he can deny service to whomever he wants AND refuse to go someplace if he wants.

As for service dogs, I do think that is wrong, or misguided anyway, but usually its no problem getting a cab so if one turns you down you grab another.

I still say the pharmacist refusing to dispense medications (prescribed or not) based on THEIR religious beliefs is a far more serious matter.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by grover]

[edit on 6-1-2007 by grover]

This happened a few years ago in NYC where a Muslim cabbie refused a blind woman and her dog. The woman sued both the driver and the tax company. The decision was that no one could refuse the use of service dogs whether their religion came into play or not. That the Muslim cabbie's religion did not override the womens right to use a seeing eye dog.

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I tried to point that out already, but apparently the apologists for Islam that run rampant around here don't care...

If you were a Christian cab driver, would you let two gay men on a date enter the cab?

Just out of curiosity, when is the last time that you heard a news story about a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.... refusing to give someone a ride because of philosophical differences?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
If my religion stated that I had to sacrifice an unwilling virgin every full moon, would the first amendment protect me? Nonsense...

What if someone had a religion that stated Muslims were unclean, and used that judgement as a basis for discrimination? How would they like to be on the other end of the situation?

The point is that the muslims were using their religion to discriminate, not being discriminated against because of their religion.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Well if they owned the cab, then fine. It's their right to refuse any fare they want to.

Your assumption is incorrect they cannot refuse if the potential customer is sober and acting responsible.

SEC. 1142. REFUSAL TO CONVEY; EXCESSIVE CHARGES.

(a) Refusal to Convey. It shall be unlawful for the owner, lessee or driver of any taxicab operating under permit issued by the police authority of the City and County of San Francisco, to fail or refuse, or to permit the failure or refusal, when in service and not otherwise engaged for hire, to transport to his announced destination within the City and County of San Francisco at rates authorized in this Article, any person who presents himself for carriage in a sober and orderly manner and for a lawful purpose.

Source

The above is for SF but you can find tons of similar lasws for virtually every city in the US.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Dogs are not looked down upon in Islam, they're valued as protectors of man. In Muslim homes, dogs are not allowed in homes only if they're not used for protection, services with disabilities, or hunting. In Islam, we believe that the angels fear entering households with cats and dogs.

...

I think I'd be a little suspect of Ol' Gabriel. No offense intended in any way DJMessiah, but I have a Blue Heeler (Australian Cattle Dog). She is often times a better judge of people than I am, and I'm pretty good.

I'm thinkin' that if Ol' Gabriel came to my house and wouldn't come in, because he was afraid of my Dog (Being an Angel and all that), I'd tell him to keep on truckin'.

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Very true. What if your local pharacy chain suddenly started to say that they would refuse to allow people with seeing eye dogs into their store? Or that they would refuse to sell candy because it was against their faith to provide sugar to people (or whatever)?

[edit on 1/6/2007 by FlyersFan]

Assuming you mean Pharmacy ... There were a group of pharmacists in our sister state, who recently decided that it was against their religious beliefs to dispense the morning after pill as prescribed by physicians. And so, they simply refused to do the evil deed.

It either hasn't aired, or I missed the follow up on that particular imbroglio, but I kind of wonder how you think that washes out?

And no. I am not trying to bait you or get an argument going.

Edit: With Apologies to Grover ... I missed his point about the morning after pill and birth control pill issues.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by sigung86]

Originally posted by spqr1

And in the UK:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It also happened in Vancouver.Tribunal to rule on guide dog vs religion

One driver in MKE area tried it once but was fired immediately by the company sighting what he did violated company policy/work rules. That only made the TV news on one perhaps 2 stations, only can assume the paper did not feel it was newsworthy

[edit on 1/6/2007 by shots]

So it is all about discrimination?

Discrimination is where you distinguish between two sets of people, depending on a value that they do not share. In this case, drivers of Taxi’s are discriminating against those who:

• Carry Alcohol.
• Have dogs with them.

They are by no means, discriminating against someone on the basis of their disability as many of you are trying to claim. This is about if those in business should have the right to ban animals from their premises.

I’ll try and make this simpler for you. If person A had refused to take someone because they were blind, this is discrimination based on their disability. Furthermore, this is backed up by the reference SmallMindsBigIdeas has given us: ” to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities”. Now clearly, that shows us that as long as they do the same to those who are not disabled than they are not discriminating. The law clearly states they have to treat those with a disability the same as those without. So clearly he is wrong when he stated; “But refusing them out right at an airport would be an obvious violation.”

It’s up to the business.

Now, clearly as the article states not every taxi driver was refusing to take; those with alcohol and those with guide dogs. So why is there an issue here? Let me break it down for you. If I decide to not serve someone, but another person still can serve them the only individual who looses out am I on my profit margins. It is the same as if a store decides to not stock an item, or if someone decides to ban smoking in their restaurant/pub. There are other places where they can still go and still get served – but instead they are forcing their view onto other people. So what if a Muslim does not want to take your dog in his taxi? Use another taxi. So what if a Jewish person would not want to take a pig in his taxi – take another one. This is not a case where every taxi driver is refusing to take dogs, nor is it a case where they are refusing to take blind people on the basis they are blind.

When all else fails...

Thank you, djohnsto77 for making this into another slinging match or at least trying with this post;; ” I tried to point that out already, but apparently the apologists for Islam that run rampant around here don't care...” I would like you to point out where I have made this issue about the passengers being drunk or retract that statement as it does nothing to add to the debate. In fact, it is the normal route used on this website when people do not desire to debate rationally. It is the same as me saying; “You’re only posting on this article because of your Anti-Islamic stance.”

The oddest thing about these pages though, is you WyrdeOne. Normally you’re a lot more rational than to post things such as; “If my religion stated that I had to sacrifice an unwilling virgin every full moon, would the first amendment protect me?” When clearly the issues we have here are nothing like that, As someone already pointed out why Muslims will not deal with dogs, there is a clear cut logic as to why they would not want them in their car. But for those who do not understand, it is in case of a fatal accident.

However, it is a clear-cut case of the Government stopping someone from practicing their Religion which is a violation of the first amendment. As I have already pointed out above; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Even the article itself says not all Muslims are trying to stop dogs from going in their car; ” Many Somali taxi drivers don't have any problem transporting passengers with alcohol…” The same probably goes for dogs also; even those who are Muslims. But a few will not want to and this can be seen, by the number of people who are being refused service; ” About 100 people are refused cab service each month at the airport.” Now, using the statistics from the American Foundation for the Blind there are roughly 10million blind people in the United State’s[1] and the United States of America has a population of roughly 300,917,060[2]. So off the top of my head that’s what; 1 in 30 people are blind. So every months three blind person is refused service… of course, this is an issue about those people. It has nothing to do with the fact these people are Muslims.

[1] www.afb.org...
[2] en.wikipedia.org...

It is really nice and simple.

It takes three months for one blind person to be refused service, from simple statistics.
Those who are blind, have other options, as not every Taxi driver will refuse dogs in their cars.
…and for once me and Flyersfan agree on something: ”If people don't like the way these taxi cab drivers discriminate, then they should boycott those drivers.” We live in a Choice Economy – we decide where we spend out money, who we spend it on. If you disagree with the practice of these people, do not give them your money.

Furthermore, Some Christians as noted whom own pharmaceutical stores would not sell contraception[3]. I seriously doubt a Jewish taxi driver would allow a pig to be transported in his/her taxi.

The simple fact is, this made such news because they are Muslims and no other reason. As per normal, we are trying to force our views on to other people. If they do not desire to transport dogs – allow them that right. There are other options as they are not the only taxi drivers in existence. Furthermore, stop throwing terms like discrimination around and trying to make this issue about those who are blind. The fact is, blind or not, they would refuse service if you had a dog and also take note of the wording in the ADA which clearly states (as previously noted): ” equivalent to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities.” Let’s all sit back and say that till it sinks in. As long as they do it to those who are blind and those who are not, they’re not discriminating.

Thank you for your time and sorry about the delay in posting. I was busy today.

[3] www.cathnews.com...

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Odium]