September 30, 2006

No Cab For You
— LauraW.

My, this is perplexing.

Mursal and hundreds of other Muslim cabdrivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport refuse to take customers they know are carrying alcohol. They don't search bags, but a wine box may be enough to leave a fare waiting for the next cab.

But airport personnel have come up with a workaround.
Now, they may be required to buy different colored lights to sit atop their cabs so airport workers who hook up travelers with taxis can steer alcohol-carrying fares to cabs that will take them. The proposal needs approval from the airport's taxi cab advisory committee, and airport officials hope to have the lights ready by year's end.

Ironically making it easier for customers to identify and discriminate against cabs driven by Muslims. If you feel like being a prick (and come now, who doesn't?) just say there's booze in your luggage, even if there isn't.**
"They're really kind of imparting their religious views on the public," said Katie Patterson of McKinley, Texas. "I can understand if somebody's drunk; that's a whole different issue. But to just bring in a closed container, maybe you should look for other work."

I wonder if the fallout would have been different if they were Christians refusing some other kind of object or substance.

**After further reflection I realized that there are no laws to prevent customers from discriminating on the basis of race or religion against vendors.
So you can just go ahead and say you want a non-Muslim cabbie.
Thank you, Law of Unintended Consequences. You're a peach.

Posted by: LauraW. at 02:12 PM | Comments (80)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This trend is more dangerous than people realize. We can't afford to have Muslims living in their own little segment of society, with different rules from everyone else. That's how we end up with suicide bombers who grew up in the West.

Posted by: TallDave at September 30, 2006 02:20 PM (H8Wgl)

2 I agree with Dave. Carrying alcohol is not against the law. So, how is it that some cabbie (let alone a group of cabbies) can refuse to transport you?

Posted by: TheShadow at September 30, 2006 02:23 PM (EI+zd)

3 My solution for this and the Arizona memorial: projectile shit over everything.

This is how it starts - inch by inch.  Next thing non-muslim women will be scared to walk through their neigbhorhoods, so and so on.  Then you turn into Eurabia.  And ours boys will sit to piss.

What other current immigrant group acts like this?

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at September 30, 2006 02:28 PM (DYj/s)

4 I don't like this practice. I also don't like some of the loopy christ crowd denying a legaly prescribed drug for women just because they oppose birth control, or abortion.

Next is scientologist pharmacists denying anti-depressents, or some other sort of lunacy.

Isn't there a type of liscense required to make pick-ups at airports? If you are refused fare, just cuz of booze, then yank that F'ers liscense (at least for the airport, general practice is different)

Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 30, 2006 02:31 PM (QTv8u)

5

Yankees, they do the darnest things. 


This is where we are going to have the GOP convention?  Humm,  hope the towelheads get use to not having any fares, cause just about every delegate I know will be toting a bottle or 12.  In NYC it is illegal to refuse a fare, so Twin Cities gives a licenses to Cabbies that can refuse service to someone who offends their religous beliefs?  Call the damn ACLU in, this is obviously a case of discrimation against someone or something.  Money can be made, let's sue.


Posted by: kempermanx at September 30, 2006 02:36 PM (Wc54u)

6

Yankees, they do the darnest things. 


This is where we are going to have the GOP convention?  Humm,  hope the towelheads get use to not having any fares, cause just about every delegate I know will be toting a bottle or 12.  In NYC it is illegal to refuse a fare, so Twin Cities gives a licenses to Cabbies that can refuse service to someone who offends their religous beliefs?  Call the damn ACLU in, this is obviously a case of discrimation against someone or something.  Money can be made, let's sue.


Posted by: kempermanx at September 30, 2006 02:36 PM (Wc54u)

7 sorry for the double post, internet mightly slow tonight

Posted by: kempermanx at September 30, 2006 02:37 PM (Wc54u)

8 I think you people are missing the poetic beauty of the workaround.

In order to continue discriminating against ordinary, bottle-toting Americans, they are going to have to submit to wearing an identifying mark.

Yellow star, anyone?

Mwaaa ha ha haaa

Posted by: lauraw at September 30, 2006 02:40 PM (GIL7z)

9 Site pages loading slow, or is it just me?

Posted by: lauraw at September 30, 2006 02:42 PM (6YRS5)

10 I wouldn't even give a shit if this was the end of it.  But I know it's just the beginning.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at September 30, 2006 02:47 PM (DYj/s)

11 I agree completely IreneFingIrene, I think these wack jobs won't be happy until jews are required to carry their own explosives to make their slaughter more convenient, or for westernized arab women to wear necklaces made of daggers to allow for a more convenient honor killing.

Multi-culturalists can tongue my balls after a marathon for all I care about their bullshit ideology.

Posted by: wickedpinto at September 30, 2006 02:49 PM (QTv8u)

12 Not only should potential passengers say they are carrying liquor, they should scream and yell if there is not a cab there to take them right away. Why should we have to wait while mulim cabs sit idle? They are granted licenses and are required to take fares and not discriminate. Hack licenses are not a right but a priviledge. If they can't or are not willing to do the job, the licenses should go to someone else.

Posted by: Bernard at September 30, 2006 02:50 PM (HgLZJ)

13 If cab licenses are a legally-enforced restraint of trade (i.e., they don't just issue them to whoever qualifies but limit the total number, as they do here in NYC), this is total BS. They got these scarce licenses to serve the public, not their own ridiculous puritanism.

I agree with lauraw's comment about the unintended result of this though.

Posted by: someone at September 30, 2006 02:50 PM (F04Fi)

14 How about cab drivers who don't want to pick up Muslims? Will there be another line for them too?

Posted by: Steve O at September 30, 2006 02:51 PM (Tbfxo)

15 I like Bernard's idea more and more.

"Yeah buddy, I'm carrying whiskey. Sorry. I guess I'll go get another cab and let you sit here and wack off."

Posted by: Steve O at September 30, 2006 02:55 PM (Tbfxo)

16 What about an unveiled single woman packing a ham sandwich? Prohibited or no?

Posted by: Shaken at September 30, 2006 02:58 PM (JyC7p)

17 This is religious discrimination and should be addressed with vigorous civil lawsuits and enforcement of Federal anti-discrimination laws. I don't see how Muslim drivers refusing to carry people with alcohol (i.e. non-Muslims) is different from, oh for example, white cabbies refusing to carry black passengers. It's racism and the laws we have against racist behavior should be enforced.

Or a group of non-Muslim cabbies should put up big "No Raghead" signs on their cabs and see how long it takes for CAIR to have a hissy-fit.

Posted by: Trimegistus at September 30, 2006 02:59 PM (zfSPJ)

18 Business Opportunity:
Kiosk selling sports teams "beer can sipping hats", wine skins & pulled pork sammiches at ye ole Min/St Paul Intl Air-e-port-o. AND liquid refreshments. Adult Variety.

I'm currently solicitating (er um strike that... Feisty has the solicitatin' franchise out that way...) "welcoming" investors...

Jaimo with the neck o' red

Posted by: Jaimo at September 30, 2006 02:59 PM (iRvBW)

19 Heh, how about a scantily clad woman carring a fifth of scotch and a salami submarine?


Hours of amusement.

Posted by: cheshirecat at September 30, 2006 03:00 PM (4fj9s)

20 Unfortunately, Minn. is such a moonbat state, I'm sure they will just want to bend over.

Posted by: Bernard at September 30, 2006 03:01 PM (HgLZJ)

21 Speaking of pulled pork.. . .

Well, you know, there is an official miss world, so. . .

Well.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 30, 2006 03:03 PM (QTv8u)

22 Great. Not only don't they speak English nor know where the hell they are going now they won't even pick people up.

Remember the days when taking a cab was actually a good idea?

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2006 03:03 PM (rnOZq)

23 What Steve O said on post 16. But that will never happen. See, That isn't how it works in America. Here in America we are expected to bend over backwards to avoid offending intolerant assholes whose very existence is offensive to humanity. It's called multicultural awareness. In other words...We tongue their asses while they take a shit on us. That gives us the moral highground and a faceful of shit too! Our diversity is what makes us great, Remember?

Posted by: drolmorg at September 30, 2006 03:12 PM (MUVRh)

24

Actually, I erred. You don't even have to say you're carrying alcohol.


Businesses may not discriminate based on religion or ethnicity, but customers certainly can.


"I want a non-Muslim cab."


No law against that. And luckily, they're soon to be marked for your convenience.


Posted by: lauraw at September 30, 2006 03:13 PM (6YRS5)

25 CHRISTIANIST!

or is it

ISLAMIST!

What is the equivalent of Racist?

I hate the whole "phobe" thing, cuz you see, I don't tend to be very frightened of individuals, I tend to hate them. So "Islamaphobe" just doesn't work for me, cuz I'm not afraid of those who are oppressively islamic, I hate them. So whats the proper term here? I wanna be all learned and informed and stuff.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 30, 2006 03:20 PM (QTv8u)

26 I performed at the Ryman once. No, wait...I performed at the War Memorial Auditorium once, but I was backstage at the Ryman many times before it was condemned.

Nice scotch. What do you call this?

Posted by: S. Weasel at September 30, 2006 03:22 PM (MecJo)

27 I don't think MN cabbies are required to have any special license or that they're even legally required to take anyone anywhere. It's not NYC or Boston so don't try to make that comparison. No Holy Grail medallions or any shit like that.

The trouble is that the Somalis have cornered the cab business in the Twin Cities so if they all decide they're going to impose some rule, then there isn't a hell of a lot the MAC can do about it but try to work with them. Though the MAC's limpwristed response just makes me shake my head.

The thing about it is that it's just so fuckin' stupid.

They've decided that they don't want certain types of business, so now the MAC has come up with some idiotic threat level light systems which I'm sure the taxpayers (including myself) will be paying for one way or another. And, in the end, What kind of idiot driving a cab gives up any kind of fare which isn't life-threatening or puking all over the vinyl? Under MN law it's their right, blah, blah, blah...

I've seen a lot of comments in different places trying to make moral equivalency arguments--"If pharmacists have to sell Plan B then this is outrageous" and whatever. A better moral equivalency/let's point out their hypocrisy question is: why booze? Why not women with uncovered heads? Why is it not a problem to have our fine corn-fed Nordic women uncovered in their cabs but it is a problem to have a bottle of Petite Noir Snooty Frenchy Bordeaux in them? Is the booze prohibition higher up on the food chain of Islamic social control?

It's so obviously a political-protest-veiled-as-religious-outrage it's laughable.

I'd like to see if I can get a cab down there while carrying an Absolut vodka bottle filled with water.

"But, dude, it's just water."

"Allah akbar!"

Posted by: N00b A$$hat at September 30, 2006 03:22 PM (Vr3FI)

28 Lot's of potential hypocrasy possible with this one.
Good find, Lauraw.

Amish, enjoy the show. New Ryman, or old Opry?


Posted by: Tom M at September 30, 2006 03:25 PM (TtaDz)

29 Remember the reaction when Christian pharmacists refused to sell RU-486?

Posted by: TallDave at September 30, 2006 03:26 PM (H8Wgl)

30 Fuck them.
Get their sorry asses back to Somalia, where they can drive a goat cart and pick up whoever they want. I bet the cab business there kicks ass.
Unfortunately for them, this is America, and the ACLU will tell you, we are against discrimination.
They are discriminating against those who don't share their religious beliefs.
That is illegal.
Who wants to get the lawsuit started?

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at September 30, 2006 03:40 PM (vh+iP)

31 This reminds me of Mark Steyn talking about how at Guantanamo Bay the guards handle copies of the Koran with gloves, on the grounds that Muslims consider it sacriledge for an infidel to touch one.

It's one thing for them to think we're unclean, but when we go along with the demand we're conceding that they're right.

Posted by: Andrew at September 30, 2006 03:48 PM (e9xdO)

32

Uncle Jefe, you go boy. 


Every city in the USA licenses cabbies.  The Twins licenses cabbies, they should revoke any cabbie's license that pulls this shit, or smells like camel shit. 
This not about a medalon like, NYC, this is the privilege license they must buy.  EVERY business needs one and they can be revoked for failure to obey the laws of the city, state, nation.  Discrimation for booze possesion certainly qualifies.  Heh, I am betting there are a lot of Mexicans who would drive those cabs.  Could this be about the fact the Somilaians(sp) are BLACK??  I am betting so.  Guilty?  What say you all?


Posted by: kempermanx at September 30, 2006 03:56 PM (Wc54u)

33 Could this be about the fact the Somilaians(sp) are BLACK??

Could what be about the fact that Somalians are black, kemp?

Posted by: Bart at September 30, 2006 04:01 PM (ETtdj)

34 Man, this moral equivalency outrage is totally off-base.

Better questions to ask about this are: Somalis have had the corner on the cabby market here for years so why is it that booze is such a problem now? Is there a sliding scale of religious intolerance that just happened to hit core density in this month of this year? Or is it that we're coming up on mid-term elections at a time when the DFL hasn't held the executive in MN for more than a decade and the current race is being called as neck-and-neck, that they're trying to "make history" by electing the first Moslem to the legislature, and that they're damn-well going to get poor, suffering Patty Wetterling into a cushy politcal position if it kills them?

Better to ask who organized these cabbies to do this and why now.

Posted by: N00b A$$hat at September 30, 2006 04:04 PM (Vr3FI)

35 I wonder if the fallout would have been different if they were Christians refusing some other kind of object or substance.

You mean, like Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense morning-after birth control pills or RU-486? Why, there's outrage and lawsuits aplenty, of course. And all this while the ACLU bolts for the tall grass.

Posted by: OregonMuse at September 30, 2006 04:16 PM (ICv7V)

36 I hope Minneapolis-St Paul Airport has a decent liqor shop. I don't want to lug a alcohol bottle all the way on the plane ride. Better to buy it at the airport and proudly hold it in my hand before joining the queue for the cabs. Also, a large tip to my non-Somali cabbie!

Posted by: Tushar D at September 30, 2006 04:18 PM (9ULFg)

37 I addressed the Christian and Scientologist pharmacists early on, no reason to rehash it, cuz the christian pharmacist lost, at least the one in Illinois did, rightfully so.

As should these mothers, the difference is, I don't think cabbies are known for their liquid income so a loss would be major.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 30, 2006 04:25 PM (QTv8u)

38 Does this mean they won't give a ride to Mary Katherine HAM? What happens if you are singing a drinking song? What is you are playing country and the Brad Paisley song "Alcohol" comes on (or, the songs "Get Drunk and Be Somebody" or "Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off")?

Can you sing "The Star Spangled Banner" in their cabs and then tell them the tune came from an English drinking song?

Why don't these guys drive cabs at some airport in Saudi Arabia, instead? The funny thing is, if they tried this stunt in Bahrain they would get their butts kicked pretty quickly.

As for the Christian pharmacists who won't fill RU-486 orders, well, they won't sue you if you go to another pharmacy! They won't even call the ACLU.

Hey, why not complain about 7-11 not carrying Citgo gas anymore? Surely that is morally equivalent to those Christian pharmacists, isn't it? LOL

Posted by: Ron at September 30, 2006 04:34 PM (PGkmq)

39 As a frequent user of the MSP airport and resident of the Twin Citites, I'd be pissed if someone at a taxi stand asked to search my bag to look for booze because of the driver's religions. I'd tell them to piss off. I just want to go home; sometimes, I want to go home from a country that is known for its wine or whatever.

We generally don't get to choose our cabs, they're simply lined up in order and you just get the one that's next in line, as directed by some guy who runs the taxi stand.

Posted by: Feisty at September 30, 2006 04:36 PM (2Oi8H)

40 >>
Hey, why not complain about 7-11 not carrying Citgo gas anymore?

Apples to Oranges, Ron. That is like complaining that the local Chevy dealer does not sell Ford cars. Each retailer chooses to store certain brands, and sources his generic goods from a limited list. You cannot complain if they drop CITGO.

Now, if they refuse to fill up Hummers, you are comparing Apples to Apples.

Posted by: Tushar D at September 30, 2006 04:50 PM (9ULFg)

41

Tushar knows all about how 7-11 works.


Do not go there.


Posted by: lauraw at September 30, 2006 04:53 PM (6YRS5)

42 Not really, Laura
I am just another Java Programmer making money for those JOOOOOS on Wall Street.

Posted by: Tushar D at September 30, 2006 04:58 PM (9ULFg)

43 I think the best way to avoid offending muslims is to give them an identifying mark, as someone above suggested, and I think a nice little hole in the forehead, just between the eyes, would do nicely. If we don't stop taking shit off these subhuman scum, they'll keep giving us shit. We should exterminate them like the vermin they are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 30, 2006 05:01 PM (v3I+x)

44 I've been a reader of AoS for quite a while now, but have never posted, mostly because the theme here seems to be witty responses and droll humor. It's not a bad thing; I've read quite a few funny and insightful posts here. It's just that going off on tirades is more my deal and, quite frankly, I couldn’t hang.

Anyway, I'm posting now because I live in the Twin Cities and this issue has been a popular topic of conversation recently. Several posters have mentioned licensing, which, to me, is at the center of the issue. Taxi licenses are issued in the Twin Cities by the Met. Council. One of the conditions of the license is that fares may not be refused (I assume there are exceptions when safety is an issue, and I also don’t know for sure whether or not there are special conditions that apply at the airport). Allowing Muslims to refuse service because something violates their religion, but not allowing others to do so is blatantly discriminatory because it applies the conditions of the license differently to people based on faith. Making one person’s beliefs more valid than another's in the eyes of the law is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

The council must decide that either that it is okay to refuse a fare because something offends you, or that it is not okay, and apply the same standard to everyone. Or better yet, licenses could be issued based on the qualifications of the applicant, and the private owners of the cabs--or pharmacies, for that matter--could decide how much income they are willing to sacrifice because of their irrational beliefs. What a concept: A free market and government based on the sovereign rights of the individual. It’s so crazy it just might work.

Posted by: Vermin at September 30, 2006 05:47 PM (s4xJg)

45 Vermin,
I understand that Minn is quite liberal, but are people there so crazy? DO they really want to give special treatment to followers of one religion? Aren't there any liberal people out there who say, "well, I am as liberal as the next guy, but this shit is illiberal!" ???

Posted by: Tushar D at September 30, 2006 05:53 PM (9ULFg)

46 I do find this a little humorous, as it really exposes the bigotry of the "religion of peace". As a Twin Cities resident who does not ride in taxies, this is not much of a practical matter to me. I think that the best solution is to hide the booze, take the ride, pay the fare, and tell them it is against your religion to tip Muslim cab drivers. We as consumers have a powerful impact, if we would just show a collective backbone.

Posted by: John F not Kerry at September 30, 2006 05:57 PM (GIL7z)

47 Tushar D

You have to understand, my perspective on this is not exactly unbiased, but as far as I can tell, there aren't.

Posted by: Vermin at September 30, 2006 06:12 PM (s4xJg)

48 This is about ethanol (EtOH). I can't walk past a bar without a measurable amount of it in me.

It's also quite the byproduct of many a chemical reaction. Take anyone, chop them up, run them thru a GC/mass spec with any kind of real sensitivity. boom, EtOH found.

I have bad teeth. I come close to drowning in Listerine (yup, EtOH) regularly. On my morning commute, I would probably register 0.2 on the breathalyzer. I also travel with the Listerine. Carrying EtOH.

Now and again, I get a real snootful of beer/scotch/tequila/whathaveya. Certain nannystaters have convinced me I shouldn't drive. Ok, I'll take a taxi. At that point, just hoping my driver isn't also ripped. I'll take the Muslim over the Mick at that point.

Posted by: Aleara at September 30, 2006 06:21 PM (arrBA)

49 Is this against their religion or against their sharia law. US law supercedes all.

Posted by: splashtc at September 30, 2006 06:28 PM (BZiQh)

50 Forgot to mention, my gas tank is 10% ethanol, and so would be my Muslim driver's here in Columbus.

We're to the point of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Thought we laughed at that around 7 centuries ago.

What's next? Won't drive me if I had bacon for breakfast?

Posted by: Alear at September 30, 2006 06:34 PM (arrBA)

51

Yes, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you want to live in a world where women are treated as livestock and goats are treated as sex objects, go back to fuckin' Somalia or where ever the fuck you came from.


 


I say we brand these fuckers on the forehead so we know who to shoot first if things get crazy.


Posted by: Barry at September 30, 2006 07:48 PM (QrzWy)

52 I fully support the right of any Christian cabdriver to refuse to take any customer with an IUD (properly inserted.)

Posted by: anonymous at September 30, 2006 08:04 PM (PWOwT)

53 John F not Kerry said: ...and tell them it is against your religion to tip Muslim cab drivers.To make it less confrontational just tell them that you think tips are a form of riba. Wouldn't want to contribute to a conflict in their beliefs.

Posted by: at September 30, 2006 08:10 PM (yz+vK)

54 So what happens when Danny Glover tries to hail a Muslim cab while carrying a 6 pack of Schiltz?

Posted by: Warden at September 30, 2006 08:22 PM (rZ5uY)

55 Tushar,

OK, point well taken. How about a 7-11 (or anyone else) not wanting to let you fill up if you filled up at a Citgo before and still have some of their fuel in your tank? Maybe they can take a sample and analyze it?

Look, this is really gotten out of hand. I think a few license suspensions would get these cab drivers to behave.

Posted by: Ron at October 01, 2006 03:58 AM (PGkmq)

56 I say that if anyone is at this airport and goes to take a cab ask if they are a muslim before you get into the cab. If they are then tell them forget it I will not ride with you, you may blow me up. OR better yet, get in and at the end of the ride crack open a bottle and take a drink as you they stop and please don't tip these assholes.

Posted by: TX Rebel at October 01, 2006 05:02 AM (WHCOZ)

57

Bart,


The fact that the cabbies are, I believe, Black interjects race into the equation. 


It does not take a rocket sceicitest to see why some official might not jump down theses cabbies asses for fear of being called a racist.  That isn't so hard to figure out know is it? and it is certainly  not hard to imagine this very thing happening, ie calling the enforcement folks racist.


The race card is used everyday by many folks who want a free ride on the enforcement of some rule.  Don't believe me, ask your neighborhood cop how many times he is called a racist for trying to enforce the law.


Posted by: kempermanx at October 01, 2006 05:06 AM (Wc54u)

58

Another good thing about those cabbies having different-colored lights; the customers will be steered to other cabs in advance by airport personnel.


The Muslim drivers won't have the pleasure of seeing the fare's face drop when told "I will not serve you."


Don't think for a minute that that isn't a kick for them. Service workers with a shitty attitude really do get off on thwarting the customer.


Plus they will get to watch as the obviously well-heeled are guided to non-muslim cabs because of those bottles of French whatever in the luggage. And they brought this whole thing upon themselves.


Every angle of this 'identifying mark' workaround is charming and delightful.


Posted by: lauraw at October 01, 2006 05:35 AM (6YRS5)

59 Or we could just kick the unevolved scum out of our country and let them go back to whatever shithole spawned them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 01, 2006 06:05 AM (v3I+x)

60 I ask this out more out of a morbid sense of curiousity than anything else:

How many AoS commenters regularly attend religious services?

I don't mean Ned Flander / Charlie Church stuff, but I wonder how many people thoughout the blogosphere can make the statement' 'I attend worship services regularly.'

I think a distinction that's lost in these arguments is that People of the West tend to treat their religious faith either a hobby or something they acquired when they were forced to go to Church.

I don't get the sense that most Muslims - including those of Dean Esmay's acquaintenance - treat their religious faith the same way.

For my part, I'm at Church about 51 out of 52 Sundays, I sing in the choir, and teach Sunday School - to date I've not been tempted to engage in brutal serial killer murders over a 30 year period - which doesn't make me a Christianist.

But a lot of this anti-Dhimmitude stuff strikes me as coming from people that have not the first clue about corporate worship (meaning you and other people worshiping together) or an appreciation of 'Christian/Judeo' values beyond what they soaked up through some osmotic process, be it 'the Law', or 'our social constructs as an historically Christian nation' - et cetera.

It's sort of like hearing lectures about politics from people who can't be bothered to vote.

.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at October 01, 2006 06:09 AM (PcDvW)

61 A more elegant solution than the identifying lights would be to make the cabbie refusing the fare to move to the back of the line of cabs, rather than picking up the next non-alcohol carrying fare.

These guys don't make any money sitting in line, do they? Won't give me a ride with a case of Val-u-Rite? Get to the back of the line, Akbar.

Posted by: Pupster at October 01, 2006 06:40 AM (9h6vV)

62 Bumperstickerist,

I remember sitting in a chain pizza place in Birmingham, Alabama in the 1970's and listening with some amazement as the manager explained to me that she resented having to hire blacks at all because the Bible clearly marked them as inferior. (Apparently the "mark of Cain" is all about skin tone. Who knew?) It offended her beliefs to have to hire and even associate with people she believed the Bible condemned.

Then there are the people who pop up in the courts now and then claiming that medical treatment for their children is religiously offensive.

We have been pretty consistent down the years about telling these people, believe what you want but we are still going to require you to toe the line. End of discussion.

As far as the cabbies go, exactly where does the Koran say they are forbidden to transport booze being carried by someone else? I'm not claiming any expertise here, but that smacking sound you heard was the needle on my BS meter hitting the far side.

Nice as it might be to entertain boycotting Islamo-loons, the more important issue is who should have to conform to whom.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at October 01, 2006 07:00 AM (Z3AmO)

63 What's your point, Bumper? Are you saying that we should resepect these individuals' rights to religious freedom in America, the land of religious freedom?

Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2006 07:08 AM (VSCaF)

64 Your right to swing your arms in the name of religious freedom stops where the other guy's nose begins.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at October 01, 2006 08:11 AM (Z3AmO)

65 No, I'm thinking that people who treat religion as a hobby or something they experienced in their childhood are ill-prepared to discuss this topic the way many, if not most, Muslims are prepared to discuss it.


I'll draw an analogy to Libs and Dems - after 8 years of Clinton they were used to interpreting Presidential declarations through some sort of 'Diplomatic Speak' filter.

What Clinton said differed from what Clinton meant - and what Clinton meant was up for discussion. On the other hand, Bush has spent the past six years saying *exactly* want he means - go back and read any of Bush's public remarks and judge for yourself - and the Libs/Dems are still unable to grasp that basic, essential fact.

I'm not saying that you need to attend services regularly to have an opinion, take a stand, or any of that theocracy stuff that has Andrew S. in a tizzy - just that people need to avoid having a such smug self-satisfied view of their own 'religion' that they think they have one - absent any proof of it.

The 'I'm More Spiritual than Religious" Brigades are the Non-voting Undecideds - they're good when it comes to polls, but pretty useless when it comes to elections.

-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at October 01, 2006 08:20 AM (PcDvW)

66 And, Laura, I think Hobson's Choice cuts both ways - if you don't want the Muslim cabbie, the cab stand can just take the next customer and send you to the back of the line.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at October 01, 2006 08:23 AM (PcDvW)

67 Bumperstickerist,

With the greatest respect, this is not a religious issue. It is a culural issue and in this particular case "religion" is being used for cover. (Unless you can put me on that verse in the Koran ...?)

Nobody is telling anybody what to believe or practice. The only question is who has to conform to whom when people who chose to come here decide to engage with the rest of us.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at October 01, 2006 08:34 AM (Z3AmO)

68 Alcoholic beverages and/or yarmulkes, I bet.

Posted by: Guy T. at October 01, 2006 08:42 AM (BjdbG)

69

No, Bumperstickerist.


The customer is entitled to service, and the vendors are the servants. This isn't an insult: in my profession I am a servant. This is simply the nature of the business relationship. I don't put stumbling blocks in front of my customers.


If religious objections make it impossible for me to serve a portion of my clientele, I shouldn't be upset if they refuse to change their lifestyle for me, and if they choose to avoid those of my religious persuasion in the future.


After all, I discriminated against them first. Their reaction is natural, and I can't expect clients to bend over backwards to satisfy my requirements as a servant!


Furthermore, imagine I am in a foreign country and pissing off the locals like this, with objections that run counter to their culture. Lets say I'm in France and I refuse to taxi patrons that smell like garlic and B.O.


It would be wise for me to choose a different line of work that doesn't create such daily conflict.


Posted by: lauraw at October 01, 2006 09:03 AM (DbybK)

70 However, the taxi concession business won't suffer should you choose to take an alternate form of transportation because you don't agree with their business practice. They may not win the LauraW 'Vendor as Servant" Award, but they'll turn a profit, none-the-less.

Because you know, and I know, somebody else will take the cab, and the queue will refill, absent your presence.

Also, my hunch is that if the People Who Protest need a cab badly enough, they'll ditch the bottle of booze or lie about its presence.

We're not exactly serious about issues when the issue involves personal discomfort.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at October 01, 2006 09:15 AM (PcDvW)

71

However, the taxi concession business won't suffer should you choose to take an alternate form of transportation because you don't agree with their business practice.


Quite right. I assume as you do that most will lie about/ get rid of the bottle and get into the cab and not much will come of this. Its not big enough deal to arrange a boycott over.


But your idea of asking the customers to return to the back of the queue, instead of the cabbies who started all this...? No way. No way!


Posted by: lauraw at October 01, 2006 09:49 AM (DbybK)

72 As long as the passenger isn't engaging in anything illegal, the cab driver and company he represents have no right whatsoever to refuse the fare.

If they persist, take it to the transportation commission and get their licenses revoked. They are granted limited franchises in geographic markets. If they don't feel like serving them, fuck em.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 01, 2006 10:11 AM (Apz02)

73

There is a limit to religious tolerance. This is treading the line. They're not actually damaging anyone or breaking laws, just inconveniencing some. They are the ones being intolerant.


The fact that this intolerance has a religious reason behind it is meaningless. If you can't lift heavy objects, don't work in a warehouse. If your job puts your eternal soul in danger, get a different job!


But Americans (more tolerant than me, I admit) are trying to accommodate their religious objections. Fine.


Why should the inconvenience be all on one side? Let them go to the back of the queue.


Posted by: lauraw at October 01, 2006 10:19 AM (6YRS5)

74 All I know is that someone will sue. A municipality can't grant licenses with the anti-discrimination requirement and then turn around and say but it doesn't apply to muslims. If this persists, someone will sue the city and require that the law be enforced or the licenses revoked.

Posted by: at October 01, 2006 10:29 AM (Dnpcn)

75 bet it won't be the ACLU.

So what if I've had a couple of drinks? What if I'm just a goddam infidel and it's an affront to their religious sensitivity?

If you can't do this, go do something else. Fuck em. But I repeat myself.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 01, 2006 10:31 AM (Apz02)

76 You brought up an interesting point. Are they going to refuse service to fares who have been drinking? As a matter of public policy, we want people who have been drinking to not drive and to depend on taxis. Are there somali bus drivers? Will they get to refuse passengers, too, because they are carrying alcohol or have been drinking? What nonsense!

Posted by: at October 01, 2006 11:06 AM (Dnpcn)

77

Improbulus Maximus: "Or we could just kick the unevolved scum out of our country and let them go back to whatever shithole spawned them."


I believe that famous shithole was a terrorist named muhammed. He killed folks and raped their pre-teen children. He brags about it. Says god appeared to him one night when he was stoned and said it was cool.


Posted by: drolmorg at October 01, 2006 01:48 PM (MUVRh)

78 Pack a ham sandwich, hide it, ride a muslim cab then give the sandwich to the driver as the tip.

Posted by: Marvin at October 01, 2006 02:09 PM (78qF0)

79

Marvin you are a genius!  Maybe a Bud light with the ham, and pork rinds left all over the back seat.


Posted by: kempermanx at October 01, 2006 03:28 PM (Wc54u)

80 Yes, because conservative Christians are not denying medical service (birth control/morning after pill) or won't associate with homosexuals (or Wicca or...).

Posted by: PantsB at October 02, 2006 05:49 PM (98CTC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
116kb generated in CPU 0.1, elapsed 1.1864 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1205 seconds, 316 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.