Published on January 9, 2007 By drmiler In Politics
And so it starts

I knew this was only a matter of time before this crap started. I'm not sure if this was in retaliation for the airplane incident or not. But what I'd like to know is "where" is the moral outrage on this? It seems that both here and the Land of Oz that muslim taxi drivers are refusing to pick up passengers who are toting alcohol or blind ones with guide dogs. I don't know about the land down under....but here in the US it is "blatantly" against the Disability Act. I wonder how long it'll be before someone sues the spit out of the drivers. How long are we going to put up with appeasement? Below are 2 examples of this.

From America:

Jan 4, 12:20 PM (ET)

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties - including suspension of an airport taxi license - to Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers toting alcohol or service dogs.
Officials on Wednesday asked the Metropolitan Airport Commission for permission to hold public hearings on a proposal that would suspend the airport licenses of cab drivers who refuse service for reasons other than safety concerns. The penalties would also apply to drivers who refuse a fare because a trip is too short.
Drivers would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked for two years after the second offense, according to the proposal.
"Our expectation is that if you're going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it," commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said.
The commission is expected to vote Jan. 16 on the request for public hearings.
Airports Commissioner Bert McKasy said the issue raised by Muslim cab drivers who say that carrying alcohol or dogs, including those that help people with disabilities, violates religious beliefs is "unfortunate."
"I think it's pretty much the consensus of the commissioners and the staff that we have to provide good service to the public, and that's pretty much the bottom line," McKasy said.
Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport. Airport officials say that in recent months, the problem of service refusals for religious reasons has grown. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.


From Australia:

Muslim cabbies refusing the blind and drinkers
By Lincoln Wright and Ian Haberfield
October 08, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol.
At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger.
And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.
Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.
One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him.
"I don't refuse to take people, but it's hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs," he said.
There are about 2000 Muslims among drivers of Melbourne's 10,000 taxis. Many are from countries with strict Islamic teachings about "unclean" dogs and the evils of alcohol.
Drivers who refused to carry blind people with their dogs attended remedial classes at Guide Dogs Victoria, Mr Sach said.
"They are taught why blind people need dogs," Mr Sach said.
"The Victorian Taxi Association has included a program in their taxi driver training program."
Guide Dogs Victoria spokeswoman Holly Marquette said blind people regularly reported taxi drivers refusing to carry them because of their dogs.
"It's sad and quite upsetting," Ms Marquette said. "We try to work with new drivers to educate them about their responsibilities and the needs and rights of blind people.
"We explain that the dog is clean, well trained, won't go near them and will stay in the foot well with the client.


on Jan 09, 2007
shameless bump
on Jan 09, 2007

I'm going to have to stick to my guns on this one. You're a Republican, right? Isn't it pretty much a core principle that businesses should be able to decide their business practices for themselves?

I think it's shameful on their part, I think it's stupid, but in an ideal world, it wouldn't be illegal. Let them refuse to carry me; I'd rather not pay a fare to someone like that any way.

I'm going to have to get in the practice of travelling everywhere I go with a canned ham to peg these imbeciles so they don't get my tip money, but again, I think they should be free to make business decisions for themselves.
on Jan 09, 2007

MM Did the Minneapolis one.  But I had not seen the Aussie one!  I guess I should read the Koran.  I know that pigs are evil, but Dogs????

Oh well, learn something new every day.

on Jan 09, 2007

I'm going to have to stick to my guns on this one. You're a Republican, right? Isn't it pretty much a core principle that businesses should be able to decide their business practices for themselves?

Well this time your guns are incorrect! Ever hear of the Americans Disability Act? What they are doing is "against" the law! Yes the business have the option to make decisions concerning what they do or do not do. But NOT when what they are doing violates and already established "federal" law. Maybe you should read it before you comment further. I have highlighted the appropriate section for you.

An Act To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of
discrimination on the basis of disability.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America assembled, that this Act may be cited as the
"Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990".

* * *


SEC. 12101. [Section 2]

(a) Findings. - The Congress finds that-

(1) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental
disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole
is growing older;

(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate
individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a
serious and pervasive social problem;

(3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists
in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations,
education, transportation, communication, recreation,
institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public

on Jan 09, 2007
"Well this time your guns are incorrect! Ever hear of the Americans Disability Act? What they are doing is "against" the law! "

Wow, I wonder why conservatives are so suddenly supporting federal imposition on private business owners???

The problem is, any other time conservatives on this site would be on the side of the cab drivers. We've had discussions about government imposition against the will of the business owner before. We've talked about pharmacists being forced to carry RU-486 and other drugs they don't want to carry. We've seen discussions about gay people legally forcing landlords to rent to them.

On every one the conservative position is for the person complaining to shut the hell up and find another pharmacy/rental apartment/lunch counter/hotel, and so on. The only reason... the ONLY reason that we find some conservatives on this side this time is because the business owners are Muslim, and we disagree with their values.

So, like Gid, I have to side with the cab drivers. I got into a fight with Manopeace once about wheelchair access. I feel great pity for the handicapped that have to deal with obstacles in life, but I don't believe the government should force people to make accommodations for them if they don't want to. Once you invite government into business to that extent, we really don't own our businesses any more.

What disgusts me most about this is we are setting precedents that WILL be tossed back into our face. Someday a lawyer for NARAL will doubtlessly use this as precedent to say that pharmacists can't decide who they serve on religious grounds. Someday possibly we'll see litigious people of other faiths forcing particular menus on restaurants, or demanding the removal of offensive decor.

Why? Because this precedent makes it illegal for the business owner NOT to serve the interests of whoever wanders in. Regardless of beliefs, regardless of private ownership, you aren't allowed to refuse service. In future discussions I hope that is tasty when they feed it back to you.
on Jan 09, 2007
The problem is, any other time conservatives on this site would be on the side of the cab drivers

I am! I feel they are going to lose out due to simple laws of Customer service. If they own their own cab, they are free to do with them as they want. And I am free to use another cab even if I am stone cold sober and no alcohol on me!
on Jan 09, 2007
Not justa  private business here folks, these people are licenced by the state already. When the State liscences someone who won't pick up blind folks the State is condoning the practice. It is that simple. Just like private businesses can't decide to not serve blacks, hispanics, arabs et al... What would your reactions be if these were Christian cabbies refusing to pick up Muslims?
on Jan 09, 2007
"What would your reactions be if these were Christian cabbies refusing to pick up Muslims?"

The exact same. It may seem unsavory, but I don't think, and have expressed it, that we had any business telling people who they had to serve at lunch counters, either. I don't believe that government imposition is an answer to racism or bias. In fact, I think it causes a lot more hate and violence in the end because racists feel persecuted, and therefore feel they have a valid beef.
on Jan 09, 2007
You guys are ALL missing the point! What the cabbies are doing is AGAINST THE LAW!!! They don't want to carry people with alcohol, that's fine it's not against the law. But to say blind people with guide dogs can't ride "is" against the law. This is I'm goint to pick on Baker. You want to be on the cabbies side? That's fine. Then don't complain when someone robs a store. Point is "both" are against the law. Don't like it? Call your congressman and have him or her change the law. Until then it's on the books and the cabbies need to obey it or face charges.

And just how many of those responding are disabled or know someone personaly who is? I am "and" I do. And I don't break the law anymore.Not like I used to.
on Jan 09, 2007
" Until then it's on the books and the cabbies need to obey it or face charges."

Then don't complain about abortion, or you can't complain when someone mugs you. Nice logic. Don't complain about CPS and 'medicine at gunpoint'. Don't complain about any of the host of laws that get abused every day.

You aren't right, anyway. There are places where dogs, even seeing eye dogs aren't allowed. Granted, taxis aren't one of them, and I think that is wrong. You're just pleading the liberal cause because of your anti-muslim bias, when any other time you'd be condemning the bleeding hearts.

Does anyone else remember all the hell Clinton got from conservatives when this passed? Now, though, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, so long as it's a Muslim you can beat with it. There's a serious hypocritical streak these days in how conservative republicans are using government and litigious imposition.