shameless bump

drmiler,

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.

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.

drmiler, 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". * * * FINDINGS AND PURPOSES 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 services;

Link

"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.

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!

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?

"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.

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.

" 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.