Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Separate But Equal
By streiff Posted in Culture — Comments (149) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As many here an elsewhere have noted, it seems to be a characteristic of muslim communities in the West that they not only refuse to adapt to the norms of the cultures of the countries where they have immigrated but they insist that their religious beliefs receive special consideration, often on pain of death and injury as we have seen with Theo Van Gogh and the Muhammad cartoon kerfuffle.
In Ontario there was a demand that civil arbitration be conducted under shari’a. The Muslim community in Britain has demanded the closure of pubs because they are near mosques notwithstanding the pubs, in some cases, are centuries old.
Recently this tendency hit Minneapolis.
Read on.
It would seem that the muslim cabbies in Minneapolis were refusing to take fares who were carrying alcoholic beverages.
Mursal and hundreds of other Muslim cabdrivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport refuse to take fares they know are carrying alcohol. No one is searching bags, but a Napa Valley wine box or a see-through bag from the duty-free store can be enough to leave a fare waiting for the next cab. Airport officials estimate that happens at least three times a day.
Not content to shun those carrying adult beverages they have also been refusing service the transgendered, though Heaven knows how they found out. (In other places muslim cabbies have denied service to fares with seeing-eye dogs)
Generally speaking, cabbies don’t have the option of picking and choosing fares. As the holder of a public franchise they are required to provide a public service. The concept dates from the idea of non-discrimination in public accommodations. The whole “separate but equal” thing.
The Minneapolis Airports Commission had attempted to square the circle by allowing cabs driven by muslims who disapprove of alcohol to have a special light affixed to the top of their cab.
Now, the airport and cab drivers have worked out a proposal that calls for cabdrivers who won't carry alcohol to have a cab light that's a different color. That way, the airport workers who hook up travelers with taxis can steer alcohol-carrying fares to cabs that will take them. Airport officials hope to have the new lights ready by the end of the year.
The resulting publicity sparked a public outcry and the Airports Authority rescinded their decision.
The proposal created a public "backlash," says Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the commission. The commission received 400 e-mails and phone calls, almost all of them opposed to the proposal, he said.
On Tuesday, the commission rejected the proposal. That means the current policy stays. The policy says drivers who will not transport alcohol must go to the back of the taxi line.
That can force a cabbie to wait another three hours for a fare, says Abdisalam Hashim, a Muslim from Somalia who manages Bloomington Taxi.
While this decision was a step in the correct decision but the solution would have been to make serving all passengers a condition for working the airport cab rank. I hardly think the Airports Commission would have agreed to a special light to designate “no homosexuals,” or “no blacks” or “no women without veils and showing too much skin”. But it was a small if reluctant step back from dhimmitude.
"When I'm American, I have freedom to practice my religion and freedom to work anyplace I want to work," Hashim says. "This is the way we address Islam. ... We have the right to say this is how we do it."
It is this attitude that is most disturbing about muslim immigration to the United States. At the risk of sounding like a Know-Nothing or Pat Buchanan, but I repeat myself, we cannot accept the immigration of people who simply will neither assimilate nor ignore the greater culture.
When the Irish immigrated they did not try to establish a Gaeltacht in the areas where they settled. The Italians and Poles and Russians did not insist on elevating their civic institutions above those extant upon their arrival. In most cases, descendants of the immigrants arriving after the 1850s retain a sense of cultural heritage but are thoroughly American. We do not see that behavior in muslim immigrants.
We have the opportunity to prevent what we see happening in Britain, Germany, Canada, and Australia and we should take advantage of that opportunity.
Lest we think this was an incident of innocent, devout muslims being put upon by the infidel:
One driving force behind the move to accommodate the drivers' beliefs is the Minnesota Chapter of the Muslim American Society.
MAS was founded by U.S. members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which promotes the spread of Islamic influence through political parties and militant groups in the Middle East. MAS members say they do not promote violence.
Hassan Mohamud, vice president of MAS of Minnesota says the Airports Commission decision will not help customers or taxi drivers.
"More than half the taxi drivers are Muslim and ignoring the sensibilities of that community at the airport I think is not fair," he says.
« How Astute of You to Notice that, California Supreme Court — Comments (75) | The Geraldo Rivera Gets Hit By A Chair Memorial Open Thread. — Comments (27) »
Separate But Equal 149 Comments (0 topical, 149 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I like the current rule. It allows cab drivers to choose who and what they will carry, and yet provides an incentive for them to carry everyone (that 3 hour wait is a big incentive). If their beliefs are really that strong, they'll ignore their economic welfare and go to the back of the line. More likely they'll start to ignore their "sensibilities" and start carrying all comers.
I would agree with you
by jsteele
were it not for the nature of the public franchise granted to these drivers. They are granted an exclusinve right to pick up at the airports and in exchange for that protected franchise they sacrifice some freedom of choice about how they conduct business.
I'd agree with your argument if the commissions lift the exclusive franchise and lets anyone operate a public conveyance and pick up at the airports.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
and does anyone think we would be having this debate if it was Christian cabbies who were refusing passengers?
I think in general you either carry whoever needs carrying or you lose the fanchise to somebody else who will do so.
You're right. We wouldn't be
by Raven
Said Christian Cabbies would have lost their franchises and been replaced.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Careful now
by SteveLA
Some bad logic there that could come back to haunt conservatives I think.
"..were it not for the nature of the public franchise granted to these drivers. They are granted an exclusive right to pick up at the airports and in exchange for that protected franchise they sacrifice some freedom of choice about how they conduct business."
I fully support pharmacists rights to refuse to dispense medicines such as "morning after" contraceptives based on a strongly held moral belief. Your standard could call that right into question as a pharmacists also has a public duty.
As a matter of personal conscensious, the Muslim taxi drivers can refuse to service those bearing booze, as long as they want to go to the back of the line. Pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives I think are required to offer assistance in finding other places for prescriptions to be filled, which I think is a good compromise. They also loose that business, fair enough.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Big difference
by zuiko
Anybody with the qualifications can be a pharmacist. There is not some government body picking and choosing who gets to be one. If I wanted to be a cabbie or start a cab company, however, I'm out of luck... unless I have the right political connections. The marketplace for taxi transportation is purely USSR-style command and control. This has nothing in common with the marketplace on the pharmacy side, where there is plentiful competition and no barriers to entry. As a result, they don't operate under the same rules, nor should they.
There's also a difference between a medical professional, who has considerably leeway and responsibility in trying to protect their patients health, and a simple driver, who has none of that.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
that's news to me
by absentee
I was about to post that I thought the cabbies had every right to refuse to pick up whoever for whatever reason.
Now I'm confused. What is this command and control that cabbies are subject to? Is this nationally the case, or specifically in Minneapolis?
It's pretty much nationally
by zuiko
There is a small, constrained pool of permitted cab companies and they can only have a certain number of cabs. These levels are all set by the government. Their fares and rules are set by the government. They are really more an arm of the government than a private business.
In many countries anyone can offer their own taxi service without breaking the law. I don't know of anywhere in the US that is the case.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
No National Control
by Raven
In order to become a cabbie, you have to be licensed by the municipality and/or state, depending on the state you're in. Other than that, you obviously need a vehicle and insurance and anything else your state/municipality requires.
Cabbies DO have the right to carry whomever they desire or not carry whomever the dont desire. But, as in the case of the blind and transgendered previously mentioned, opens them to serious discrimination lawsuits as well as affecting the bottom line in more mundane manners.
ALSO, if these cabbies are causing a problem, the Airport Authority has every right and full power to yank that permit to operate at the airport and force them out into the rest of the city.
So, lots of ways to deal with the situation, and the AA has made the wrong move at every turn, it seems...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Not to criticize you, Raven, but...
by Neil Stevens
I read your comment, with all these levels of government and Authorities, numerous requirements and regulations, and I just have to shake my head.
This is just not pleasant ground for a conservative to fight on, I think. If we weren't seeing a trend of Muslim immigrants here and elsewhere expecting carveouts of the law specially for them, I'd personally rather ignore this whole taxi matter.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I Have A Good Friend
by Raven
Who drives a cab. Got my information from there. Bottom line is that these cabbies receieve their license to service the airport on the sufferance of the Airport Authority. If the AA thinks they're too much of a problem, they can yank those licenses in a heartbeat and foce them to find fares elsewhere...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
The problem with this argument...
by Moe Lane
...is that the question of whether supplying over the counter abortificiants should be permitted has not yet been resolved in American culture. To put it mildly. Refusing commercial services to a class of people for any number of various arbitrary grounds has. We're against it. And, yes, there are more than enough people out there who don't think that the first question is a subset of the second for all of this to matter.
If anyone feels that he can't be a good cabbie and a good Muslim at the same time, he's more than welcome to pick one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Refresh my memory...
by beecubed
Can someone refresh my memory as to the general Redstate consensus on this issue? This is an honest question, as I really don't remember.
Did you believe that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse the morning after pill even if their employers didn't want them to have the option of refusal? Or did you believe that pharacists should have the option of refusal only if employers gave it to them?
Huh?
by Neil Stevens
So, you're trying to play a gotcha game, but can't be bothered to a) come up with a specific person to yell Gotcha! at, or b) do your own research.
Or if I'm wrong, why else does a 'general Red State consensus' matter to anything?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Well...
by beecubed
I wouldn't call it a "gotcha" but I think the distinction is important as whether there is similarity between the pharmacist debate and this one. Maybe I'm not using the search correctly, but I couldn't any old discussions to come up.
My guess was that the consensus was that pharmacists should be able to refuse to give the morning after pill, even if their employers don't want them to have that option. But that was only a guess, so I didn't want to base any argument on it.
You would <i>guess</i> wrong
by zuiko
At least as far as I'm concerned. There is certainly a diversity of opinion on RS and I'm sure someone would agree with that statement, but I suspect they would be in the minority.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Well...
by beecubed
Well, that's why I asked.
If one is willing to say that the employer is able to dictate the terms of employment (that is, force his pharmacists to dispense morning after pill against their religious beliefs), then I feel that is consistent with the state forcing cabbies to pick up fares that go against their religious beliefs.
The employer isn't forcing
by Achance
the pharmacist to take the job. Once taken, it is the employer's job, not the pharmacists'. Likewise, the cabbie.
In Vino Veritas
You are misstating the issue
by Leon H Wolf
Pharmacists are not easy people to come by, and most pharmacies are more than willing to accommodate the consciences of their pharmacists, since in most cases those conscientious beliefs are so strong that the pharmacist will quit rather than dispense abortifacients.
So, the real issue is whether the government can force pharmacists to dispense abortifacients even when both the pharmacist and the pharmacy don't want to.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
But at the end of the day
by jsteele
we decided long ago in this country, to a degree we even fought a war over it, that places of public accomodation cannot refuse to serve a customer because of the customer's race, religion, etc.. And now we have government officials proposing rules that institutionalize the same behavior by a vendor?
How about gays? Muslims don't approve of gays; no gays in my cab. What about Jews? They really don't like Jews; no rabbis in my cab. What about seeing-eye dogs? Muslims don't approve of dogs; no unclean dogs in my cab. If you are a Catholic restaurant owner you can't tell a Muslim customer to come back nearer closing time.
These folks need to grasp that they are in America and we play by American rules, not sharia. Going to the end of the line is not sufficient; they need to carry the passenger or lose their hack license and find some line of work where they don't have to accomodate the public.
And I understand the argument about Pharamcists and I don't see it in the same light. Pharmacies do not have exclusive, government guaranteed, franchises in a particular neighborhood.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
The pharmacist knows the conditions
by Achance
of employment on accepting the job; do it the way the employer describes it, or find an employer with a different job description. Not analogous to a public accommodation.
In Vino Veritas
While i agree...
by beecubed
While I agree that this action is completely retarded on the part of the Muslims and the officials, I'd like to play devil's advocate and point out that nobody is getting discriminated against based on any physical characteristic or religious belief. If the people really want a cab ride they could, presumably, throw their alcohol in a garbage can and hop into the cab.
I don't know of any law that says you can't discriminate against someone based on whether or not they are carrying alcohol on their person.
In fact, in certain areas of the country (like PA until recently) it was impossible to buy hard liquor on Sunday. There was a state run monopoly on liquor sales, and those stores were closed on Sunday.
I just hope that you guys are so strongly indignent about Christian-inspired blue laws as you are about this Muslim idiocy.
What about the seeing eye dog?
by dptdenny212
What about the blind people that can't get a taxi because they have a seeing eye dog? They are being discriminated against because they are blind and need a seeing eye dog.
Woops...
by beecubed
Sorry, you are correct about that. My point about alcohol and blue laws still stands, though.
As I said initially, I think that this is completely absurd.
Also...
by beecubed
I'd also like to point out that the seeing-eye-dog issue has nothing to do with what happenedd in Minneapolis. The Airports Authority never condoned cabs discriminating against blind people.
To the best of my knowledge
by jsteele
possession of alcohol is not illegal in this country so I fail to see where this poses a valid basis for their actions. They are taxi drivers, not keepers of the public morality --- which is what they are aiming at.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
I never said...
by beecubed
I never said that it was illegal. I just pointed out that "person carrying alcohol" is not a protected category, as far as discrimination laws go, so comparying this to discrimination based on race or religion is spurious.
I would also point out that the morning after pill is not illegal in this country. Pharmacists are not keepers of the public morality.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
I don't care for those laws either
by zuiko
But I wouldn't pin them on Christians at this point. These laws have anti-competitive businesses as their biggest cheerleaders now. There was a proposal to enable car sales on Sundays here but car dealers fought it and took out ads opposing it. It never got passed. The same goes for restrictive liquor sales... these laws help the local liquor store and hurt the other players who sell or would like to sell alcohol.
In any case, there would be no problem if there was a Minnesota state law that you cannot take alcohol into a cab. The problem is cabbies substituting their own judgment for the rules they are supposed to follow. Rules they agree to follow by performing their government regulated job.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
huge difference
by streiff
pharmacists are licensed professionals. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc have historically had the right to choose their clients except when the rules of their profession demand they treat the indigent, take pro bono cases, etc.
A bus driver can't refuse to pick you up if they pick up the general public. A restaurant can't refuse service.
On what basis?
by thepoopyfacefromheck
What is the philosophical/legal/whatever basis for giving doctors, lawyers, etc, the right to choose their clients, and not giving the same right to other types of service providers?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I guess
by streiff
if you have trouble telling the difference between a doctor or lawyer and a hack driver of hotelier I really can't help you out very much
To Be Honest
by Raven
I can't see where one can be called a Public Service provider and the other can't be. You'll have to enlighten me as well as to why one group is allowed to pick and choose their customers and the other is not.
Matter of fact, there's more reason to force doctors to see all patients than there is to force cabbies to carry all fares...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
well, there are public defenders - nt
by gamecock
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Ya know
by bmbike
this makes me feel like standing in front of the cab line and handing out bottles of booze to anyone getting a taxi.
{{{TAXI...!!!}}} ;0) n/t
by Steve Foley
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
ya know
by cjooss
That makes me want to go get in that line. Scotch, please. :-)
You'll notice
by zuiko
That the 3 hour wait is gone with these new lights. Now they'll have to spend the 50 bucks one time or whatever to get the different colored light. And when there are no cabs with the right colored light? I guess you are just out of luck if you are carrying alcohol, gay, jewish, having a seeing eye dog, aren't wearing a burkah, or are wearing a pro-Bush T-Shirt.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The different colored lights
by LoveThatConstitution
You know, I like the idea of the different colored lights if the passenger also has the right to refuse the cab and make them go to the back of the line because they dont like the driver.
If the Minneapolis Taxi Commission
by jsteele
had an ounce of non-moonbat sense they would pull the hack license of anyone who refuses a passenger. There are times when issues cry out for confrontation; some Minneapolis taxi driver should force the confrontatione a point by refusing to carry a black man or a pregnant woman or a minister. Lets see how the commission deals with that. Lets see how the ACLU responds. Lets find out.
I'm willing to bet I already know the answer, and it smells like a very lucrative lawsuit to me.
This has to stop mow before it gets out of hand.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
"MOW"?? n/t
by Raven
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Great article ...
by Vise77
.. and I agree on the dangers of this. I hope the market will take care of this.
I wonder, though: These cabbies presumably are using religion as an excuse to not perform duties for which they are licensed, and which, as you point out, involves a public service. How does this differ from licensed pharmacists who, because of religious convictions, refuse to fill certain prescriptions? While I disagree with the decision these pharamacists have made, I find it hard to condemn them, because they are, after all, following deeply held and genuine beliefs.
In any case, great post, though I think you skim over the cultural battles of immigrant groups. For instance, Protestants didn't much like how German Catholics would drink on the Sabbath, and this caused huge political and cultural battles, at least in the city where I now live.
under any circumstances they want to.
A cab has a public franchise, and from what I understand (somebody may know better) the number of franchises is limited-as in you can't just put a "cab" sign on your car and pick up passengers at the airport and collect the fares.
The City Has to License You
by Raven
And in some cases, the state does too, and you have to provide for all requirements of that license before you can put the "Taxi" sticker on your hoopdie...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
actually I don't think so at all
by streiff
The comment about pharmacists is addressed above, I think we can all see there is a difference between their circumstances.
As to your latter comment, it may or may not be true, but unless the German Catholics were making people drink on Sunday to honor their beliefs I don't see the point.
The fact is that while some groups of immigrants have been slow to assimilate, it is difficult - I would say impossible - to find groups who demand that the larger society not only allow but adhere to their beliefs. The closest you would come would be Orthodox populations in Crown Heights, Kiryas Joel, etc. but even they do not demand that everyone else not drive on the Sabbath.
I completely agree with streiff
by dantes
which is a rare occurance. Being muslim gains a person no more special rights than are in the Constitution. Muslims are allowed to believe in Islam in America... but America should not and will not change to accomodate those beliefs.
I agree, but...
by kyle8
it can never end with that. Muslims historically will always claim special rights and privileges and try to force their culture on others. They have to be dealt with harshly in no uncertain terms, and told not to even try to impose their will on us. We have to put the legal smack down on them.
specifically on them, so they get the message that we are not going to bend over and take it like the Europeans.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
So, a bar in Georgia puts up a light
by Achance
to indicate it doesn't serve Blacks? Yeah right! I'd like to see how the good liberal folk in MN would react to that, and I await somebody showing me the difference in Constitutional terms.
In Vino Veritas
Bingo
by jsteele
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
The Idea Of The Lights
by Raven
Was withdrawn after public outcry of just that variety, as prevous comments above pointed out...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
To a degree, I'll recapitulate...
by blackhedd
...what several others have said, but with a more direct take on the issue.
It's certainly interesting to compare this to the case of the pharmacists, and analyze the public-service franchise aspects, and point out how similar discrimination against blacks or gays would immediately be condemned.
But the bottom line is that we have a group of people who want to transform our social norms to be more congenial to them. Even worse, they want to change our norms because they think our existing ones are evil.
There are only two ways to respond to this. One way is an emphatic, forceful and uncompromising "NO." All other responses, including fine-grained parsing of laws and precedents, are effectively forms of "Yes." I say this because those who would change our way of life believe with all their hearts that they are doing God's work, and with conviction like that comes implacable strength and endurance. We can't change their minds with logic or laws.
And we are the ones who are responsible to say "NO" to the Muslim colonizers (for that is what they are). Not the Minneapolis airport commission. This is a moral struggle, and we simply can't rely on elected officials and bureaucrats to do the right thing. Britain has shown us the wrong way to approach this: let's learn from their mistakes.
We can't bring in any laborers from Mexico legally, but we have no problem bringing in Muslims from dysfunctional holes in the ground like Somalia, legally and en masse, through the asylum process. Since we going to be involved in a war with Islamofascism for the foreseeable future, that seems like an incredibly dumb idea.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
5555-nt
by gamecock
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
5^2 and then some <nt>
by jsteele
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Some Muslims Up In Arms Over Apple's New York Store
by KARL DEWEY
Now architecture inflames Muslims.
A Muslim group says the Fifth Avenue store is an insult because it resembles an Islamic holy structure, but an Apple spokesman says no resemblance was intended and the company has never referred to the site as "Mecca."
The cube-shaped entrance to the underground store resembles the sacred Ka'ba in Mecca and is therefore blasphemous.
Really?
by blackhedd
Good grief. I thought it just looked stupid. Like somebody built an outhouse in front of the GM building and forgot to finish the walls.
Outhouse?
by Marcus Traianus
I will never be able to walk by that store again without chortling.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Again, agreeing...
by beecubed
Again, I'm going to agree that this is stupid, but play devil's advocate.
When Christians fight so hard to have their symbolism enshrined in government ("under god" in pledge, crosses in parks, 10 commandments in courthouses) is it so surprising that other religions also try and throw their weight around? Call me an evil, monstrous secularist, but maybe the way to keep Muslims from attempting to change policy based on their religious beliefs is to get everyone to stop attempting to change policy based on their religious beliefs.
Nice try - no cigar
by jsteele
no cigar because the Muslim taxi drivers don't like them.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?
by beecubed
Both Christians and Muslims attempt to get their religious idiosynchrisies recognized by government.
not evil
by streiff
but certainly sophistic.
The difference is that Christians are trying to keep their symbols from being eradicated. On the other hand, we see our children participating in notional muslim pilgramages and having to recite the muslim profession of faith in California high schools. We see prayer rooms set aside in public schools for muslims yet there is not a chapel in sight.
So I think your comment is just silly.
I'm not sure...
by beecubed
I'm not sure that I see the difference between one religion trying to keep their symbolism in government and another religion attempting to get their symbolism in government.
I will agree with you wholeheartedly that Muslim kids shouldn't be getting special religious accomodations in public schools and that the Koran, if studied at all, should be treated only as a historical-mythological document.
what a mixed up sentence and head
by gamecock
you said:
keep/get "symbolism" "in" government
The sentence in which you employ the above is meaningless.
Could you be more specific after you answer these well-structured questions:
1-Do you consider all religions equally constructive or destructive opiates for the unwashed masses?
2-Do you favor Liberty, ie government by the consent of the governed or judicial oligarchs?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Answers...
by beecubed
Wow, I guess that by "well-structured" you mean "loaded". Seriously, "judicial oligarchs"?
1 - Of course not. But the specific item we are discussing here (cabbies refusing fares based on whether they are carrying alcohol) is hardly "destructive". I'll readily grant you that it is stupid, but it isn't destructive.
2 - Well, what I actually prefer is to have laws enacted through joint effort of the executive and legislative branches, with the judicial branch having the option of nullifying said laws if they appear to violate the tenets of the Constitution.
My point, which I think I've articulated several times is that Christians getting 10 Commandments in courthouses = Good, Christian pharmacists not giving out morning after pill = Good, Christians not allow gay people to adopt = Good, Muslims not accepting cab fares that are carrying alcohol = Bad. At least accoring to most posters here. I'm just not seeing the logic.
good vs. bad. First of all, my main point was that WE THE PEOPLE govern ourselves rather than having judges govern us. More specifically, that judges not mis-interpret the Firts amendment or the 14th to make law they think is good.
We the People get to decide what laws are good and bad, usually by majority vote.
Cabbies must obey current law, but I can think of many non-religious reasons for not requiring cabbies to transport alcohol. But they must seek to change the law thru free speech and persuasion of a majority of voters.
Much like was done when courthouses were decorated by still life prints of bowls or fruit, Zeus on Mt olympus or the 10 commandments. None of which violate the constitution.
Free speech. Then vote.
Logically, I don't think we do disagree.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Logically....
by beecubed
Logically, yes, we probably agree. Philosophically, though, we almost certainly do not. But that is what makes things interesting.
beequadrupled-5-nt
by gamecock
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Going too far
by Whitfox
"When Christians fight so hard to have their symbolism enshrined in government ("under god" in pledge, crosses in parks, 10 commandments in courthouses)..."
There's a difference between properly stopping government from creating a state church, and forcing government workers to remove every reference to religion, no matter how tenuous.
"get everyone to stop attempting to change policy based on their religious beliefs."
So all religious believers should shut up and let the secularists decide everything? Doesn't sound too appealing.
I prefer the Constitution's approach: You can believe anything you want, and even act on it, providing you don't use the government to promote one church over another.
I believe that principle is why was so offensive. Muslims were being offered an out that nobody believes a Christian, Jew, or atheist would have been given, if he also decided not to serve alcohol-carriers.
The right to practice our religion should not be infringed. But that doesn't include signing up to do a job, and then refusing to do important parts of it.
religious and secular displays since before 1776, none of which established a church under the 1st amendment. I don't want to stop Muslims from exercising free speech and trying to get laws changed. I just want to defeat their attempts at same that I disagree with and which undermine the judeo-christian values upon which this country was built.
Now if we could just get the academic, legal and dem party power elite to stop undermining our values, we would really have done something.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Moses was a Christian? nt
by Tbone
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Ya...
by beecubed
Nice pointless snark. Like it was Jews leading the charge in Alabama.
Of course not. All the Jews
by Tbone
just drive through Alabama on their way to Florida. Just try to attribute theological origins accurately and your posts will have much more credibility with the more educated readers.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Complete Idiots
by Neil Stevens
If every cube ever in existance is going to offend them, then they'd better ban salt.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Matter Of Fact
by Raven
Knowing what I do about Apple's Execs, I think the Muslims are right in this case. I think Apple really IS trying to insult them.
That building alone makes me reconsider my devotion to Apple's competitors...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
taxis
by sandbox
I agree with Kyle and Steele above that we have to be firm on this one. If they refuse to follow the taxi rules of taking all comers, then their cab licenses have to be revoked. One warning, and then out.
Of course on a more general level this is but another example of the culture clash with radical islam that we see daily going on in Europe. Laws need to be enacted so that radical islamists are denied entry into the US and those already here are legally deported. I define a radical islamist as anyone who supports jihad attacks either here or around the world or anyone who seeks to impose sharia law among the islamic population of the host country. I don't know if all the Muslim cab drivers in this case can be defined as radical islamists. But this should be taken most seriosly, IMHO.
Simpler solution...
by mbecker908
Allow Muslim cabbies to carry only practicing Muslims. Set up a separate (but equal) line for them. Of course you'd probably need one line for Shia and one for Sunni, but what the heck.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Then
by zuiko
They could move that line to Mogadishu International and deport them.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Deport all muslims?
by Neil Stevens
Why?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I didn't say that
by zuiko
We are talking about cabbies (primarily aslyum cases from Somalia) who refuse to pick up certain passengers. We should encourage them to return to Mog and discriminate as much as they like in who they pick up.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Ah, I misunderstood
by Neil Stevens
It was a little vague. Glad to clear it up though, thanks!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Of course
by zuiko
Refusing to pick up the wrong person in Mog might very well earn you a few hundred brand new 7.62mm holes in you cab.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Heh
by Neil Stevens
But at least they won't be carrying wine in a box, no siree!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Trite
by Marcus Traianus
The trite and banal comments are much better than any of the feeble attempts to deconstruct this story.
This is the most I have laughed all week.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
heh great idea n/t
by Ender
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What's next?
by dptdenny212
If we let them get away with not picking up certain fares, then what is next? Do we let them work on a hog farm, because they have the right to work anywhere they want, and allow them to stay at home and get paid because they can not be around pigs? We need to stop preferential treatment now before we have to carry a handbook around so we can treat people appropriately.
No kidding
by brendanm98
If the requirements for your job are clear and your faith will not permit you to meet them, find a new job! I don't care whether it's working in a non-kosher deli, or at a pharmacy, or driving a cab -- you don't have a right to alter the job description to meet your desires.
If the employer wants to make reasonable attempts to accomodate your faith, that's fine by me, to a point. But I would think that's up to the employer, not the employee.
(An odd side note: this goes for politicians who are anti-death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal as well. They don't have the right to veto executions based on their personal beliefs.)
This is the problem with licensing
by jdavenport
"When I'm American, I have freedom to practice my religion and freedom to work anyplace I want to work," Hashim says. "This is the way we address Islam. ... We have the right to say this is how we do it."
Frankly, I think he's right - if self employed - he should be able to get a cab and go work it.
Of course, that may not be what he means?
I'm sure it's not what he means
by Neil Stevens
I'm sure he's looking for special Muslim exemptions to the laws the rest of us follow.
If we're going to have regulations, we can't carve out Muslim exemptions. Either license cabbies and require them to take all fares, or end the whole regulatory mess and let it be a free market, I say.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But are you willing
by Achance
to let the free market say that if one is a white supremacist cabbie, one can put "White Only" on the side of your cab? Same question.
In Vino Veritas
Not the same question
by Neil Stevens
Right now, there is a limited market for cabs, and if users are rejected by licensed ones, they have NO ALTERNATIVE. If the market opened up, well, then there will be competitors ready to pounce.
But yeah, I'm not a big fan of all parts of the Civil Rights Act, so I'm all in favor of letting idiots be idiots with their own business, as long as they aren't being given government-guaranteed market power.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Do you think it's true
by thepoopyfacefromheck
...that a black man has a very difficult time getting a cab in NYC and other urban areas?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
probably yes - nt
by gamecock
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
I don't know about other cities, but...
by blackhedd
...in NYC the answer is yes. Even a black man wearing a suit and tie will have trouble getting a cab to stop. But since essentially every NYC cabbie is a non-English-speaking immigrant (preponderantly Pakistanis, French-speaking Africans, and Eastern Europeans), are you prepared to say they are racists? (The cabbies who wear turbans often have big stickers in the cab with American flags, and the statement "I am a Sikh, not a Muslim.")
I think the issue is that the cabbies don't want to leave midtown at rush hour (because they will have to deadhead back), and their (prejudicial) assumption is that a black man wants to go uptown or to Brooklyn. Of course it's illegal to refuse a fare (and the TLC ferociously enforces this reg), so if you're black the cabbie just "doesn't see you." I'm a person of pallor, so they stop for me, but I gave up long ago on trying to get a cabbie to take me to Queens at rush hour. He's not allowed to refuse, so he simply folds his hands, bows his head, and says nothing until I leave the cab.
But there are alternatives....
by beecubed
It's not like there isn't another cab right behind the one that just refused you.
What does that have to do with anything?
by jsteele
They are cab drivers operating under a government franchise in a controlled market. We grant them an exclusive privilege in exchange for which they must provide carriage for anyone that shows up. If they don't like driving for someone with alcohol then they can go find some other occupation where they don't have to be faced with that disgusting problem.
But the most important factor is that they are simply not allowed to make their own rules in that trade. If they can refuse someone with alcohol the next argument will be that their religion forbids associating with homosexuals or Jews or whatever. What do we telll the gays or Jews? Take the next cab, don't want to offend the Muslims.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
That is certainly going to be the case if you are trying to hail a cab anywhere outside the airport anywhere outside of a city like NYC or London. They are somewhat rare and you are lucky if you happen upon one. Even if there is a line of 5 cabs, what if all of them won't take you because you have a seeing eye dog or because you are a jew or for some other reason?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Abslutely
by Raven
We had that debate in Virginia a few years back when the KKK wanted to "Adopt a Highway"
The final decision was "Yes, they can do it. And they can either wear their hoods while cleaning and take the chance, or go without and let veryone know who they are..."
I am all for restaurants putting signs in the window that say Whites/Blacks/terrorists only. I don't think they'll stay in business long, but they should be free to do it.
And that goes for ANY business out there.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
However
by Raven
So long as who gets to do what is limited by a government agency, they should not be allowed to turn away any paying customer
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
He may be self employed
by jsteele
but he is part of a system of public accomodation. He can change jobs, free country, he can drive a taxi in some part of town where there are no liquor stores, free country. He cannot dictate the terms under which he provides public accomodation outside of those already established in the law; he must provide service to blacks, Jews, homosexuals, seeing-eye dogs, etc. If he can refuse to serve someone carrying alcohol he can refuse to provide service to a guide dog and that is simply unacceptable. He doesn't like the rules? There are airplanes leaving the country every day.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
but only a 20/20 friendly temperate airline - nt
by gamecock
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
but that isn't the case
by streiff
as much as you, and maybe I, would like it to be.
He is issued a license by Minneapolis to carry passengers, his ability to keep that license depends upon following the rules. He no more has the right to choose his passengers than he has a right, as a self-employed person, to drive without insurance.
There is also a group of Muslim immigrants from Somalia who are suing a chicken-processing plant here in MN because they want 5 prayer breaks a day.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.