It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Cabbie ordered to pay $10,000 for telling lesbians to stop kissing

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:52 AM
I just want to reiterate the REAL issue here. As I see many people posting about what's a PDA and what isn't... Blah blah blah...

It is NOT the kiss.

It is the $10000 fine.

A man is being punished for holding true to his beliefs, in his workplace. I am sure he would allow anyone to kiss whoever they want.... Outside his taxi.

This is fascist-communism at it's finest.

Confusing isn't it...
edit on thpamSun, 12 Apr 2015 08:52:38 -0500k1504America/Chicago1252 by Sparkymedic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:58 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Puppylove

But again, my interest was what would the guy have had to do to be guilty of something that should have been taken through the legal system? Would he have had to scream "Lesbian blankety-blanks" before commanding them to get out of his cab?

I'm looking for common ground on where we would agree that the cabbie is in the wrong rather than just "a victim" of the roving bands of LGBT looking for a fight.

The problem here isn't the raving band of LGBT looking for a fight really, it's the unjust laws where the punishment doesn't fit the crime. As I said, 10,000 dollars is a lot of money, that's quite an incentive to be butthurt and sue, 15,000 which according to you is the total with damages + court fee, is cruel and unusual punishment, and I personally would argue that as such should be considered unconstitutional.

As stated, the guy is a cabby, 10,000 dollars will probably ruin him for years, is a debt he will likely not get out of for years, it will tear apart his credit rating, ect, in addition if paying the fine is too costly at his current rate of pay he can get in even more trouble.

The reason the cabby is a victim is because the punishment is cruel and unusual in my opinion.

When the fine paid out is reasonable, then people will only pursue it when truly wronged and the punishment will fit the crime.

As long as the laws stay as they are, it's nothing but victims everywhere except for the courts who make out like bandits.

Addendum: To further make my point, even sitting here arguing what I am, I can't help but think, # 10,000 dollars, I'm LGBT I could take advantage of this and possibly get myself out of debt if I can find the right mark. Which I feel really sick for thinking because as demonstrated I'm very ethically opposed to such things, but 10,000 dollars is seriously tempting when broke and in debt.
edit on 4/12/2015 by Puppylove because: Addendums are fun!!!

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:06 AM
I found documents with a list of "Taxicab Agent Rules" for NYC which lists usual fines when broken.

Document found here NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission

Judge Spooner works for the Office of Adminstrative Trials and Hearings or (OATH): Source

If you take a quick look at the documents at the first link, apparently the penalties for breaking the rules in NYC are pretty stout, the range is $1000-$10000. (The fines are listed for each infraction in the different sections.)

The fine seems to be in line with published information.

I see that you don't wish to answer the question about where the line should be drawn, what types, kind of degrees of actions should be stood up to so that it doesn't look like we LGBT are somehow "out to get" the rest of society or think we should have "special rights" somehow.

That's cool, I enjoyed the conversation nonetheless.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:07 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Like I said I've no problem with the ruling, my problem is with the fines. I don't care if the fines are standard if the standard fines are themselves unreasonable.

As long as we accept ridiculous punishments that favor us financially more than we deserve for the crime done, then we're not properly pursuing justice.

I would take only what I need to cover my costs and return the rest if I was truly fighting for social justice. Then the 5,000 dollars is just the court enforcing sociopathic laws. The whole point if going for social justice is to get the ruling, not to put the guy into a financial crisis for years.
edit on 4/12/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/12/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:12 AM
Okay, but, then the exceptions that some of you raised with this matter isn't a case of LGBTs "getting their way" or "promoting their agenda" or "working the system" but is ultimately merely a case of outrageous structure of fines in New York City?

I can't argue with that.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:20 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but due to the fines and such like that, and the gays being perfectly willing to completely ruin someone and take crazy amounts of money for a ultimately minor offense is the issue.

If fighting for your rights and the rights of others, the goal is for the ruling in your favor, to make sure there's more positive legal precedent in the defense of your rights. It is not to get a black eye and in return cut off the persons legs. That's not justice.

What we're doing is the equivalent of being given a black eye and going to our mobster friend, who then goes and kneecaps the guy who punched us.

If we were truly looking for justice we'd also be doing our damnedest to make sure our mobster friend doesn't go all psychopath on the guy.

As long as we accept ridiculous payouts for ultimately minor offenses, our motives remain questionable, and they should be. To be willing to ruin someone for a minor offense is sick and twisted, and makes the sincerity of the claim suspect.
edit on 4/12/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:28 AM
a reply to: Puppylove

So you're claiming that the ladies in question knew what the penalty was going to be and knew how Judge Spooner was going to decide?

Taxi Cab drivers are apparently considered quasi-city employees. As such the couple apparently reported the problem to the appropriate department within the NYC government. That department referred the case to the judge and the judge made his decision.

The couple followed the procedure for reporting what they saw as discrimination. The various government departments took it from there and exercised their functions.

Are you saying the couple had no right to report perceived discrimination? If so, we come back around to my original question ... what would the cabbie have to do for this to be real, legitimate discrimination in your (or any one else's) eyes?

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:33 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

With all the news reports these days of people getting crazy sums of money due to discrimination cases, with people like Al Sharpton making literally a fortune off this crap, etc, It's a pretty damn lucrative idea.

So do I think they knew the specifics? Hell no.

But there's plenty of reasons to think getting a big payout is possible. The concept is completely plausible.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:34 AM
Well been fun, but I'm overdue for bed, so night, going to have to stop responding for now.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:37 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if what you say is true, and they went to the right authorities without pursuing a lawsuit at all and just the state did it, then you're correct and they did no wrong and it's only the state that's the issue in this case. And the guy that discriminated obviously.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: Puppylove

Enjoy your rest.

While the outcome of the case is extreme, I think we should be very careful about where we draw the lines between understandable disagreements and actual discrimination.

But aside from that and for the record, I do think the fines were ridiculous, and I do think the couple was not "innocent" in this particular matter.


posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: Domo1

Maybe he got uncomfortable because he got turn on by the two women kissing.

Anyway, I wonder where your rights ends and my start this days in our nation.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: Rocker2013

Or maybe people should be respectful around others (to not make them feel uncomfortable) and not get intimate in the car.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:00 PM
Ten thousand is definitely overkill.

BUT--Manhattan is a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" type of destination. The taxi system there is a quasi-public utility. He's working under a city medallion and they have a say about any "standard of decency" he's trying to enforce. If he doesn't like it, get another job. If this guy is uncomfortable with something like people kissing in his cab he shouldn't be hacking in New York.

What happens when a cabbie's "standard of decency" makes him uncomfortable because of something like a woman wearing a sleeveless shirt?

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:20 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Puppylove

I'm not sure the Administrative Court held a hearing and made this decision based only on hearsay. I'll see if I can find us a transcript of the proceedings somewhere.

The case was brought by NYC's Commission on Human Rights, I'm guessing that they would have looked for more material facts in the situation than just she said/she said/he said.

Exactly what I'm thinking.

Could just be an "activist" judge trying to make a point, but with a fine that seems excessive --- I'd say we don't know the whole story.

And I still say a New York cabdriver with 17 years experience claiming this is too much of a distraction to drive, is being rediculous.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: nOraKat

First bit of common sense i have heard on here.
Fifty years ago people didn't even talk about it, never mind the same sex walking around holding hands and kissing in public.
just because the morals of society have been flushed down the pan, doesn't mean we all have to follow..
To me, it was not a decent thing to do then and it isn't now..If you have parents in their sixties and seventies, ask them for their views..You may be surprised how many think that it's ok as long as they don't push it on the rest of us....
Get yourself a room....

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:39 PM
So my issue with this is what I consider to be an outrageous fine given the circumstances, and a judge just assuming someone was being hateful with no real proof. I'm fine with someone getting punished for being discriminatory while conducting business (well kinda) but I'm not seeing a whole lot of proof the guy actually took issue with them being lesbians.

Perhaps there is video and the women did indeed just give each other a quick smooch, perhaps the guy hates gay people. Still seems excessive, and if the decision was only reached because the judge assumed something I find it troubling.

Unless there is some actual tangible proof I don't know why we're expected to just believe the couple. They could have been in each others pants. Either way, if someone is uncomfortable with your display while driving you, perhaps just stop.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:42 PM

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

A man is being punished for holding true to his beliefs, in his workplace. I am sure he would allow anyone to kiss whoever they want.... Outside his taxi.

He broke the law.

New York has an anti-discrimnation law.

NO, he does not have the right to choose belief over law.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:49 PM
a reply to: Annee

Did he though? Do you think perhaps it was the kissing and not the lesbianing that bugged him? They even state he said "Don't make me out to be an a__hole" when they suggested his protest was based on their sexual orientation.

I agree that we need to follow the law usually, even the stupid or ambiguous. I just don't know if I believe it was applied appropriately here.

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:53 PM

originally posted by: Domo1
So my issue with this is what I consider to be an outrageous fine given the circumstances, . .

A judge doesn't set the legal dollar amount range for fines, does he?

A judge can't just pick an amount out of thin air.

Who does set the amount?

new topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in