It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
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.



I don't think we know the whole story, what we have/know is media hype.

Obviously, the judge thinks he broke the law.




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: jon1

just because the morals of society have been flushed down the pan, doesn't mean we all have to follow..


Were the morals of society offended by a hetero couple walking down the street holding hands?

Or a hetero couple having a quick kiss in public?

If it's publicly acceptable for a hetero couple, then it's publicly acceptable for an LGBT couple.

BTW - I am just shy of 70.
edit on 12-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I thought the fine ranged from $1k to $10k and I think a judge can actually choose how much the fine is.

Either way, fining someone $10k based off of the testimony of two people with no real proof seems wrong to me. The wording the judge used bothered me.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Annee

I thought the fine ranged from $1k to $10k and I think a judge can actually choose how much the fine is.

Either way, fining someone $10k based off of the testimony of two people with no real proof seems wrong to me. The wording the judge used bothered me.


I don't know.

Maybe the cab driver pissed him off in court. I'm gonna guess the cabdriver had an arrogant attitude.

I'd say there is some reason he gave him the large fine.
edit on 12-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
It wasn't accepted then so why is it now...society has changed now and so have the laws.....that doesn't mean that I or anyone else has to to be with the 'in' crowd..we all have different veiws...
Call me old fashioned but I think its wrong to be punished for having your own set morals and sticking to them....
Good on you though for moving with the times..



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

were you in favor of forcing christian businesses to cater gay weddings? i don't recall what your stance was.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Wow... What direction are we heading? what law was actually broken here? If it's my cab, my rules.. what could have possibly happened that "offended" These woman?

There probably is more to this story than were being told.. like the woman were involved in heavy petting and grinding.. we don't know but I hate how all replys seem to side with the woman putting the lion share of fault on the cabbie..

I hate how the LGBT can take offense by a comment but it's unacceptable that the cabbie can take offense by there actions..

Annee, I can garun#ingtee is a hetro couple were told to knock it off.. they would and definitely wouldnt have made a federal case out of it..

society is sickening me and I truly fear for future.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

i remember when my husband and i were dating, we'd sit in a booth in our favorite restaurant, order coffee and smooch. one day a guy my husband knew came into the restaurant and later asked us to quit kissing, we were "making his blood boil" lol


edit on 12-4-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Puppylove

were you in favor of forcing christian businesses to cater gay weddings? i don't recall what your stance was.


Not supplying a cake which has no special decoration other than being a standard wedding cake to a gay couple is discrimination. The reason being you're refusing service to them simply for being gay. That being said, the fine in that case was much like this, way over the top. But in that case it was true clear cut discrimination unlike this one where it's very unclear and murky at best.

Also this cabby did not refuse service, he didn't demand they not be gay, he didn't do anything except request no PDA in his cab, that's it, all they had to do was say ok, respect his personal space (which let's be honest, when you're in somebodies car, you're in their personal space) and everything would have been kosher and they'd have gotten to their destination without further issue.

Had they started kissing in her establishment, and she requested they please stop or leave, I would not call it discrimination either and would be speaking against that more as well.

See the, "stop doing this action, which is commonly considered disrespectful regardless of orientation inside my establishment, or I will exercise my right to not serve you" is very different than,

"I don't believe in you doing this action which is always considered acceptable for one orientation, while outside of my establishment, and thus will not serve you, even though you have not violated my establishment by doing anything disrespectful inside my establishment."

As for catering, as in the pizza place set up fiasco, that's trying to force someone to actively participate in the wedding itself, I have no problem with them refusing service so long as they can prove that they aren't cherry picking their religious convictions. Which is the rub. If say you can prove the owners eat shellfish or pork then, that alone makes their convictions using the christian religion to not cater to the event invalid. Especially if the place serves shellfish or pork products.

This issue is PDA not being gay, unless you can prove for sure it was being gay, and not PDA, which they were requested to stop the PDA in his cab, not to stop being gay, at no point did he refuse service for them being gay, only for the PDA in his cab, had they stopped the PDA he was more than willing to get them to their destination and accept their money.

I'd likewise have no problem with the pizza place, or baker asking them to stop the couple stop kissing in their establishment or they'd exercise their right to refuse service. So long as it can't be proven that they've been allowing straight couples to do the same unmolested. Until prejudiced hypocrisy can be proven and established, no crime has been committed by the person making a reasonable request.

Assuming things about people's motivations without proof is not a way to establish law.

That being said, we need to as a people attack the way our government dole's out fines. We as a people are not universally capable of paying ridiculous fines. Fines should be based off of proven income level and not based of a flat number, otherwise you end up with some people not really punished significantly at all for major issues thanks to being rich while others have their very livelihood devastated for what is ultimately minor infractions of the law since they're already poor and have no income to pay a fine of that magnitude.

The punishment should fit the crime, and no punishment should be doled out inside a vacuum without consideration for the nuances of the people involved and the effects of said punishments on said people involved.

I have no problems with say a lawsuit for example forcing say Bill Gates to pay 100,000 dollars for discriminating if you can prove he did it, since for him it would affect him even less than a parking ticket affects most people. However asking the same thing for example of a baker who privately owns her own business and that 100,000 thousand is more than her take home profit for the entire year, that same fine becomes unreasonable and in turn becomes cruel and unusual punishment.

Fines should be tailored to income level, plain and simple. The more income you have the stiffer a fine needs to be to have the same results, and the less income you have the more a fine needs to be reduced to keep it from exceeding the crime.

Addendum: As a note, there comes a point where paying a fine at all is completely unreasonable due to income level, at this point, community service should be used rather than a fine itself. At no point should a punishment ever exceed the crime by more than a reasonable level.
edit on 4/12/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

i remember when my husband and i were dating, we'd sit in a booth in our favorite restaurant, order coffee and smooch. one day a guy my husband knew came into the restaurant and later asked us to quit kissing, we were "making his blood boil" lol



Yes, but did you employ his services.


This is a legal situation of a service business breaking the states anti-discrimnation law.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jon1
a reply to: Annee
It wasn't accepted then so why is it now...society has changed now and so have the laws.....that doesn't mean that I or anyone else has to to be with the 'in' crowd..we all have different veiws...
Call me old fashioned but I think its wrong to be punished for having your own set morals and sticking to them....
Good on you though for moving with the times..


Back to: a white woman and black man aren't acceptable walking down the street holding hands.

It's morally wrong.

Prejudice is prejudice. You're right, can't change people's thinking.

But, law can make it legal for everyone. As it should be.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

This isn't a couple holding hands walking down the street. If that were the issue I'd agree. If a gay couple were holding hands and walked up the a hotdog vendor and they refused service, then it's discrimination pure and simple. Still, 10,000, 15,000 with court fees, is a ridiculous fine for a hot dog vendor.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: HooHaa

Annee, I can garun#ingtee is a hetro couple were told to knock it off.. they would and definitely wouldnt have made a federal case out of it..


No, you can't guarantee that. And they probably would have told the cab driver to shove it, and walked away without paying too.

A hetero couple has evey right to report how a business treats them. Are you really going to tell me a hetero couple doesn't report unfair business practices?

If you report a discrimnation case, it's a state law case. It's state vs cab driver.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

This isn't a couple holding hands walking down the street.


No.

But, the post I was responding to was.
edit on 12-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Ahh ok, sorry. Get lost sometimes lol.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: Domo1

On the other hand, it's New York City. The taxis are regulated by the city and are essential for transportation and no doubt for the tourism industry as well. If he wants to enforce a Muslim "standard of decency" in his presence maybe he should get another job instead of driving cab in NYC.


Except. . . . There's zero proof that he wanted to enforce Muslim 'standard of decency'.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Hey, he's the cab operator. He's in charge of who he wants to drive or doesn't want to drive. If they didn't like it they can simply ride another cab.

No different than a "no shoes, no shirt, no entry" policy of a business owner. Are we "oppressing" a shirtless gay man because he's not allowed entry into a convenience store? The cabbie has every right to choose who he wants as his customer.

Remember, the cabbie had no issue with two Women in his backseat to begin with. Their sexuality only came into play when they decided to force it onto the cabbie, in his OWN cab, during his OWN work shift.

Seems they were oppressing this poor cabbie just trying to do his job.

edit-

If this guy had a kickstarter, I'd donate 5 bucks to help him pay his fine. The identity of these Women should be shared, so they can be shamed for yet another example of the LGBT movement destroying another person's life for an absolutely ridiculous reason.
edit on 12-4-2015 by yourignoranceisbliss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Straight, dykes or puffs...if PDA makes you uncomfortable, then it does, one should not be penalised for their basic human rights.

This is no longer about equal rights and acceptance/tolerance. It's about superiority. Equal rights should be equal, not favour one group just because of past persecution.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I hope he appeals and this goes to a higher court and the two lesbians are forced to pay the cabbie and all his legal fees. This is ridiculous. Their is absolutely zero proof he was discriminating against their homosexuality.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Its ridiculous to assume that he was upset with them because they were two women.

Maybe he just didn't want ANY type of sexual activity (even something as benign as kissing).

The next time I'm in a cab with a gay driver, I'll sue him for discriminating against my straightness and see how the world reacts.

What a ridiculous conclusion to a ridiculous lawsuit.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join