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

originally posted by: babybunnies
Its ridiculous to assume that he was upset with them because they were two women.

Why is that ridiculous?

This is hardly the first or only incident of LGBT and cab drivers.

originally posted by: babybunnies
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.

Good luck both finding a gay cabdriver and coming up with some way he can be discriminating against your straightness. *rolls eyes*

You'd be better served kissing your straight SO and taking a secret recording and seeing if he tells you to stop. Or doing so in random cabs to see the result. If straight couples also get asked to stop, then you have a case to prove no discrimination has occurred here. Trying to randomly sue people by setting them up should be a crime.

Don't you love the pattern of responses developing here.

The assumption here is that the cabbie is just a good hard working man standing up for his "rights" to dictate what people can do in the cab he drives.

The other assumption is that the couple was just flagrantly conducting the equivalent of heavy petting in the cab's back seat, and when asked to stop, politely or not, just rained down invective on the poor guy's head and decided to do everything they could to ruin his life.

That's the two stories developing here for the most part. We all read the same article (or some of us did) and yet, there's "no evidence" for the couple's position and all the evidence in the world for the cabbie's innocence EVEN THOUGH a review board and a sitting judge reviewed the evidence and found the matter to be otherwise.

Why is the couple not receiving any benefit of the doubt here but has basically been convicted in the kangaroo court of popular opinion? Well, what do we know about them. They're women, and they're gay.

Which fact provides the evidence that THEIR testimony is completely unworthy?

Pfft.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I certainly never assumed he was innocent I gave the possible plausible scenarios myself. For me to assume that either is telling the truth in their demonizing of each other would be wrong on my account as I wasn't there and there's no definitive evidence either way.

All we know is he's a cab driver, they're gay, and both are making claims against each other. Anything beyond that is assumption without proof, and even with proof, any reasonable person should recognize that the states fines are ethically irresponsible.

The main issue is, as long as these claims result in ridiculous payouts, it's equally reasonable to assume negatively that the gay couple was taking advantage of the system to get a big payout as it is to assume negatively that the cabby is a bigot that hates gays and is discriminating against them.

That's the rub. As long as the system works like it does it's very difficult for justice to be done, since the system is by it's nature corrupt and unjust.

Is hard to find out who did what when accusing others of prejudice is positively reinforced with huge payouts far above and beyond what is reasonable.

a reply to: Puppylove

You aren't "composing the story" that I was focusing attention on. Indeed, you have seemed to be very fair-minded in your analysis. Further, I don't disagree with you about exorbitant fines in this specific case or government overreach in general.

originally posted by: chuck258

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'.

He wants to enforce a "standard of decency." And he's Muslim. I think it's a safe bet what the outlines of this conflict are, especially as Muslim cabbies refusing service based on religious grounds is not new and this is not the first conflict between a Muslim cabbie and gay riders.

He also accused them in court of being anti-Arab and anti-Muslim so this isn't a one way street as far as accusations of playing the victim card go.

This directly relates to the Indiana RFRA and the "Christian" baker/gay wedding issue. Some people are OK with this kind of discrimination as long as it's just gays who are affected. But if this were a Muslim cabbie telling a married Baptist couple to knock it off and they said they had just briefly kissed hello this discussion would probably include complaints about Sharia Law in the U.S.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My hope was that my response to you might influence those telling the stories you're speaking of might see how this should be looked at.

I was pretty sure you weren't really responding to me. Just using the opportunity to put more emphasis on what is a more balanced perspective.

a reply to: DelMarvel

I think that's called "unintended consequences."

Great post!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Which fact provides the evidence that THEIR testimony is completely unworthy?

Pfft.

People are screaming it's outrages. Uh yeah, "Flags and Sirens!"

Doesn't that indicate there was more to this? A reason for a judge to do that?

a reply to: Domo1

what i take from this, from a practical point of view:

In NYC, the courts encourage people to make out in public and will issue financially punitive damage upon anyone who objects.

Not really my cup of tea, and it wouldn't fly here in West Texas....but I guess if you're in Rome.....

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Which fact provides the evidence that THEIR testimony is completely unworthy?

Pfft.

People are screaming it's outrages. Uh yeah, "Flags and Sirens!"

Doesn't that indicate there was more to this? A reason for a judge to do that?

To be honest and fair, that is as presumptive as the judges reasoning of "i believe".

Why would we place blind trust in this judge?

Well, I love that in the rush to condemn the ladies, suddenly the likelihood of a Muslim enforcing his own cultural standards on two American citizens in their own country hasn't been lamented.

I mean, is he trying to start implementing Sharia law in his cab? Oh wait, it's GAY ladies we're talking about....

Nevermind, cabbie innocent, couple guilty. Oh the tragedy.

/sogladbigotryandsexismisdeadinamerica

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Which fact provides the evidence that THEIR testimony is completely unworthy?

Pfft.

People are screaming it's outrages. Uh yeah, "Flags and Sirens!"

Doesn't that indicate there was more to this? A reason for a judge to do that?

To be honest and fair, that is as presumptive as the judges reasoning of "i believe".

Why would we place blind trust in this judge?

I'm not.

I am saying to "throw the book" at someone, usually has some reason behind it.

I like to watch court shows (except Judge Judy. Can't stand her)

You don't wanna piss off the judge.

Usually that happens with lying and trying to make it the other guys fault, when it's clear who's really at fault.

So, I'm saying the cab driver did something during the court proceedings.

a reply to: Annee

True, it does.

And sometimes it is just an activist judge trying to make a point.

In any event, unless there are state/city laws, homosexuality is not EEOC. I am not sure the ruling would outlast an appeal.

a reply to: Annee

15,000 dollars in debt to a cab driver is extreme and harsh for verbal bigotry. Which is what it is. The thing that stops it from being like the cake and pizza thing is that he never refused service for them being gay. No one has disputed that he asked them to stop with whatever amounted to "PDA" or he'd execute his right to refuse service. It was the PDA that was not allowed, not their sexuality. Now it's possible their PDA was not allowed due to their sexuality, but even still, no PDA is a reasonable request, and at that point while it is bigotry it is not a refusal to provide service based upon that bigotry.

Not sure if I'm making any sense, but there are levels to things, and 15,000 dollars from a cab driver is not reasonable for what little damage this can have possibly caused.

Throwing the book my ass, this is extreme, and in my opinion extreme punishment for minor offenses is immoral and more wrong than whatever offense was committed. If I as a transgender got beaten by some guy for being what I am, and as a result he ended up in prison for life for an example, I would not consider that justice as the man who beat me got wronged 100's of times worse than I. (The law isn't typically this extreme, this is an exaggerated example.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

NYC's EEOC Laws

The New York City Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on race, color, creed, age, national origin, alienage or citizenship status, gender (including gender identity and sexual harassment), sexual orientation, disability, or marital status. In addition, the Law affords protection against discrimination in employment based on arrest or conviction record and status as a victim of domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. In housing, the Law affords additional protections based on lawful occupation and family status. The City Human Rights Law also prohibits retaliation and bias-related harassment.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

15,000 dollars in debt to a cab driver is extreme and harsh for verbal bigotry.

I don't know.

IMO -- he did something that pissed off the judge.

And, yes, could be a liberal activist judge. But, I think there is more too it.

a reply to: Annee

Which gives too much power to the judge if he can ruin someone because he got irritated.

As for extreme, yes it is, the guy is a cabby, this is going to affect the guy severely for years. It may even financially ruin him and get him fired of top of it at the same time.

Can you say anything even reasonable comparable for the two lesbians or the irritated judge?

This kind of justice makes eye for an eye look downright compassionate. This is more akin to you take my eye I take both yours and give you a good kick in the privates for spite on top of it.

A law system that does not take into account the economic status of those involved in fines is by it's nature unfair and immoral.

If you're filthy rich and you get fined 10,000 dollars for contempt of court for example, and someone working at McDonalds gets the same fine for contempt of court, the filthy rich guy pays it and has a good laugh about it later, paying it off that day with a phone call, the guy that works at McDonalds may never be able to get out of that debt.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

Which gives too much power to the judge if he can ruin someone because he got irritated.

Like I said. I think there's more to it.

Something else is going on. Maybe.