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.

 

Muslim Cabbies Refuse Passengers With Alcohol Or Dogs

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society has issued a fatwa to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport commission that prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, or passengers with dogs, because it interferes with their religious beliefs. This includes service dogs, such as seeing-eye dogs that assist the blind. Muslims do not buy, sell, or transport alcohol, and consider the saliva of dogs to be unclean.
 



www.startribune.com

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport officials want to crack down on Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to carry alcohol or service dogs in their cabs.

At a meeting Wednesday of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), airport staff members asked the commission to give the go-ahead for public hearings on a tougher policy that would suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse service for any reason other than safety concerns.

Drivers who refuse to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked two years for the second offense, according to a proposed taxi ordinance revision.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




This is outrageous. The cab drivers have a primary responsibility to provide a service to the public. Their religious beliefs should not enter into this equation. The cab drivers should get a license suspension for the first offense, and a revocation for the next.

Related News Links:
www.twincities.com
www.iht.com

[edit on 5-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I remember hearing about a similiar case somewhere awhile back.

I have to say, if you're going to be a taxi driver, than you should
realize that you HAVE to pick up paying customers, regardless if
they have consumed or are carrying alcohol, and you must defi-
nately pick them up if they are blind, or have on of thosse tiny
purse dogs.

I honestly stopped caring about religious freedom, you can believe
what you want, but when it comes to your job, you either stuff
them, or quit/get fired.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Well if they owned the cab, then fine. It's their right to refuse any fare they want to.

If they are employed by a cab company then that is another matter and would likely get fired if they were found to be refusing perfectly good fares. Just to note, on the Public Transit system here in Toronto, you are technically NOT allowed to bring pets on board unless they were muzzled or caged(if small enough). Only exception was seeing eye dogs.

I wonder what the motivation of posting this article was?

Trying to drive the wedge deeper perhaps?

Would you have been so righteously offended if it had been a Chinese Cab driver who did it?

As for the Alcohol part, I agree ridiculous, but completely within their rights to do so if they own the cab.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I agree, if they own their own cabs they can pretty much refuse services, but also the facilities where they work can stop them from picking up passengers in their property.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Well if they owned the cab, then fine. It's their right to refuse any fare they want to.

Not necessarily. They must possess a medallion to operate, and they must follow the rules and regulations of those issuing the medallions.

Besides, they cannot refuse a fare for just any reason. What if they refuse to rent to Christians? Blacks? Chinese? Women?


I wonder what the motivation of posting this article was?

It is news. This is ATSNN.


Would you have been so righteously offended if it had been a Chinese Cab driver who did it?

If they did it for the same reasons, then yes.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
If some cabby (I don't care what mojo he practices) is causing problems for blind people who use seeing eye dogs, take his liscense and burn it, then give him a good kick in the pants on his way out the door.

It's being framed as a religious issue, but I know for a FACT that many non-muslim cabbies in New York & Chicago will pass by blind folks who have dogs with them because they don't want their upholstery damaged, they don't want drool on the seats, they don't want a big puddle of urine to clean up - we can all sympathize I'm sure.

Cab drivers in general are usually loathe to let a dog in the cab, it's hardly unique to Muslims. Anyway, there's no excuse, religious or otherwise, that will persuade me (or the regulatory agencies).

These hacks need to get down from their pedestal and do their job, or they need to find another line of work. Simple, really.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
It's a prefectly legitimate news story.

If I had posted this, my motivation would have been that this is another example of the US is expected to cowtow to every religious quirk that exists.
Were there not Muslims driving cabs before this? Why complain now?
Is this the first time a Dog or a bottle of liquor needed a ride somewhere?
Why complain now?
I think I know why.....settlements, cash settlements..

It would be like someone getting a job at a vetranarians office, then all the sudden complaining about dog saliva, then demanding that only cats can be treated there. I would fire them in a heartbeat. But..would I be sued for religious intolerance?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Driving a cab is definitely a regulated business and a privilege, not a right.

As a regulated business, they have to follow the Constitution and laws passed by the Congress that regulate commerce.

Denying access to a blind person with a seeing eye dog is a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Denying someone carrying liquor is probably a more cloudy issue, but could be in violation of the Twenty-first Amendment.

Anyway if these Muslim cab drivers don't want to follow the law, they should look for other work or just go home to the godforsaken place from whence they came.

[edit on 1/5/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Do people read the source?

Let’s take a nice look at this, firstly be highlighting key points raised in the article and then secondly a critical evaluation of the posts you’ve made so far.

The most interesting aspect of the article comes in the second and ninth paragraphs. Here they are: ” At a meeting Wednesday of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), airport staff members asked the commission to give the go-ahead for public hearings on a tougher policy that would suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse service for any reason other than safety concerns”.

Clearly, those who claim that they cannot refuse to drive people who are; transporting alcohol or dogs, do not read. The meeting to decide if they can or cannot do this has yet to take place. So at present, there is no problem with them refusing to transport these people and the items they are carrying. Furthermore, they’re talking about a licence given by the Metropolitan Airports Commission to pick up people from on their premises – so the final decision is up to them and not the Taxi drivers.

The ninth paragraph says this: ” About 100 people are refused cab service each month at the airport. Roughly three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.”

Now, you have to look at this in relation to: Metropolitan Airports Commission, they control a total of 7 Airports. Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport in Minnesota the other six being relatively small airports. Now clearly, they must transport several thousand people each month. If not tens of thousands, so the number being refused must only be a small amount and thus the problem not as large as people are trying to make out. Furthermore, if enough traffic can support 900 people that will be in the tens-of-thousands logically. This only goes on to strengthen the position that there are only a small proportion of people refused every month.

It is also important to note that the: Metropolitan Airports Commission is a Government organization when you get involved in this debate. They are not a Private Company but they are a company representative of every single member of the United State’s and thus should take into consideration every single member of society. These people are tax paying, they’re working and giving money to the Government and because of this they can not just be overlooked. Another key point in the article is this: ” Last year, the airport proposed a system of color-coded lights on taxis, indicating which drivers would accept passengers carrying alcohol. That proposal was dropped.

Now you see a compromise was rejected. Why? No reason was given and the idea of colour coding is not one that’s hard to understand, in fact if you can’t understand such a thing you probably shouldn’t be carrying alcohol.

It is also important to take into account the words of Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul, and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said that asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith" as well as of the spirit of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment of course saying: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A compromise has been offered, it was refused.
In the spirit of the First Amendment it is probably not legal.

However, the key point here is would they do the same to other Religions. If the taxi driver was Jewish and refused to take a pig, would this happen? If it was any other Religion would this happen? Furthermore, would it get anywhere near the same press coverage as this story?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
It's a well known fact in Denmark that muslim cab drivers refuse to drive dogs. Some people who don't want a muslim cab driver, say that they have a dog (even if they don't) when they call for a cab. This assures that the cab will be driven by a non-muslim cab driver. And please don't shoot the messenger. This is a fact and it has been all over the news in Denmark after it was "officially" known. This practice of "faking a dog" have been going on for many years. Ask any dane, and they will confirm that this is true.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
This practice of "faking a dog" have been going on for many years. Ask any dane, and they will confirm that this is true.




Maybe if everyone just "fakes a dog" these people will just be driven out of business. The free market in action!



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I remember hearing about a similiar case somewhere awhile back.

It has also happened in Australia:
sweetness-light.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Seems the same people who want to deny individual cab owners the right to set the terms for their own businesses also jump to defend corporate rights and the full deregulation of international industry.





PS. I too wonder if this article isn't just more hate-mongering. Fanning the flames for ongoing religious wars.



[edit on 5-1-2007 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Clearly, those who claim that they cannot refuse to drive people who are; transporting alcohol or dogs, do not read. The meeting to decide if they can or cannot do this has yet to take place. So at present, there is no problem with them refusing to transport these people and the items they are carrying.

If they refuse to transport seeing-eye dogs, they are in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.


The ninth paragraph says this: ” About 100 people are refused cab service each month at the airport. Roughly three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.”

Now, you have to look at this in relation to: Metropolitan Airports Commission, they control a total of 7 Airports. Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport in Minnesota the other six being relatively small airports. Now clearly, they must transport several thousand people each month. If not tens of thousands, so the number being refused must only be a small amount and thus the problem not as large as people are trying to make out. Furthermore, if enough traffic can support 900 people that will be in the tens-of-thousands logically. This only goes on to strengthen the position that there are only a small proportion of people refused every month.

The raw numbers or percentages are irrelevant. A single incident should be considered intolerable.


Another key point in the article is this: ” Last year, the airport proposed a system of color-coded lights on taxis, indicating which drivers would accept passengers carrying alcohol. That proposal was dropped.

Now you see a compromise was rejected. Why? No reason was given and the idea of colour coding is not one that’s hard to understand, in fact if you can’t understand such a thing you probably shouldn’t be carrying alcohol.

Why should a compromise be considered? The laws are clear. If the gov't would compromise, it would be supporting the Islam faith, which would be a violation of the First Amendment.


However, the key point here is would they do the same to other Religions. If the taxi driver was Jewish and refused to take a pig, would this happen? If it was any other Religion would this happen? Furthermore, would it get anywhere near the same press coverage as this story?

I think you know the answer to this. The gov't does not favor one religion over another; all are treated equally.

What if a Christian cabbie refused to transport a passenger that wore a burqa?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I don't know what to say about the alcohol, but if a cabbie refuses to take a passenger with a guide dog, they have effectively discriminated against/refused service to a passenger because of a physical disability.

That's still against the law in the US, isn't it? I know it is in Canada.

That would be the direction I would take in any legal challenge of the behaviour.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Well if they owned the cab, then fine. It's their right to refuse any fare they want to.
[edit on 5-1-2007 by sardion2000]


No, It's religous based descrimination.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by iori_komei
I remember hearing about a similiar case somewhere awhile back.

It has also happened in Australia:
sweetness-light.com...


And in the UK:

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Will someone please answer a question of mine?I wish too know why Muslims will not drive someone with dogs? I know about the alcohol part. Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
That's still against the law in the US, isn't it? I know it is in Canada.


Yep, it certainly is against the law. The Americans with Disabilities Act and probably many other state and local laws and regulations.

But it's harder to catch a cab doing this than a storefront for obvious reasons. But in an area where the traffic is heavy and cabs line up for fares such as an airport, it's easy to see what's going on and try to get a handle on it.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinstopshere
Will someone please answer a question of mine?I wish too know why Muslims will not drive someone with dogs? I know about the alcohol part. Thanks in advance.


They think that they are unclean animals, many Muslim countries go as far as outlawing the ownership of dogs.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join