Muslim Cabbies Refuse Passengers With Alcohol Or Dogs

Originally posted by soficrow

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]

It IS fanning.
But it is the intolerance BY muslims towards non-muslims.
You have alcohol, I don't want to give you a ride. You have a dog, you cannot ride.

Don't you see, this is one religion PUSHING it's agenda on a whole country.
Are we so blind to this fact that we are ALL going to need seeing eye dogs soon?
Then, how are we going to get a cab?


I almost want to laugh at how some folks want to bend over backwards to please, and honor every religious practice on the planet..it's impossible.
But I can't laugh, it's not funny anymore.

It's Hyper-tolerance..people in fear of offending. sheeesh..grow a spine!

Originally posted by djohnsto77

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.

Thank you for answering my question. This comes of kind of strange because i have a muslim friend who has a dog.

I agree with others that denying rides to blind people with seeing eye dogs is not acceptable.

I do feel however that cab drivers should have the choice of not giving rides to other people with dogs or to people who have been drinking. As others have pointed out, dogs can make a mess and nobody should be forced to unnecessarily put up with their messes. Dogs (with exception to seeing eye dogs) are prohibitted from many places of business like offices and restraunts, so why should any cab driver be forced to allow a dog into his place of business. T

The cab drivers that give people who have been drinking rides home are saintly people who deserve an applause. That being said, it does not seem reasonable to demand that people act saintly. For a cab driver, there is a lot of downside to picking up a drunken stranger or a group of drunken strangers. Drunks are more likely to be violent, not pay their fare, or otherwise be difficult people to serve. If a cab driver does not want to put up with these hassles, it should be his perogative not to put up with them. He may be missing out on a lot of potential business as people who go out to bars often need cab rides home, but that is the taxi driver's perogative not to take that buisness.

hotpinkurinalmint,

It's not rowdy drunk people who are the issue, it's people who are simply carrying bottles of alcohol, such as purchased at a duty-free shop.

Originally posted by spinstopshere

Originally posted by djohnsto77

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.

Thank you for answering my question. This comes of kind of strange because i have a muslim friend who has a dog.

Dogs are generally looked down upon in Islam. I believe their is a Hadith that speaks unfavorably of them. Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with a billion followers, that live in several countries. Also like Christianity, Islam has different sects and its followers are diverse and have varying level of devotion. Many Muslims drink alcohol, others do not for religious reasons. Many muslims may own dogs, others may not for religious reasons.

So A Drunk Dog Is Right Out Then?

Cases like these are interesting, where a "clash of rights" occurs.

I wonder how this will shake out?

So far, it's not looking good for dogs in a hurry.

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

Can you then find a case where the Americans With Disabilities Act has superseded the First Amendment? If you can't, the rest of your post and every claim about it being illegal is null and void.

Yep, these are probably not allowed:



But they should have rights too!

Dogs are not looked down upon in Islam, they're valued as protectors of man. In Muslim homes, dogs are not allowed in homes only if they're not used for protection, services with disabilities, or hunting. In Islam, we believe that the angels fear entering households with cats and dogs.

The hadith describing this states that Gabriel was to visit Muhammad's home, but did not, for an unknown reason to Muhammad. The next day Muhammad was visited by Gabriel while praying outside his home. When Muhammad asked Gabriel why the angel did not visit him, Gabriel said it was because there is a dog in his home, and that angels fear dogs. Muhammad told Gabriel that he did not own any dog, but Gabriel advised him to check his home. When Muhammad went home, he had asked his daughter Fatima if there was a dog in the house. Fatima lifted the table cloth, and underneath it, she had been keeping a dog as a pet.

This is not to say that dogs are to be avoided. The hadiths permit dogs in households for people who require them for the reasons I stated above.

What the cab drivers are doing is taking one rule and evolving it to make another rule. Denying service to the blind is not what Islam allows, and denying anyone to enter the cab with a dog is also not part of Islam.

Originally posted by Odium
Can you then find a case where the Americans With Disabilities Act has superseded the First Amendment? If you can't, the rest of your post and every claim about it being illegal is null and void.

Religious organizations have an exemption to ban dogs on their property if it contradicts their religion, but that doesn't extend to someone in business. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the right to regulate commerce and making sure businesses are accessible to the disabled is certainly in their pervue.

[edit on 1/5/2007 by djohnsto77]

Again, you still do not reference a case. If there is no case and no direct piece of law, saying: "Muslim's can not ban guide dogs from their workplaces" it is not illegal.

Originally posted by Odium

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

Can you then find a case where the Americans With Disabilities Act has superseded the First Amendment? If you can't, the rest of your post and every claim about it being illegal is null and void.

That's a specious argument if I ever heard one.

It might be, but it is also the truth.

Unless there is a piece of law, which states they can not do that. Then it is not against the law. What have they broken? Nothing. You're claiming they're committing a crime, without any piece of legislation being in place. The First Amendment is not superseded by the Disability Act.

If Muslims get the right to ban dogs in their cabs, would Chinese have the right to eat them?

(EDIT: That is a serious Philosophical question, BTW)

[edit on 5/1/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
If Muslims get the right to ban dogs in their cabs, would Chinese have the right to eat them?

(EDIT: That is a serious Philosophical question, BTW)

[edit on 5/1/07 by stumason]

Why not?

Why is it O.K. to eat cow but not dog? Why pork but not cat? Why chicken and not horse?

I was wondering on the point of rights, see.

If a Muslim could argue that it is against his religion or culture to carry a dog, could a Chinaman successfully argue that he has the right to eat your dog if you get in his cab?

Same coin, different sides. Then we see how silly this argument is.

EDIT: I'd eat any animal, given the chance. I'm a proper meat eating predator

[edit on 5/1/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by Odium
Again, you still do not reference a case. If there is no case and no direct piece of law, saying: "Muslim's can not ban guide dogs from their workplaces" it is not illegal.

You are incorrect in trying to make this a muslim-only issue. But, for your infomation:

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS
IN PLACES OF BUSINESS
Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?

A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

www.usdoj.gov...

Originally posted by Odium
Unless there is a piece of law, which states they can not do that. Then it is not against the law. What have they broken? Nothing. You're claiming they're committing a crime, without any piece of legislation being in place. The First Amendment is not superseded by the Disability Act.

Show me how the First Amendment rights of the taxi drivers are being violated.

Why cab driver, and not gorcery clerk?
If the job confronts you with Normal, everyday things you cannot tolerate,
the United States has plenty of OTHER jobs available. Find a job that does not require you to be confronted with the uncomfortable.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
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.

I agree not accepting customers solely because they are blind would be a possible violation of the ADA. However for the rest of the issues ... not taking dogs and people who have consumed alcohol ... a cab is a private business. Here in the good ole USA businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Cabbies, depending on where they are located, are regulated more than other businesses. But most of those regulations are related to the fare they are charging and how they calculate the fare and maintaing safe operating vehicles and insurance.

I would think if I was a cabbie, especially if driving my own cab, I would be allowed to refuse a fare even if the only reason was I didn't feel comfortable letting that person into my vehicle.

Since most airports, especially the larger airports, require special permits for cabbies to pick up fares from their waiting areas they can apply more stringent policies. It sounds like the airport in question is choosing to do that ... suspending them if a complaint comes in that they were refusing to pick up a fare from the curb.

[edit on 1/5/2007 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]