Muslim Cabbies Refuse Passengers With Alcohol Or Dogs

Some people may point out that it's the media exploiting Muslim controversies and it's the media's way of demonising them.

I think it can also be seen by the fact that the dominant Christian West and Europe have to deal with minority groups that want to change the laws according to their ways and bringing upon small issues that disproportionately change years of a nations history and culture because in all honestly it is an honour to win every battle against an infidel. Otherwise why try and change things than actually try and fit in?

Secondly the more a minority group or religion such as Muslims immigrate to every nation that has absolutely nothing in common with their beliefs or government structure the more problems arises and this is not because the West says you believe is Sharia law get out. It's because we the Western culture don't fit into theirs that the problems happen, religion turns into a political force because the two are entwined.

Examples are of controversies for the sake of Islam is:

Crosses being taken down in Italy in Italian schools because one Muslim complained and brought the nation to court as it offended his child.

Again a complaint recently to have crosses banned when you in cemeteries in Italy, no crosses or religious symbols showing, this is country that thrives in the religion of Christ more than the UK these days and yet fall victim to complaints by people who are immigrants.

In the 60s in the UK Muslim protests because they would not allow their daughters to go to PE or swimming lessons uncovered.

Recently a pig farmer from Texas who has been complained by Muslims that pigs offend them as they are going to build a Mosque nearby.

Muslims ignore using anti bacterial hand gels in hospitals because they contain alcohol.

Now we have the taxi driver scenario.

Crosses at air ports being taken off, but they must have prayer room built to accommodate them.

Changing of the American constitution of swearing on the Bible to the Koran, again wiping out history and culture from people's noses.

Trying to creating Muslim courts in the host country by having one rule for them and another for us.

The Muslim converted to Christianity from Afghanistan who had to flee to Italy being persecuted even if he has moved country due to fear.

Not being allowed to criticize Islam in a free country due to death threats if one does and rioting. Yet Christianity is frown upon.

All this is in the western societies of the world so don't expect worse double standards in those countries for the freedoms that do not exist.

It's not Buddhists or Hindus or Russian and Chinese communist doing this, nor are they migrating in millions and producing birth rates faster than their adopted countries. What is all this about? There is a hidden agenda, they don't want to fit it or cannot due to their laws but yet they like the freedom to change it all as we the West are kafir and dimmies because in their countries these people are second-rate citizens. The Western media gets bashed for being racist but yet the double standards don't fit when other minorities get persecuted under their homeland laws.

Call this Islam phobia but I wonder which one does not accept the culture they have moved to rather than try change it. I know the war in Iraq is about forcing democracy and Israel is about living with democracy, the problem is they don't want that they want it all for Islam and democracy is just platform to get a free hand in turning freedom into a fascist rule, once they vote democracy out the democratic minded people they will be second rate citizens again and thrown in jail for standing up against the religion of so called peace once they try and change it back. The system is a dead end once it's open you are closed in, that is why Islamic countries exists and have done because no one can get out.

Originally posted by Odium
I’ll try and make this simpler for you. If person A had refused to take someone because they were blind, this is discrimination based on their disability. Furthermore, this is backed up by the reference SmallMindsBigIdeas has given us: ” to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities”. Now clearly, that shows us that as long as they do the same to those who are not disabled than they are not discriminating. The law clearly states they have to treat those with a disability the same as those without. So clearly he is wrong when he stated; “But refusing them out right at an airport would be an obvious violation.”

This is equivalent to saying "As long as I hate everyone equally, it is OK if I hate."

When the law states that the disabled must be treated the same as the non-disabled, it does not mean in a negative manner. It means that the disabled cannot be refused or prohibited from enjoyment simply because they are disabled. You are interpreting it in the exact opposite way.

Originally posted by Odium
I seriously doubt a Jewish taxi driver would allow a pig to be transported in his/her taxi.

Is it safe to assume you have never been in a Jewish deli?

Contrary to your claim they would carry pigs in fact they sell them or parts of them for sure.

Start with the breakfast menu

Now from another check out the sandwiches

Yet another breakfast menu

Now if they prepare it and sell it what makes you so sure they will not transport it???? Did you know many even deliver



[edit on 1/6/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by sigung86
Assuming you mean Pharmacy ...

Yep. My fingers slipped past the "m". Typo.

against their religious beliefs to dispense the morning after pill as prescribed by physicians.

If a pharmacy doesn't wish to dispense the morning after pill because it's against the religion of the owner, I can understand that. That would be the pharmacy owner COOPERATING in causing a person to commit a sin (as they see it).

Cabbies giving rides to people carrying an unopened bottle of wine ... I don't see how that's them cooperating in a sin. Perhaps they see it as such. Dunno'. Could be.

If a pharmacy didn't let seeing eye dogs into the store becasue it was against their religion, then that would be a major problem and something law breaking.

Originally posted by grover
I still say the pharmacist refusing to dispense medications (prescribed or not) based on THEIR religious beliefs is a far more serious matter.

The power of money. If people want to protest that then they should go to other pharmacies to purchase their birth control devices. If the store doesn't make money they'll either change or close. Either that, or people will have to learn to tolerate owners of stores selling what they want, when they want.

If the muslim taxi drivers are to be tolerated for not wanting to pick up people carrying corked wine bottles, then religious owners of stores have to be tolerated when they pick and choose what they wish to sell or not sell.



[edit on 1/6/2007 by FlyersFan]

The only way to solve it is if these people put a symbol on their cab the C* for Islam so that people have a choice to avoid these cabs so instead of being left in the cold in danger at night they can ring a taxi that has + on it for a Christian taxi (not an ambulance) because then they may have refuge because they are trying to help the so called sinner as Jesus would have. Even Jesus drank wine in moderation, I don't blame him because he had sense that it's a stupid issue to deny and over judge people about as all sinners have open arms to Christ rather than Christ chopping your hand off to prove you sinned and leave you out in the streets.
ALL SAID WITH HUMOUR BUT WITH SOME TRUTH.

Will this issue be an issue that will become national problem? Will the rest of the Muslim migrants across the world look at this as if they have the right too? The problem is one pharmacist may have it's own rules but does not mean the whole country will be infected with this silly issue, why is that the country has to change because someone makes a fuss about a cross scaring the demons out of their vampire fetish?

There's a huge difference in refusing to sell certain products, and refusing service. It's not against the law to not sell a product. It is against the law to descriminate.

Odium

The oddest thing about these pages though, is you WyrdeOne. Normally you’re a lot more rational than to post things such as; “If my religion stated that I had to sacrifice an unwilling virgin every full moon, would the first amendment protect me?” When clearly the issues we have here are nothing like that, As someone already pointed out why Muslims will not deal with dogs, there is a clear cut logic as to why they would not want them in their car. But for those who do not understand, it is in case of a fatal accident.

I think the analogy I gave was apt - it's a case of one person claiming that their religion gives them the right to infringe on the rights of others, and I don't care for that line of thinking. Obviously there's a difference in scale, but at the core the behaviors are the same - they result from one person saying "I have rights and you have an obligation to respect them, but I have no obligation to respect your rights."

Freedom only works when it begins and ends with individuals. You have the freedom to conduct yourself as you please, but only as long as your beliefs don't infringe on the rights of your fellow citizens. I have the right to speak my mind, but I don't have the right to speak my mind at high volume in the middle of the street at three in the morning - do you understand my point?

I think it's perfectly rational to mandate that taxi drivers allow seeing eye dogs in their cab. If it weren't for that law, it would be much harder for blind folks to get a ride in some places, and that's not fair. People with disabilities deserve equitable treatment from business owners, regardless of the added inconvenience. Nevermind the fact that seeing eye dogs are some of the best trained animals on this planet!

I've worked in the livery industry, and as a result, I have little patience for drivers who want to make their own rules based on their personal quirks. Some guys don't want to pick up black folks. Others don't want to drive to certain neighborhoods. Still others get uppity when asked to drop someone off at the casino because they think its a sin. It's like herding cats!

Dealing with this nonsense firsthand makes you appreciate just how hard it is to run a business with employees like this. I don't care what their personal beliefs are, as long as they don't prevent me from doing my job (fulfilling promises to the customers). If the beliefs of the drivers are so important to them that they simply can't bring themselves to treat people fairly, then get another vocation. Seriously, if your religion mandates discrimination, and your job mandates equitable treatment - pick one. It's that simple.

If I'm harsh, and uncompromising, when it comes to religion, it's because I see time and time again how incompatible antiquated belief systems are with modern life. I don't care what people want to believe, but they can't expect the world to stop and hold their hands while they come to terms with the reduced relevance of their superstitions.

Originally posted by shots
It also happened in Vancouver

This kind of thing still happens in Vancouver, even after it was ruled against. The law up here states that the only reason a cab driver can refuse to transport a guide dog is if they have allergies and can provide a letter from their doctor.

I'd also like to point out that Islam requires its followers to abide by the laws of their country of residence. Refusing service to guide dogs, which is what this article discusses, is against the law. We're not talking about some lady and her purse pooch, which they would be entitled to refuse, we are talking specifically about guide dogs.

That means that any Muslim who refuses to allow a guide dog into their taxi while in a country where that is illegal is (1) breaking the law and (2) not following their religion very well.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by sigung86
Assuming you mean Pharmacy ...

Yep. My fingers slipped past the "m". Typo.

Thanks for laughing. I realized how pretentious that sounded after I posted, but was running too late to stop and retract. I appreciate it, and have a lot of respect for folks that handle things intelligently.

I guess, too, I understand what you are saying. However, when one deals with the public, one can't always expect to hold the public to their higher standards.

I agree with what you say, essentially, with voting your dollars. I do it all the time. e.g. I am a smoker. My wife and I eat out a lot. However, the local, newly built, Applebees has a very small smoker area that is impossible to get into, most of the time. One of my extended-family daughters manages the place. I grumbled and complained, fully realizing it wasn't her fault. Then I told her that I wouldn't bother to come back.

I really have no hard feelings toward her, or even Applebees. I just figure that if they are so well off that they don't need to cater to me, then I will simply go where I am allowed to sit there, eat, and foul the air.

However, when you place yourself at public disposal, as in the case of a pharmacy, you are essentially providing a public service. That public service is recognized by ... er ... the public to be at a certain level. In this instance, it is to commercially, and for profit, to dispense all available legal medications, or at least those most generally needed and used.

If you put yourself in a career position, as these pharmacists did, knowing full well these types of drugs are considered legal, available to the general populace, and therefore dispensable, then it becomes your problem and shouldn't be foisted off on people who depend on you to fulfill a basic recognized role in the local area.

All that totally aside, these recalcitrant pharmacists were working for a large commercial pharmacy, and weren't, at least to my knowledge, pharmacy owners. This then in my mind is a double jeopardy situation. You, as a pharmacist, took a position that you knew had some issues that would be attributable to your moral/ethical stand on issues. Then ... You take a job with a national chain that has a reputation, and a level of service that is expected (business reputation). You, as a pharmacist, then commence to sandbag, and do the job up until the moment that it conflicts with your morality/ethics? Nah... It's your fault for being there in the first place.

That, in my mind, is the same problem with the cabbies. They took jobs, or got into a mode of livelihood that would require them to do things that are against their religious/moral/ethical beliefs. That's a shame on them. If they work for someone, they should be fired. If they own their own cabs, then they should get out of the business and do something else. Or as has been stated in a previous post, should have to flag themselves in some way, so that the public knows they can not or do not offer up the level of service that the public has come, over the years, to have a right to expect.

I try very hard to be reasonable about things that are different from my hallucinations. I have, in the past worked for the Defense Language Institute, and dealt with folks, successfully, from about 30 different countries.
I say that so you understand I am not a, climb out from under the rock, skinhead.

However, I am beginning, more and more to see this as a contest, or perhaps a better word is war on the Christian culture by those of the Moslem faith. Having said that, it may be planned, or it may simply be the fact that they are more into proselytizing than Christians/Westerners, wherein there is no real punishment for thinking/believing in Mohammed. When we wake up to what is going on, then we will be able to deal with it, and not just so, as an issue to be swept into the "Politically Correct" bin.

Originally posted by Duzey

I'd also like to point out that Islam requires its followers to abide by the laws of their country of residence. Refusing service to guide dogs, which is what this article discusses, is against the law. We're not talking about some lady and her purse pooch, which they would be entitled to refuse, we are talking specifically about guide dogs.

That means that any Muslim who refuses to allow a guide dog into their taxi while in a country where that is illegal is (1) breaking the law and (2) not following their religion very well.

Muslims not following their religion well? That's inconceivable.



Mod Edit: fixed quote tag

[edit on 2007/1/6 by Hellmutt]

Just for the record the last post quoted me but I never stated that. The statement was made by duzey

While I'm not impressed by the cowering reverse racism with which any complaint against our status quo is accommodated, refusing dogs in taxis is not limited to Muslims.

Good reason to have a pet taxi business in the area. But I have to say, this story reminds me of my ex-father in law. He is a converted Jew. Or so he claims - that while interred in a camp during WWII, he escaped and had a vision of the Virgin, at which point he converted.

God bless him for surviving. The funny story is, one Easter, he wanted to cook a whole piglet. Much to his chagrin, he found that it wouldn't fit into his oven. He got into his car and drove to the kosher deli and spent a good hour trying to berate the poor man into cooking his piglet in the kosher oven.

Makes one wonder, what are we really arguing over concerning the legalese of religious doctrine.

Originally posted by Duzey
This kind of thing still happens in Vancouver, even after it was ruled against. The law up here states that the only reason a cab driver can refuse to transport a guide dog is if they have allergies and can provide a letter from their doctor.

Are you saying the HR tribunal has already made the ruling??? I thought that was not scheduled to take place until mid year or there abouts?

Originally posted by GT100FV
Muslims not following their religion well? That's inconceivable.

That's not the exclusive domain of Muslims.

I'm all for religious freedom, but refusing to transport guide dogs while driving a taxi crosses the line.

Of course, this problem could be fixed by having all the blind use guide horses instead of dogs. Would these taxi drivers be more amenable to having miniature ponies in their vehicles?

Those ponies are so cute, I don't see how anyone could object to them.

Maybe this will lead to boycotting muslim cab drivers!! A reactionist movement to this Islamic invasion. Maybe people will stop going in Moslem cabs, stop going to moslem businesses etc.

After all customer is always king !

Originally posted by shots
Are you saying the HR tribunal has already made the ruling??? I thought that was not scheduled to take place until mid year or there abouts?

You're right, that case hasn't been heard yet. I got it mixed up with another case in Alberta and that one the driver pled guilty in Provincial Court and paid a fine. My bad.

We've had this problem in most provinces for several years. If discrimination can be proven, the taxi driver loses. Unlike the US, our Constitution states that rights can be 'subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, which covers not discriminating against people with guide dogs, is one of those reasonable limits.

The hard part, of course, is proving that you were discriminated against because of the blindness and not for some other reason.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Duzey]

Originally posted by Duzey
My bad.

The hard part, of course, is proving that you were discriminated against because of the blindness and not for some other reason.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Duzey]

Yeah you are bad but forgiven just the same you are human

But I wonder what is so hard about proving they are being discriminated against especially if they are blind? Hell several iman have already stated it is not against their religion, but then of course you have the radicals who claim it is so go figure.

Originally posted by jsobecky

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?

Small business' have the right to discrimnate. They do not have to serve customers that they do not want to, for whatever reason.

THis isn't Canada ya know.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Thanks for the forgiveness.

Originally posted by shots
But I wonder what is so hard about proving they are being discriminated against especially if they are blind?

I think that perhaps a lot of people using guide dogs don't carry a copy of their dog's certification or registration card, leaving the cab driver able to say they thought it was a pet and they were being lied to.

That's just a guess on my part though.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by jsobecky

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?

Small business' have the right to discrimnate. They do not have to serve customers that they do not want to, for whatever reason.

THis isn't Canada ya know.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by In nothing we trust]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Nobody has the right to discriminate. They may be exempt from providing certain things, but that is a different issue.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by jsobecky]