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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
those dogs are a hell of alot smarter than the current human occupant of the White House... of course thats not saying a lot either.




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
It also happened in Vancouver.Tribunal to rule on guide dog vs religion

There was a settlement in this case and I thought you'd be interested in the outcome.


In addition to paying Gilmour $2,500, the taxi company was required to implement a policy for transporting blind people and their guide dogs.

It's against the law for cab drivers not to transport blind people with guide dogs, but a settlement agreement between Gilmour and the taxi company says an exception to that law would be a Muslim driver refusing to transport a dog because of religious beliefs.

But the policy says the driver has to call dispatch for the next available cab and stay with the blind person and guide dog until that cab arrives.

cnews.canoe.ca...



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
There was a settlement in this case and I thought you'd be interested in the outcome.



Thanks for the update.

I had wondered what happened but I feel they should have been forced to pay him more. One can only assume Canadian law might be the reason the amount is so low.

Darn I just read it in detail and that really sucks because they can still refuse based on religous grounds the the end result is the very same as it was before he is made to wait for another cab. :shk:

What is wrong with this world??????

[edit on 8/15/2007 by shots]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Something the article doesn't make clear is if it was a voluntary settlement between the two parties or a tribunal ruling. I've been trying to find out to no avail, but will keep my eyes open for more info in the local papers. I may have to wait until the HR tribunal updates their website with the August decisions.

I'm inclined to think this is a settlement in exchange for him dropping the complaint against the taxi company.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey

I'm inclined to think this is a settlement in exchange for him dropping the complaint against the taxi company.


That is just what makes no sense because it is not really a settlement because the cab company did the very same when they refused him service from the get go. In that case too all they did was offer to send another cab

Now had the cab company agreed to make sure only cabs with drivers that will take him would be sent then that could be considered a settlement of sorts although I would not agree with it simply because cabs are like buses they are there to serve the public.

This kind of thing makes one wonder what would happen if a bus stopped on a corner that had a blind person waiting for a bus with a seeing eye dog? Could the bus driver refuse to carry him because his religion believes they are dirty??



[edit on 8/16/2007 by shots]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
After how many years of driving a cab and only now they start to complain.




 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join