[Goober911]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Goober911 Goober911:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DD, if the taxi drivers are refusing to do the work their company wants them to do then they should find other work or start their own company.

A halal taxi company would likely do well and if they post all of their advertising in Arabic then that would effectively exclude most non-Muslims from riding in their cabs.

But, again, I side with these taxi drivers in that they should not be forced to perform work that they find religiously objectionable. The notion of forcing anyone to perform any sort of work against their will (regardless if I agree with their motivations) disturbs me far more than the notion of someone not getting a ride in a taxi.

I disagree. They applied for and received a Taxi license or are employed under one which is issued by the City.
They can quit.

The same logic would apply to any business these people engage in so is it your suggestion that they go on assistance for the rest of their lives for the reason that the government effectively prohibits them from working at any meaningful employment?

They are and do serve the public. Why not have a religion that only states whites are saved, I can only serve, work with and so on are white people. How would that go over.

Or they could emigrate to a country that abides by such principles. Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan & Pakistan to name a few.
We would not tolerate Christians doing this, why would Islam get a pass.

[BartSimpson]

Goober911 Goober911:

They are and do serve the public.

They most certainly do NOT serve the public. You're mistaking private workers for government workers.

As to your examples, so what if someone only wants to work with people of a certain race or if they don't want to work with people of a certain race?

That's freedom. That's their choice.

What's next? Telling people they have to demonstrate racial and gender diversity in their dating preferences?

Where are you going to allow people to act according to their conscience and their preferences? Or is that not even conceivable to you?

[Goober911]

Nope- Not private- They applied for a public license. Nice try though.
Oh yeah, what is a private worker serving the public?
Signed
Really confused

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Goober911 Goober911:

They are and do serve the public.

They most certainly do NOT serve the public. You're mistaking private workers for government workers.

As to your examples, so what if someone only wants to work with people of a certain race or if they don't want to work with people of a certain race?

That's freedom. That's their choice.

What's next? Telling people they have to demonstrate racial and gender diversity in their dating preferences?

Where are you going to allow people to act according to their conscience and their preferences? Or is that not even conceivable to you?

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Let me get this straight, you have decided to turn this into a (very weird) debate abount semantics around the term "serve," when much of this thread is talking about the service industry where business owners and their employees serve the public, much like how at a restaurant you are served by a waiter.

This after you yourself have used the term serve in a private business context a whole... 27 hours ago on the last page of this thread. The same page where andyt uses the term without complaint. After a full page prior of the use of the term "service" which is essentially the same term with a different time period specified. You yourself argued about how the government, and I quote, "can force people to provide services...".

Even the legal definition I quoted used terms like "serves food or drink." The law even properly states that the "following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation," before going on the describe that full list on the last page including private businesses. Goober911 said nothing objectionable in the context of how you, I, and others have used the terms in this thread, and has in fact made correct use of the term "serve." At least from what I see.

As for what happens, they don't get to work in an industry with public accommodation. No working in the service industry unless you deal with your fellow man with respect. I answered this in my last post.

Your "dating" example is an irrelevant attempt at a slippery slope. No one is talking about dating, nor does dating have anything to do with a free and open market. You can choose to discriminate in who you want to date, in large part because you are not, say, blocked from dating entire genders, races, sexes, religions and so forth. In much the same way as allowing interracial marriage doesn't mean everything has to marry someone from another race, this law doesn't mean you have to do the same.

Finally, I want to point out that I find your commentary somewhat contradictory to literally everything you have said about Sharia ever. We outlaw things like Sharia (and the entire political spectrum agrees on this generally) because we recognize "freedom" for, say, men in extreme Christian or Muslim sects should not come at the cost of the inability for women to have freedom of speech, the ability to assemble, or the power to vote. Freedoms end where they harm others. Your ax ends at my tree, as it were. Demanding the right to discriminate against other people reduces the freedom of other people so we don't allow it. Just like we don't allow the discriminatory actions of Sharia law. Generally people recognize the right to equal treatment in the Constitution, and why your nation bars things like religious tests for office.

My thoughts and perspective anyways. Sorry Bart, I'm just very confused by your arguments here, I'm not sure where they're coming from. I may have missed something.

EDIT: Sorry Goober, didn't notice you'd posted.

[stratos]

Goober911 Goober911:

Nope- Not private- They applied for a public license. Nice try though.
Oh yeah, what is a private worker serving the public?
Signed
Really confused

Sorry but the License in this case is not the right to serve the public. It is a license to charge people for the service of transporting them from one place to another.

Think of it along the lines of a liquar liscense. A business owners applies and gains it for the sole purpose of being able to sell alcohol. They still maintain the right to refuse service to a person.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

stratos stratos:

Goober911 Goober911:

Nope- Not private- They applied for a public license. Nice try though.
Oh yeah, what is a private worker serving the public?
Signed
Really confused

Sorry but the License in this case is not the right to serve the public. It is a license to charge people for the service of transporting them from one place to another.

Think of it along the lines of a liquar liscense. A business owners applies and gains it for the sole purpose of being able to sell alcohol. They still maintain the right to refuse service to a person.

They can ONLY refuse if the person appears under age and has no ID proving otherwise, or if the person appears to be already intoxicated. They can't refuse to sell you booze because you're gay, Black, or belong to the the "wrong" religion.

[BartSimpson]

Business owners serve paying customers. They do NOT serve the public and they are NOT a public accommodation like a municipal bus system.

[BartSimpson]

@Khar:

I remain opposed to Sharia because it imposes a religious law on *everyone*. But I also oppose government imposing rules on private businesses that are outside the scope of regulating work conditions, pay, sanitation, and safety.

Businesses and individual entrepreneurs need to be able to choose their customers (and vice versa) without the heavy hand of government interfering.

The problem inherent in these acts of government is that they are biased in favor of populist sentiments and a social agenda - both things that should be absent in law.

Where we stand a gay Jewish man with a seeing eye dog and a case of vodka can demand a Muslim taxi driver to give him a ride. A gay couple can force a Christian to bake them a cake.

But where's the converse to balance this?

Can gun owners force Facebook and Google to carry their content? Can the NRA force CNN to carry NRA advertising?

Currently, they can't because Google, Facebook, and CNN are free to discriminate against conservatives and gun owners.

So where we are is it's bad if people who are special in the hearts of liberals are discriminated against but it's okay if people who are not special in the hearts of liberals are discriminated against.

And where I am personally is that I do not want government interfering in the preferences of business owners and individuals no matter how well intentioned that interference may be.

Meaning that I support the right of a Muslim taxi driver to pick and choose his fares as he sees fit and I reserve the right to refuse to do business with that taxi driver.

And I utterly oppose the selective anti-discrimination policies that are currently in force.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Business owners serve paying customers. They do NOT serve the public and they are NOT a public accommodation like a municipal bus system.

The business of driving a taxi is based entirely on picking up passengers who called for a cab(or picking up flag downs), period. That is the ENTIRE nature of that business. And yes, taxi drivers DO serve the public. They play an important role in getting drunk people home safely, getting them to work on time, job interviews, medical appointments. All of which can be problematic when some dickweed decides he doesn't want to have you in his cab for stupid religious or personal reasons.
What you are saying is that a cab driver has the right to make you late for work, miss a job interview or make you late for or miss a medical appointment just because he feels like it.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Meaning that I support the right of a Muslim taxi driver to pick and choose his fares as he sees fit and I reserve the right to refuse to do business with that taxi driver.

And in most cases, if said cab driver is dispatched to you and you refuse it because he's a Muslim, you might as well call another cab company. Cuz if you tell the dispatcher that's your reason for refusing, you're gonna be shit outta luck getting another cab.
I've seen dispatchers blacklist an address for that very reason.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The business of driving a taxi is based entirely on picking up passengers who called for a cab(or picking up flag downs), period. That is the ENTIRE nature of that business. And yes, taxi drivers DO serve the public. They play an important role in getting drunk people home safely, getting them to work on time, job interviews, medical appointments. All of which can be problematic when some dickweed decides he doesn't want to have you in his cab for stupid religious or personal reasons.

So you'd be upset if a cab driver in Arizona refused a fare from a customer who was Mexican, sporting gang tattoos, and legally and openly armed in a dangerous neighborhood? You'd be aghast if the cab driver discriminated against this man because of stupid personal reasons?

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

What you are saying is that a cab driver has the right to make you late for work, miss a job interview or make you late for or miss a medical appointment just because he feels like it.

Nope. I'm saying that you don't have a right to make anyone drive you anywhere.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Meaning that I support the right of a Muslim taxi driver to pick and choose his fares as he sees fit and I reserve the right to refuse to do business with that taxi driver.

And in most cases, if said cab driver is dispatched to you and you refuse it because he's a Muslim, you might as well call another cab company. Cuz if you tell the dispatcher that's your reason for refusing, you're gonna be shit outta luck getting another cab.

I've seen dispatchers blacklist an address for that very reason.

So that's a form of discrimination you approve of.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Meaning that I support the right of a Muslim taxi driver to pick and choose his fares as he sees fit and I reserve the right to refuse to do business with that taxi driver.

And in most cases, if said cab driver is dispatched to you and you refuse it because he's a Muslim, you might as well call another cab company. Cuz if you tell the dispatcher that's your reason for refusing, you're gonna be shit outta luck getting another cab.

I've seen dispatchers blacklist an address for that very reason.

So that's a form of discrimination you approve of.

So seeing something happen and mentioning it in here equates to my approval of it?
That's quite a stretch, even for you.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The business of driving a taxi is based entirely on picking up passengers who called for a cab(or picking up flag downs), period. That is the ENTIRE nature of that business. And yes, taxi drivers DO serve the public. They play an important role in getting drunk people home safely, getting them to work on time, job interviews, medical appointments. All of which can be problematic when some dickweed decides he doesn't want to have you in his cab for stupid religious or personal reasons.

So you'd be upset if a cab driver in Arizona refused a fare from a customer who was Mexican, sporting gang tattoos, and legally and openly armed in a dangerous neighborhood? You'd be aghast if the cab driver discriminated against this man because of stupid personal reasons?

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

What you are saying is that a cab driver has the right to make you late for work, miss a job interview or make you late for or miss a medical appointment just because he feels like it.

Nope. I'm saying that you don't have a right to make anyone drive you anywhere.

And by default, you are saying you have a right to interfere with my livelihood/health.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The business of driving a taxi is based entirely on picking up passengers who called for a cab(or picking up flag downs), period. That is the ENTIRE nature of that business. And yes, taxi drivers DO serve the public. They play an important role in getting drunk people home safely, getting them to work on time, job interviews, medical appointments. All of which can be problematic when some dickweed decides he doesn't want to have you in his cab for stupid religious or personal reasons.

So you'd be upset if a cab driver in Arizona refused a fare from a customer who was Mexican, sporting gang tattoos, and legally and openly armed in a dangerous neighborhood? You'd be aghast if the cab driver discriminated against this man because of stupid personal reasons?

There are legitimate reasons for refusing a fare. A bad back and a medical note will exempt you from grocery calls. You can designate your vehicle to be a no pets cab so you're not dispatched to anyone with a dog. And to your example, refusing a fare over fears of personal safety is not an objectionable reason. I've even refused a fare over fears for my safety. By the by, the fare I refused were White people who ended up robbing a driver from another cab company.

However, that also depends on the cab. I've seen cabs where the front passenger door had it's locking mechanism fixed so that it could never be unlocked, thus preventing passengers from getting in the front seat and posing a potential threat to the driver. They also had bullet proof glass between the front and back seats with a little swivel tray to put the fare in and receive your change. In that case, I would be aghast if the cabbie refused the fare in your example.
In fact, had I been driving a cab like that, I wouldn't have refused the fare that I refused.