Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Common carriers to be ordered to transport those with alcohol

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010501508.html

    SNIP

    Muslim Cabdrivers Clash With Airport

    Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport have proposed to suspend cabdrivers who refuse service on religious grounds to people carrying alcohol.

    Drivers who reject passengers for anything except safety reasons would have their airport taxi licenses suspended for 30 days for the first offense and revoked for two years after the second offense.

    Last year, the airports commission received a fatwa, or religious edict, from the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society. The fatwa said Islam prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, "because it involves cooperating in sin."

    Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.

    -- Associated Press

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Do you think that a cab driver has any right to decide who he wants to conduct business with, or is his acceptance (under threat of not being allowed to do business at all) of the state's* license disable all of his rights?

    Iwould be moreinclined to agree with you if the common carrier is a corporation (like say, Amtrak...) but if it'sjust a guyin his cabit might be different. Remember a few years back there was a big stink in NYC because cabbies were refusing to pick up guys who looked like thugs, most of whom were black. The city actually put undercover black cops on the street to hail cabs and bust any that didn't stop for them. The idea that cabbies (who are disarmed, of course) have any right to make decisions regarding how they run their business, even with regard to their own safety, was drowned out in all the "civil rights"BS flung about by clowns like Danny Glover. I don't want to be one of those clowns.

    Just because RKBA is my personal pet cause doesn't make it moreimportant than other peoples' inalienable rights.


    *"state" here is a general term for any government, local, state or federal


  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    At common law, inkeepers and common carriers were required to accept all comers without discrimination - that ancient standard of hospitality should be extended to gun owners in my oppinion, and at places of public accomodation.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Good point, Mike.

    Good point, Tomahawk.

    I imagine some tolerance all around will solve it:

    Muslim cabbies can show tolerance by being polite to the infidel when they decline to transport an infidel for religious reasons, "I'm so sorry, it is a sin for me to transport alcohol."

    Infidels can be tolerant: "Oh, of course, I'll try to find another cab." Before long infidels will know about the situation and ship the Scotch ahead or be ready for the solution in the next paragraph.

    The Taxi Commission cangive tolerant consideration to both sides:the cabbies by allowing them to decline to transport alcohol; infidels by telling the Somalis that they can't have the exclusive airport contract--they have to allow another cab company into the airport for the alcohol fares.

    If somebody stood up as a wise referree I bet it would sort itself out. Heck, I bet if the AP and the newspapers knocked-off their muckraking, it would never develop into a real issue in the first place.

    Oh, I almost forgot one. WE should continue to beINTOLERANT of anybody who infringes on our 2nd Amendment freedoms.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Mike,

    Read your common-law post only after I posted. Sounds like a good idea to me. It would force the tolerance. If they felt all that intolerant about it, they could get out of the business. I'm talking about guns.

    I don't know about the common-law requirements from the Middle East. I'd be inclined to work with the cabby situationin my previous veinsince it is a conscience issue, pending more backround.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    450

    Post imported post

    How about looking at this at a broader level?

    Should ANY private business which is open to the public be able to turn away a customer based on the possession of alchohol, firearms, etc...? To only pick out specific types of businessesfor mandating tolerancemight be missing the most important part of the issue.

    Public businesses shouldn't be allowed to dis-allow or discriminate based on the nature or demographics of any particular group of people whose characteristics, behavior or possessions are otherwise legal. This does not mean that the businesses shouldn't still be able to eject individual persons who exhibit behavior which is disruptive or damaging to the business, of course.

    IMHO

    molonlabetn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •