Booze, (Service) dogs too much for some Muslim cabbies

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472393/

Some Muslim cab drivers are refusing service to a growing number of passengers with alcohol or dogs, and officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are trying to fight it.

"Our expectation is that if you're going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it," said Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airport Commission.

Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport, and refusals for religious reasons have grown in recent months, airport officials said. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.

<snip>

A driver who refuses to transport a passenger with a service dog, in violation of the federal American with Disabilities Act, already faces a 30-day suspension of the airport license, Hogan said. A driver who refuses to transport someone carrying wine is told to go to the back of the taxicab line.

For the service dog refusal I'd pull their license for sure. And if it happened more than once I'd permanently pull their license and tell them to find another line of work. I'm sick of the religious nuts of all persuasions!

If they won't do their fucking job, find another one.

not allowing their tenants to have pets.

:shrug:

Any business can refuse entry to pets, but service animals are permitted to go anyplace the people they serve are.

But are any muslim cabbies refusing service dogs?

And the article does mention that refusing service dogs is a violation of civil rights laws, naturally.

It does not actually say that's what the cabbies are doing.

...

make such a distinction.

You seem to have a very low opinion of muslims.

bases his activities on abject mythology. All this "unclean" bullshit is just that.
I guess you'd be perfectly happy if a fundy cab driver refused to carry Muslims, nu? Or does your "outrage" only work in one direction?

Karl, dogs are unclean. I've got the upholstery to prove it.

"I guess you'd be perfectly happy if a fundy cab driver refused to carry Muslims, nu?"

Not at all. That would be a violation of civil rights. Btw, you're not comparing Muslims to dogs, are you?

What is the title of a law that says refusing service to a Muslim is a crime?

And no, I made no such comparison, it exists only in your mind.

The Constitution of the United States of America.

More specifically- the 1st and 14th amendments. And various subsequent laws protecting the rights of all americans, regardless of race, religion, gender, physical ability, etc.

Cite one.

Heard of it?

Disability rights in one and religious rights in the other. I know I had nothing to do with this little altercation but you are doing such a bad job of this one that I thought I would pile on, DU style.

Second, you should train your dog to stay off the furniture.
While you are training you can place towels, dog bed, or dog blanket where the dog lays down on the furniture.

Dogs are only as unclean as you allow them to be.

They also immediately go outside and roll around in filth- regularly.

"Second, you should train your dog to stay off the furniture."

I could do that. But then I feel like a hypocrite.

"Dogs are only as unclean as you allow them to be."

Uncleanliness is a dog's natural state. It's a beautiful thing. I could keep my dog spotlessly clean, take it to the groomers, do the whole Paris Hilton dog-as-fashion-symbol thing. But if I wanted that I wouldn't really want a dog. Be better to just go for a plush animal. Or maybe one of those new robot dogs from Japan.

When I took my girls to the groomers every 4-6 weeks they got the full works. In between, every 2-3 weeks I would give them a bath.

Now I give them a bath when needed and clip them myself. And, they are trained to stay within the boundaries or at least come when called.

And I don't even bathe them much at all...

The article clearly states that these asswipes are not allowing guide dogs.

These cabbies are scum and should be stripped of their licenses...

Whose fault is that, hmm?

It seems that much of the ire directed at fundamentalist Christians, and rightly so, is not applied to fundamentalist muslims. They spring from the same tainted fount and the hypocrisy in DU on this issue is glaring.

on another DU thread, is that service dogs are not required to wear any special vest or other I.D. I already knew that service dogs are not limited to the blind.

So how would a taxi driver know if he was excluding a service dog?

"So how would a taxi driver know if he was excluding a service dog?"

Well, he could ask, couldn't he?

you can't ask what a person's disability is.

She's in the Virgin Islands, I'm pet sitting.

Do you have to tell store owners, etc., that the dog is a service animal? Are they allowed to question you about the dog? How does that work?

They may not ask what disability it is for, but they can ask for a general description of its job (guide, medical alert, etc.).

Not all service animals are dogs. Not all service animals are for visible disabilities. Many service animals are individually trained by their owners, and don't have any "accreditation." Service animals don't carry any special ID or registration.

A person with a service animal is required to abide by all applicable animal-welfare laws and animal-behavior laws, so if a service animal flips out and acts unruly, the owner may legally be asked to leave the premisis; but under the ADA, the service animal must be presumed legit unless proven otherwise.

This link is primarily about dogs, but any trained animal can be a service animal (including monkeys, horses, parrots, pigs, etc.). http://www.deltasociety.org/TextOnly/ServiceAccessDenied.htm

Tucker

having a wonderful time in Florida

I mean, if you're a parking attendant and you see a car parked in a handicapped parking spot and it doesn't have any kind of notification that the owner is handicapped, he should have it towed, right? That's why they require handicapped license plates/permits, etc.

Now if a taxi cab driver passes a guy with a dog because he doesn't like dogs, and there's no indication of any sort that it's a service animal, has he done anything wrong?

Here:

"The belief that carrying alcohol or dogs, including those that help people with disabilities, violates religious beliefs is "unfortunate," Airports Commissioner Bert McKasy said.

SNIP

A driver who refuses to transport a passenger with a service dog, in violation of the federal American with Disabilities Act, already faces a 30-day suspension of the airport license, Hogan said. A driver who refuses to transport someone carrying wine is told to go to the back of the taxicab line.

SNIP

Additionally, dogs are considered unclean and Muslims are required to repeat their ablutions if they come into contact with them before praying.

Given the religious concerns, Hassan Mohamud, an imam and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, said he would ask airport officials to reconsider."

"The belief that carrying alcohol or dogs, including those that help people with disabilities, violates religious beliefs is 'unfortunate,' Airports Commissioner Bert McKasy said."

That's a quote from some airport admin. about something that's not even in the Koran.

"A driver who refuses to transport a passenger with a service dog, in violation of the federal American with Disabilities Act, already faces a 30-day suspension of the airport license, Hogan said. A driver who refuses to transport someone carrying wine is told to go to the back of the taxicab line."

That's a statement of the law.

"Additionally, dogs are considered unclean and Muslims are required to repeat their ablutions if they come into contact with them before praying."

That's just an explanation about muslims and dogs.

No where does it mention any muslim cabbie refusing service for the handicapped and their service dogs.

Immediately after talking about the necessity for Muslims to perform ablutions if they're in contact with dogs, the writer says:

"Given the religious concerns, Hassan Mohamud, an imam and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, said he would ask airport officials to reconsider."

What are they being asked to reconsider? The policy that requires them to transport passengers with service dogs.

"A driver who refuses to transport a passenger with a service dog, in violation of the federal American with Disabilities Act, already faces a 30-day suspension of the airport license, Hogan said. "

Just like the "unfortunate" quote.

"Given the religious concerns, Hassan Mohamud, an imam and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, said he would ask airport officials to reconsider."

Reconsider what? Not letting in passengers with booze? Passengers with pets? Passengers with service animals (not bloody likely)?

I don't know why you're still arguing this point though, since I read the post below where someone gave you links to articles describing many instances of people with guide dogs who were denied service by Muslim cabbies.

This isn't some mythical problem. It's real.

He could be talking about the booze for all you know.

"I don't know why you're still arguing this point though, since I read the post below where someone gave you links to articles describing many instances of people with guide dogs who were denied service by Muslim cabbies."

No incidents of which happened at this Minneapolis airport.

it has been defended by other imams, is an indication that it has probably happened in Minneapolis too -- and that's why there is a controversy about it there.

that because some muslims do it, all muslims probably do it?

"and that's why there is a controversy about it there."

Seems to me more people are concerned about the booze and their pets, then the disabled. Why mention booze at all if it's just about the disabled?

among fundamentalist Muslims.

I don't have any special objection to Muslims, only to fundamentalists of every faith. I also object to fundamentalist Christians who think, for example, that their taxes shouldn't be used to pay for military personnel to have abortions. In other words, to fundamentalists of all stripes who try to force other people to accomodate to their beliefs.

Can we agree, then, that it's perfectly legitimate for a cabbie (of any persuasion or for any reason) to disallow any booze in his car, and any pets, given that they are not service animals.

And, assuming the cabbie can LEGALLY ascertain whether a dog is a pet or a service animal, then I wouldn't say he had to be required to carry a pet.

On the other hand, in my city you have to get a special license to be one of the select taxis lined up at the airport. The rider finds out what the fare will be before he even goes outside, and takes the first taxi in line. In exchange, the taxis have to agree to follow the airport rules. I don't know what our airport rules are with regard to alcohol or pets.

Then the driver refuses service - WTF? You can't have it both ways...so if someone stinks or is dirty after work, its ok to not want to provide a service in a cab they are driving for A CAB Company which they do not own??? If they feel they are in danger - threatening behavior, drug-neighborhood, etc. that is one thing, not liking alcohol, sorry - but that's another

It's like the bartender says, "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

The cabbie can say, "you don't have to drive, but you're not riding in my cab."

we should be encouraging drunk people who are a danger to themselves and others to have free access to cab rides. Common Carriers such as taxi drivers should have "good reason" to exclude someone, and trying to get a ride home while intoxicated instead of driving or hitchhiking doesn't seem to meet that standard. Public policy holds taxis/buses/motels/hotels to a higher standard than other private business in allowing them to exclude customers. That is why there are those free ride programs where some cities and even taverns reimburse the cab companies in providing rides for intoxicated persons.

Officials on Wednesday asked the commission for permission to hold public hearings on a proposal that would suspend or revoke drivers' airport licenses for refusing service for reasons other than safety concerns. The commission is expected to vote Jan. 16.

It would be silly to ask the airport to reconsider the regs about service dogs, since those fall under the purview of federal law, right? So I think it is this new proposal that they want reconsidered.

--Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport, and refusals for religious reasons have grown in recent months, airport officials said.--

How can refusals for religious reasons have grown in recent months if there haven't been any? Odd.

Has anybody's civil rights been violated here?

given the context "refusals for religions reason" doesn't include discriminating against the customer's religion.

service dogs have been refused. As another poster mentioned, no pet rules do not apply to service animals. Even airlines allow service dogs in the cabin.

I do not have the link to the story in the paper, but the website is http://www.startribune.com

as a common carrier they are held to a higher standard and must have "good reason" to exclude. This allows access to essential services for all w/o threat of discrimination (Majority). On the other hand if they were running a retail store they could exclude however unreasonable or arbitrary, unless violating a civil rights act such as the disabilities act.

We can't have pharmacists who won't give out legal prescriptions or airport taxis that won't transport people with service animals.

While I respect a persopn's religious beliefs, a person must also realize that by accepting a job in the public service sector involves WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC!!! i don't think its right to deny somebody service because they don't share your beliefs. Think of the idiocy this can lead to:

"My religion don't like them gays, so I won't drive a fire truck to a gay person's house."

"my religion says that the husband is the master of his home, so I won't take a domestic violence police reportif the husband beats his wife."

"My religion forbids the eating of meat, so i won't do a health inspection at that meat market."

"my religion teaches that minorities are inferior, so I won't deal with any minorities."

We had an incident here in Indiana in the last year or two where a pharmacist refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills because his religion forbade contraception. Sorry, he should be fired, too. You cannot deny somebody service because your beliefs say so. If you hold these beliefs, you might think about some other job where your beliefs will not be put on the front line.

I consider myself a person of faith and I have never allowed my personal beliefs to dictate how I treat somebody in my professional sphere.

Generally they lease the cab and pay additional fees to cover dispatch and are considered self-employed. At least that's how it works here.

They lease the cab, but also have to follow company/city rules, so discrimination about someone they don't like doesn't fly(a dangerous passenger is something different). The cab company takes a percentage of their mileage, or has a set fee for the hours the cab is out.

How the cab is leased can vary, but generally one pays a flat rate to have access to the car either 12 or 24 hours a day and can drive it as much or as little as one likes in that time.

Discrimination rules only involve protected classes. Provided you're not rejecting a passenger on the basis of their skin color, sex, handicap, religion, national origin, or membership in another protected class, you can generally tell them to take a flying leap for any reason or none at all.

I'd let the cabbies decide who they did and didn't let into their cabs.

Barring civil rights violations, of course.

so ok I guess, as the owner of the cab company, you'd be ok with me not picking someone up because they're black????
Sound cool to you?

THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE.

I specifically stated barring civil rights violations.

refusing to pick up somebody because their black is an example of a civil rights violations.

sorry mister boss.....I didnt like the way he looked.

is code speak for "he was black." Then he'd be breaking the law.

If he really just didn't like the way he looked, then he's clear. The right to refuse service to anybody, and all that jazz.

I love it when people spout off about something based on an article and think they know everything about a business, LMFAO.

Cheers.

people carrying bottles of alcohol (no mention of them being open), women without a male escort or covered heads.....oh yeah and who's name is on the cab - the COMPANY who OWNS it? or Mr. I Am Better than You Are Religious Asshole.

next it will be refusing to pick up women who aren't wearing head scarves i suppose

inch by inch by the frog is boiled

And I've said as much.

"inch by inch by the frog is boiled"

And the country just gets more and more islamophobic.

Christian fundamentalist cab driver who refused to pick up passengers due to religious reasons - bigotry is bigotry, regardless of which religion is practicing it.

I guarantee that if this story featured a Christian fundie doing the exact same thing, most people here would be all over him - calling him a bigot or worse.

The problem is, all religions are demanding too much coddling from secular society and it needs to stop or we are going to find ourselves living under a repressive theocracy before long.

"I guarantee that if this story featured a Christian fundie doing the exact same thing, most people here would be all over him - calling him a bigot or worse."

I know plenty of Christians who don't let dogs in their cars. Doesn't make much of a news story.

"The problem is, all religions are demanding too much coddling from secular society and it needs to stop or we are going to find ourselves living under a repressive theocracy before long."

See, now that's just silly.

It is amazing how some people cannot see the same danger in Islamic fundamentalism that they see in Christian fundamentalism.

Are you aware that the world is becoming even more fundamentalist as we go on? The Christians are becoming more fundamentalist, the Jews and the Muslims have a growing fundamentalist base. My critisms are not just for Christian fundamentalists, but they include any religious groups who base their existence on total irrational and dangerous ideologies.

This is a perfect example of the naivete of the left. We can drag Christian fundamentalism through the muck and mire, and we are absolutely correct in doind so, but God forbid we shine the same light onto Islamic fundamentalism which is ultimately more dangerous and demonstrative.

More fundamentalist?

Sounds like the sort of thing Jerry Falwell says about how more liberal the country is becoming and how we all have to worry and do something about it.

:eyes:

"God forbid we shine the same light onto Islamic fundamentalism which is ultimately more dangerous and demonstrative."

There's nothing fundamentalist about not wanting dogs and booze in your cars.

This is being done because of their Islamic restrictions against booze and dogs, don't turn this into a mockery. Give me a break.

presents opportunity to look at what is wrong here.

The problem I see with criticisms toward the Muslims here has less to do with specifics and more to do with the fact that it is coming from a majority.

A majority who shares their tendencies, and basic intention in many ways with regard to religion.

I find it disappointing that the middle would encourage the left would join in this gang up effort to further demonize muslims.

What was not represented in this article is that there are plenty of cab drivers who are not muslim who will resist or refuse to carry people who have service dogs.

As far as the alcohol, missing from the article is that alcohol is a touchy situation. Some people can be pretty scary when they are drunk.

I think that this is another example of over representing one population in an article of anecdotes to perpetuate nationalistic senationalism.

If they had really wanted to explore this subject and it's effect on consumers, they would have talked to many cab drivers, and would not have mentioned religion.

you can find a gazillion reasons why a cabbie will not pick up a drunk person(s) and you would most likely be correct.

But the issue is not that...the issue is that what do muslim cabbies do if they adhere to their irrational, nonsensical religious mores that call for not allowing dogs (any dogs, ADA dogs too) or people with alcohol on their person.

I understand and support cabbies who may choose not to pick up drunk person (s), that is a safey hazzard, but if a muslim cabbie refuses to pick up anyone with a seein eye dog or those carrying alcohol, we have a serious fucking problem.... If you don't see that then I do not what know what to say to you to make your understand the total irrationality of the issue..

And if you say they have the "freedom of religion" choice to inform their decision, you have alot of learning ahead of you.

I think my post was slightly scarambled due to late night posting, but there is a pice that I think was overlooked here.

My criticism was of the article and the oversampling.
Frat boys not wanting to dirty themselves before the party have been known to resist carrying dogs in my town. Why not bring up "elitist" cab drivers along with the muslims?

Could you elaborate, I am really confused by the analogy that frat boys choose not to carry dogs has anything to do with cabbie's who, due to their irrational religious mores, will not accept dogs (even seeing eye dogs) or people carrying alcohol into their cabs.

My point has never been to support an anti islamist point. This is about fundamentalist attitudes (be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, animist etc.) crossing over into the secular, professional world and how free people need to confront this type of nonsense without the fear of being labeled a racist.

If people want to hold such fantastical ideas, that is fine with me. But then need to do this at home, in their place of worship, not in the secular sphere. Ultimately I see this as a cross over of church into state.

There are college students who drive cabs in my town. They have been known to try to get out of letting dogs in the car. Possibly for some irrational reason such as they didn't want to get dog's breath on them before meeting up with friends at the bar later.
Or is that belief rational and meritous since it is not religious?
The point here is that behavior is behavior and the results and repurcussions should be examined on their merit.
Rather than judging the religious basis or thought process behind it and attacking the groups and religion, it would be a more useful to not limit this discussion to the bad behavior of a single group when we know other cab drivers do the same things. Shoveling hate is the RW's game not ours.

If a cabbie makes a decision not to let a dog it for whatever reason, as long as it adheres to their rules and codes that they are supposed to follow, I don't have a problem. I do have a problem when a particular group, be it muslim cab drivers who don't allow passengers with dogs or alchol or Christian fundamentalist pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control.

What don't you understand about that?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you are going to through out extremes such as "let's just make sure we keep killing people in Iraq" and try and insinuate that because I don't want fundamentalist religious dictating policy in the US, I must be "for the war?". That is real desperation in attempting to buttress your argument.

I happen to be very anti war and want our troops home asap.

Let's go through this slowly.....

My original comment was on the article and the fact that it targeted groups.
When unlikely partners - for example, yourself and any garden variety moron at FR joining together to hate muslims you have a situation in which an article has stimulated the perpetuation of hate.
The very kind of hate necessary to keep this war going.
If you don't think the admin needs citizens to hate muslims to contiue the small support he has you are dead wrong. That is the only thing that keeps his presidency going.

Where do you even get off with such a statement or trying to link me to racists. Let me say this slowly for your benefit. I don't hate muslims, but I do have a problem with fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish or Muslim or any other extreme, irrational belief system.

If Muslim cab drivers are refusing to pick up people with dogs or those carrying alcohol, that is a problem. They do not have a right to behave so because their brand of reality says differently. They reserve the right to return to their home of origin and practice that belief there, but they are, and should not be allowed to discriminate this way in America.

I am all for multiculturalism as a way to understand other cultures and find common ground, I am not for changing our way of life to accomodate someone from ANY culture that imposes it's irrationality upon free thinkers.

I am all for multiculturalism as long as they believe like I do

okay.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

One Catholic bishop in one tiny part of Africa, lying about AIDS passing through condoms, kills more people every year thanks to religious bullshit than Islamists have killed in the last few decades.

such racism.

They need to be able to reject passengers because it's a very dangerous profession. Pressure to take the wrong fare could kill somebody if it forces them to neglect the intuition that keeps them out of sketchy situations.

I'm all for training to settle the issue, but a cab ride is not a right, so other than the service dog rejection this is the driver's perogative.

Everytime they refuse a legit pickup at the airport they drive their asses to the back of the cab line and hope the next guy doesn't have a bottle on him.

Personally I'd like to set up a really cut rate liquor store in the exit lounge of the airport and see how long the whining lasts.

This is not a bad solution: "Everytime they refuse a legit pickup at the airport they drive their asses to the back of the cab line and hope the next guy doesn't have a bottle on him." If a cabbie chooses to enforce his personal morality with his fares, that's his/her choice, but s/he must be willing to accept that it will make him/her less competitive and may result in a lot of lost fares.

Otherwise, people tend to pass on short fares and wait for the ones that have a longer trip.

It's a fairly regulated industry.....Think of them as concessions or franchises. Do you think the airport commission doesn't have a say who sets up shop in their terminals? Call your local airport and ask them if you can set up an adult bookstore or head-shop.

Cities take cab regulation very seriously.

That's just the way it is.

The city gets to tell you to be polite to your customers, take them where they want to go(within pre-determined guidelines), keep a clean cab, not smoke, don't talk on the cell etc. etc.

However, other than civil rights issues they generally stay out of the issues of what calls one should and shouldn't take, because it's a liability if they restrict the right to turn down a fare and somebody gets hurt. Any business owner has the right to reject business and there has to be a legitimate government interest to interfere. As neither dog owners and people who lack the sensitivity to stick their bottle of wine in a suitcase before getting a cab in an area where most cabbies are muslim are not protected classes, there's not much they can or should do. In any case, if muslim cabbies are turning down fares right and left either they'll see they're missing out and stop or others will take up the slack.

Hindus don't eat beef. I wouldn't take my hamburger into an India restaurant and start eating it on their dinnerware. And I'd support their right to kick me out if I did.

That doesn't stop me from eating hamburger, does it?

should she be allowed to refuse to serve beef to the customers?

How far do you want to let this religious discrimination go?

McDonalds cannot refuse to hire Hindus, and any Hindu's hired have to be willing to serve beef. McDonald's does not have to serve dog meat just because somebody orders it?

"How far do you want to let this religious discrimination go?"

What religious discrimination? The only religious discrimination I'm seeing is the mistaken belief that because Muslims find service dogs unclean that they'd refuse to help the blind. Nevermind that the Koran doesn't say anything about not taking service dogs into your taxi, nevermind that charitable acts is one of the five pillars of Islam.

but the Muslims are allowed to refuse service to their customers based on fundamentalist religious beliefs. Why the double standard? Should they also be allowed to refuse service to women who aren't wearing burkas? Gay people? Unmarried couples?

The Koran may not specifically mention service dogs in taxicabs, but, according to the news articles, some cab drivers do believe it is sacrilege.

Refusing service to people because your religion preaches that they, or their legal behaviors, are unclean is discrimination. It's discrimination when Christian pharmacists do it and it is discrimination when Muslim cabbies do it. Discrimination in the guise of religion is still discrimination.

Allowing passengers with booze is not a basic requirement of driving a taxi.

"but the Muslims are allowed to refuse service to their customers based on fundamentalist religious beliefs."

Yes, assuming they don't violate anybody's civil rights.

"Refusing service to people because your religion preaches that they, or their legal behaviors, are unclean is discrimination."

If we're talking about service animals, yes. Not booze and regular pet dogs.

WAH my poor little religious rights are being trampled on - everyone who drinks, or carries a bottle of alcohol, is not obnoxious or a threat or whatever - this is nothing but the imposing of your religion on someone else. Your rights end where mine begin....

IS effectively a basic requirement of the job! If people didn't get basically hammered off their asses with great frequency we could get by with about 60% fewer cabs.

I just couldn't imagine being in that business and NOT taking whoever showed up; I loathed at least half of my fares and was scared by more than a few, and in fact was assaulted on a couple of occasions (I'm a pretty big guy, and can certainly take a punch so there were no long term problems because of those incidences, just the annoyance of getting punched by a drunk)

I have a few questions, why doesn't the "common carrier" defintion apply to cabs? Trucking companies HAVE to haul whatever they are permited for and requested to; I always figured this was rebates and the other tactics of John Rockefeller and Standard oil were not repeated peretually, but has the side benefit of (for example) minority owned businesses can still meet their transportation needs.

Well actually one question and a suggestion; could they license cabs in a fashion similar to merchant sailor's union contracts--something like you can refuse anybody, but only three times in a row, if you refuse the fourth you then forfeit your license. Oh yes, each refusal sends you to the back of the line--but that is already pretty automatic in the livery industry.

independent contractors. Your metaphor would be more accurate if it were comparing a Jewish caterer who won't serve pork with a Muslim taxi driver who won't take people carrying booze or with housepets. As mentioned above service animals are an exception.

with Muslim cabbies refusing to pick up fares from Gay bars or couples they suspect are Gay. There was also a local bus driver that refused to drive one of the buses that had advertising for a local Gay bar or Gay newspaper(I don't recall that the bus driver's religion was mentioned).

I would think that the laws regarding public accomodation would make this illegal.

Funny that no one responded to this post. It seems muslim cabbies will be defended by some here for doing some pretty stupid fundamentalist shit, but will not be defended or condemned for blatant civil-rights violations.
dflprincess, can you give a link? Thanks.

I was actually a little surprised to see this in the LBN forum as it was in the Minneapolis paper weeks ago (though I haven't looked at today's paper yet, maybe there is something new in it.)

You might try searching on the websites of some of the local media

The link to the paper is http://www.startribune.com

The St. Paul is called the Pioneer Press and another print source might be the Twin Cities Reader.

Local TV stations are WCCO (www.wcco.com), KSTP (www.kstp.com) and KARE (www.kare11.com). And there's always Minnesota Public Radio.

to reconsider its decision to require the Muslim drivers to take service dogs?

"Additionally, dogs are considered unclean and Muslims are required to repeat their ablutions if they come into contact with them before praying.

Given the religious concerns, Hassan Mohamud, an imam and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, said he would ask airport officials to reconsider."

he's talking about pet dogs.

to service animals, not pet dogs.

That's conjecture.

talking about. You're just in a hair-splitting mood, obviously.

Whether or not that's what the speaker meant is unknowable.

But if other drivers can kick you out for being drunk, rude, smelly, or looking like you'll throw up in the cab, they can kick you out for their reasons too.

And I love animals as much as any DUer, and would not transport a stranger's dog in my car either. Not because I think they make me ritually unclean, but because I dislike the odds of them making the upholstery factually unclean.

They're not the cleanest places in the world with or without dogs. Jesus.

So yes, I have.

They're pretty nice, precisely because nobody who uses them drives around dogs or smelly drunks. If I were driving one (since I'm a very tiny female, I have safer employment) nobody'd get into my car eating a cheeseburger. Why? Because I don't want to smell it, and I have the right to control my place of employment. One of the nice things about driving a cab is that one has a pretty high degree of autonomy over things like that.

another, presumably. I think I know why they're sitting instead of generating revenue.

Gated community? :rofl: Other than the occasional airport run, most of those folks never call a cab, because they have cars, and by cars I mostly mean enormous SUVs. But no, he's not shuttling bums from loaves and fishes to the bottle shop, they use light rail for that because it's cheaper (when they pay fare at all, though if they get assistance the county hooks them up with a pass) and it takes an act of congress to get a smelly drunk off of the train. Like most cab drivers, he handles people who aren't in town enough to bother with a car, little old ladies who need to go get groceries, people going out to Arco to see the Kings who'd rather not bother with parking, people going to clubs and bars, etc.

most of those folks never call a cab, because they have cars, and

and those cars magically fly themselves to their final destination and pick up the AIRPORT passenger at the other end, no problem

wow! i'd like one of these magical flying cars

read the original news article for crap's sake

they are talking about a major hub international AIRPORT where people are landing from such diverse places as nagoya and amsterdam

sheesh

I read the article. Hell, I've been to the airport in question. Didn't get a cab there, we rented a van.

I didn't think so, that's why he works nights....but its ok for someone to do that because of religious reasons...ok.

He'd be more likely to reject somebody for fear they'd smell up his car. I can't imagine he'd let somebody take a dog in his car, because the risk of damage or time spent cleaning it out instead of making money probably isn't worth it.

In this case, religion is a protected class. Combined with the right of a business owner to decline business for pretty much reason other than membership in a protected class, it definitely outweighs the interests of potential customers of a non-protected class, in this case people with dogs and people transporting alcohol. Especially since these people have numerous alternatives, namely other cab drivers, airport shuttle service, public transportation and renting a car.

over protecting people's rights to service animals? Can you?

In an airport such as Minneapolis's, where the vast majority of taxi drivers are Muslim, getting another taxi driver willing to transport a dog might be very difficult. Public transportation is much more difficult for a blind person to navigate than taking a taxi. And did you really mean to suggest a blind person could rent a car?

So where does that leave us? Taking an airport shuttle service that only goes to a few locations? Walking?

No, I actually mentioned quite a bit waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay the hell upthread that service animals are protected. Nobody appears to be debating that, as much as you want to get them to try.

Stop deliberately misinterpreting people to pick fights. It's annoying and it does nothing for your argument.

with service animals, according to the OP. It's also been happening at other airports.

And an imam in Minneapolis and others elsewhere, according to another post, have argued for the right of Muslim cabbies not to transport any dogs.

So there is a debate about the issue.

We're discussing transport of people with alcohol on their persons and of companion animals and the legality and social acceptability of denying service on those grounds. Mention of service dogs seems to be unanimous that they should be transported, and has been since the thread was started.

Feel free to join that debate, or to email the imams in question if their opinion bothers you, but if you're expecting DUers to answer for opinions not their own you're going to suffer disappointment, because I for one won't do it.

dogs from dogs in general. Why should I assume that because some other DU'ers think that the ADA takes precedence over religious freedom that you do as well?

before calling a cab to take them home? The nerve of someone expecting a ride when they call a cab.

because we are simply asking anyone that comes into this country looking for a job to suspend their religious ideological irrationalities if they want to keep their job.

I want to scream when I read some of the crap that passes for discussion on these boards.

he told me that many cab drivers at his company won't transport women because "they cry rape"

where does it end?

i take it YOU never have to take a cab anywhere

easy for you to say, they need to be able to reject pax, unfortunately, they pick and choose the white male pax every time and i can't always pack one of those in my baggage

:thumbsup:

decide which cab drivers to allow on their property.

And there is NO constitutional or civil right to "transport alcohol in a cab", so that should be up to the cabbie.

with respect to the owners, since the dogs allow the owners to fully function in society.

I do not believe that disallowing regular pet dogs into cabs is a violation of anything.

I don't care what the damn religion is, if they can't deal directly with the general public - then work somewhere else. The only animals walking around an airport NOT in a crate would be service animals - you aren't allowed to take them any other way. And oh my gawd, someone carrying a bottle of wine, well that's just too much for someone to take. FUCK THE OVERBEARING MIND EVERYBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS HOLIER THAN THOU ASSWIPES -

Secondly, of those who don't, most lease their cabs and therefore get to decide who gets to ride.

Thirdly, muslims don't tell you that you can't have dogs in your car, why are you telling them they have to have dogs in their cars?

Talk about holier than thou.

My father does.

Most of the rest lease, and they have as much control over their leased vehicle as anybody else. As long as they pay up, they have most ownership rights and responsibilities.

We are all Independent Contractors and like any business have the right to refuse service to anyone. I have kicked people to the curb for cursing at me upon my arrival to pick them up. Comparing the Cab business to the Pharmacist is nuts.

The city has a limit on the number of taxis that are allowed in the line at the airport and to qualify you have to agree to follow the airport's rules. You don't pick and choose customers, you get the next customer in line. And you have to agree to charge them a regulated fee based on the zip code they're going to.

If you don't like this set-up, you're free to take your taxi elsewhere.

As ridiculous as some scenarios may seem, we must consider slippery slopes and where they may lead when we think about even the most seemingly insignificant administrative and policy decisions.

We never considered the possibility of s stolen election in this country.
Many of us never conceived of the possibility of a presidency this horrible once he was installed.........

Let those stupid fuckers enjoy the unemployment rolls. They can sit next to the Bible-thumping pharmacists.

for Islamophobia.

is being Islamaphobic when he objects to to being turned away by a taxi because of his guide dog? No, he's standing up for his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The drivers who object apparently don't want to have to bother themselves with more "ablutions."
"Additionally, dogs are considered unclean and Muslims are required to repeat their ablutions if they come into contact with them before praying."
If that's their problem, then they need to find another job. They can wash their hands again, if they need to (or whatever their ablutions consist of). A blind person has no choice.

what blind person has been turned away?

Have you ever known a muslim to turn away a blind person?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20544457-2,00.html?from=rss

MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol.

At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger.

And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.
Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.

http://www.nsnews.com/issues06/w111206/113206/news/113206nn1.html

...Bruce Gilmour filed the complaint after a cab driver from North Shore Taxi refused to let his guide dog into the cab in January of this year. Gilmour, who says it's not the first time he's been refused service by a taxicab, is complaining that North Shore taxi discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability.

But the taxi driver, Behzad Saidy, is arguing his Muslim religious beliefs will not allow him to take dogs in his taxi, because Muslims can't associate with dogs.

According to documents filed with the Human Rights Tribunal, North Shore Taxi said about half of their drivers are "unable to take animals in their taxis due to medical or religious reasons."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770

A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind passenger because her guide dog was "unclean".

Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni told Jane Vernon she could not get into his car with the dog because of his religion.

Clear violation of the law.

I'll try and post the article (if I can find it). Recently, a cab driver in North Van refused service to a blind man with a seeing eye dog. It is an interesting battle between one's religion and the rights of the disabled. It is supposed to go before the Human Rights tribunal soon, if it hasn't already.

I think if you take a job, you do the job. Cab drivers do have the right to refuse service but not to blind or disabled people. I also don't think they have the right to refuse service to someone carrying unopened bottles of alcohol. That's ridiculous. What if a cab driver refused service to someone carrying condoms or a Playboy magazine. Stupid. Just my bias--I do not like fundies of any persuasion.

I am a professional and have to deal with many folks that I would rather not deal with (molesters, rapist, guys that beat their wives and kids to a pulp, drunks).

:rant: This rant is not directed to you ncabot22, I agree with you totally: but to some of the others posting silliness....

I personally know Nurses and residents that were assaulted and killed in the line of duty (when I was still in training). I am sure they might have had some legitimate reasons for turning down these abusive folks, but they were professionals. In fact, assault and abuse are so common in the Health Profession that it hardly merits a write up anymore and only the most extreme ever get reported. The last GD thing I want to hear about is some asshole complaining that he can't take a paying handicapped customer because they have a service animal with them. The last thing I want to hear from a pharmacist is that he will not fill a legally written prescription because it is against his beliefs. It will not kill some of these self righteous folks to practice some kindness, decency, and courtesy toward others.

Unless it is life threatening, these folks should STFU and do the job they have chosen or chose another profession. This accommodation nonsense has gotten out of hand. Sorry for the rant, but we Nurses seldom if ever get accommodation and I have had too many friends that have been permanently injured or lost lives over this. If the most dangerous things I did was help a blind person and their dog get to where they needed and clean the cab a bit afterward-I'd be happy. If all I had to do was fill a prescription so that women could have more control in their family planning-I'd be dancing in the street. No matter what your race, creed, or circumstance is-I will treat you with kindness, courtesy, and decency. I am a professional at my chosen line of work.

Would they be turned away too? They are also considered "unclean" to Muslims...

airport to reconsider its policy requiring cabbies to accept service dogs.

article before commenting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I'm not so insecure in my own beliefs that I have to disparage other peoples. THAT way of thinking strikes me as repulsive.

I don't need to pretend that religious people are "mentally ill" in order to feel better about myself. That's the sort of innane "I'm right, everybody else is wrong" thinking that the worst of the fundamentalists are guilty of. Nor do I need to pretend that I'm oppressed, that I'm some sort of martyr, for exactly the same reason.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, its a duck. Other than that I totally agree with your post.

to take me because he didn't think I was going far enough. I was going from the airport to Kansas City North - about ten miles. He didn't want that. He wanted to refuse me and wait for a longer fare.

I was really embarrassed by it all.

the fare from the airport is fixed, you pay a high price no matter where you're going

let me guess, you landed at night

i'm told that it is recommended by some cab companies that you never drive an unaccompanied woman anywhere at night

we all make false claims of rape, you see :eyes:

you have no reason to be embarrassed, it was the driver who was a shithead

i've had the same thing happen and was puzzled, as i offered to pay more and was still refused, then later a friend who drives cabs explained it all to me

But he kept telloing me he wanted a longer ride - clear out o Johnson County, which is about 20 miles further than I was going.

Airports generally don't like that treatment of their customers. It's actually much have that happen in cities where the cabbies aren't necessarily under such rules.

I once took a cab from Newark airport to a hotel less than 5 miles off property. The driver knew that he couldn't refuse the fare according to airport rules and I was traveling with two business associates so it would have been three passengers ready to complain, and hard for him to play he said, she said. We knew it was a short trip and planned to give him a $20 for the $5 on the meter. When I handed him the twenty he started huffing and puffing that he didn't have change and made a big deal about asking the hotel doorman and ignoring me until he had the change and shoved it in my face. I took the change, told him that we had planned to give him the balance as a tip but if he didn't want it we understood. He climbed back into his cab and left.

How can they refuse service to someone with a service animal? Isn't that illegal?

"A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that."


its a hadith 4:538 (not written in the quran but the sayings and actions of Muhammad)

from what i've heard from some muslim friends is that because islam does not have a hierarchy or centralized authority so individual clerics can use religion to justify their actions for other reasons. Children were told to stay away from dogs because they were against the religion because rabies had become a huge problem and dogs were a common vector.

this is hogwash. He said almost everyone in Pakistan has a dog and he is from Pakistan. And National Geographic has a show about Bedouin hunting dogs. The Bedouins have always owned dogs. He points out that this is just another indication of the influence Wabbibism making inroads in otherwise moderate Islamic communities.

I used to be a cab driver. I never refused a fare at the airport. Sometimes, they refused me which I tried hard to avoid. Keeping a clean cab (very clean) and never smoking in it is the key as well as smiling. I'd open my doors and trunk and as soon as a fare would come out begin loading luggage. My cab and trunk was spotless clean. Sometimes they would tell me no but most often they would get in. I kept my cab very, very clean as well as smelling nice. Some people are dirty so you may have to clean after a fare, but thats part of the job. I had dogs a few times but you get paid extra for them and I never had one make a mess. The Waterford in Oklahoma City was better for fares. They have a guy there that will come out and check your cab to make sure it is acceptable before you get in line. I used to get dressed up, wear a tie and such, and go and wait for a rich guy at night. Those are the best fares. I'd get out "Sir, I know the best clubs in Oklahoma City" before the doorman would shoot me an evil look. Drunk, bar hopping rich dudes were the best fares. Always major tip and good chance they call me the next day to party again because they trusted me.

I would never turn down a service animal. Ever. I may have to clean my cab but it's part of the job.

Little old ladies are the best fares. If you consider best to equal money then you have a point.

the biggest assholes! I drove in a town with an expensive, though shitty college. Those students' parents would pay the tuition, and not feel like paying to support the drunken orgy. Those kids were condescending, unruly and never tipped. The state U across town though was pretty acceptable--as long as you didn't get the football team (repeat above description) the students from the State U ddin't tip all that much, but were usually a lot more manageable.

In my experience drunken couples on the way home to go $crew were the best fares, alwys in such a hurry they never waited for the change!

so I know a lot of the shit posted above is BS - thanks for your insight.

refusing the service dogs should be a crime frankly

as far as alcohol is concerned, who in america would ever take a cab if not for alcohol, they are biting the hand that feeds and need to get their ass in another line of work

go back to somalia if sharia rule is to your liking

we cannot, must not, tolerate this here

separation of church and state may be a nice idea for men, but it is ESSENTIAL for women if we are to maintain any rights at all since religion preaches that we are second class citizens

Go back to Somalia?

WTF?

if you are still saying WTF it is a shame that you are participating this much in a thread where you have not done us the courtesy of reading the link in the original post

don't we?

Don't want to put the cart in front of the horse.

and how many because riding in a cab is just so wonderful, what with the nice vinyl seats and all....

If you can't do the job you have chosen, you're unfit and need a new line of work. The job is to drive people places, not judge them and then refuse.

I am an Independent Contractor as are these drivers and have every right to refuse service.

Not for a service animal.

Drive cab for nine years and you will realize how disgusting a drunk human animal can be.

I have driven a cab.

Puking in the cab. Passing out in the cab. Dragging them out of the cab. It's loads of fun and why I drive during the day, it's a little less money, but a lot less headache.

paid best. I'll haul a drunk anyday. Money is money.

And it's the person who is shitfaced who tips worst. The best tippers are drunk moms with their college-student daughters!

Sealed bottles yes. No drunks.

There's absolutely no reason why a cabbie can't refuse service to somebody carrying alcohol.

I was merely pointing out, to the other poster, that the article wasn't about drunks.

I suspect the city will have some say about the sealed liquor thing...and I will support that. Most cities in this country regulate a good portion of what cabbies can and can't do.

If the religiously insane don't like it they can pound sand.

Seems to me that if the ones who want to carry booze don't like it, they're the ones shit out of luck.

If I were in their shoes religiously I'd probably have an "I don't want to see it" policy.

:argh:

A person with your attitude as well as the poor fundie asswipes have no business whatsoever working with the public. Kicking people to the curb- you sound like a thug. A cab driver is providing a service- not taking someone for a ride in their personal vehicle.

It's anybody CARRYING alcohol, even if it's a sealed bottle.

The handicapped dog owner is probably a city ordinance and could be forced on them. The Alcohol could be their choice as they would loose money. I do not like working nights dealing with the drunks. I have refused plenty, but mostly because they started cursing me or were to drunk to know who they were.

She was carrying wine from France -- the bottle(s) unopened. She was sober.

The city can enforce the dog issue, but the driver just looses money on the alcohol issue. Look I have put plenty of people out for less, it's my right. If you stink and I have to roll my windows down to breath I am putting you out. Am I wrong for wanting to breath? I have had to put someone out before because they stunk so bad. Should I loose my license?

alcohol?

but I drove for years, including in the state you display on your posts, Michigan.

Cab driving is a heavily regulated and licensed activity. Municipalities can and do set whatever rules they care for for cabdrivers, and in *every* city I drove in one of the rules was that I could not turn down a legit fare without a good reason (good reason being something on the order of disorderly conduct). I *did not* have any right to turn down business as I pleased: I gave up said "right" when I applied for and accepted the cab license.

it is not their right to refuse service. Common carriers must have "good reason" to exclude. This is to prevent exclusion of people from essential services, such as transportation. It is not your right to be a bouncer from a cab.

They have to agree to the airport's conditions, including uniform fares, in order to be in the line. Only a limited number of taxis are allowed to service the airport, and they have to agree to follow whatever rules are enforced. If they don't want to, they can take their taxis elsewhere.

to serve handicapped people is against federal civil statutes. These guys are in rome, if they dont like the fact dogs are used by blind people here the can find a new profession.

If it were me, I would be in the papers calling for a boycott and filing a federal discrimination suit.

If you are in my car and your intoxication bothers me, GET YOUR OWN FUCKING CAB!

I've dealt with drunk assholes who wouldn't leave the cab when I told them what it would cost to get where they wanted to go, they didn't want to pay that much and refused to exit the cab. I was not at liberty to cut them a deal and fortunately there were no other customers at three in the morning. I called the cops on the bastards. Taxis drivers are people with work to do, not temporary slaves of people who cannot drink without losing control of their behavior.

with UNOPENED bottles in their cabs.

Just Wow.

This type of thing is so common in so many businesses these days,
it seems like a product of the Over-Privitization of America.
There is way too much room for abuse by workers and sometimes business owners
upon their customers.
Too many businesses and/or workers thinking that they can arrogantly get away with anything.

These guys are hired to do a job. Anyone should keep their Religion out of their job,
and if their Religion deems it too much for them, then they should find another job
wherein the circumstances of their Job Description is more acceptable to their Religious beliefs.

Personally, if I were in charge of the cab company, I would fire their asses.
Customers are going to go elsewhere because the Cab Company is getting a bad name.
The Cab Company will lose a lot of business over this ridiculousness.

Coming from someone who has never driven cab before I am not shocked.

:P And actually, what does that have to do with it?

:toast:

:toast::beer:

;(

:silly::sarcasm::silly:

I'm kidding sarcasmo, but I can see you are irritated by all of the rude drunks you have to deal with while you're driving a Cab. Sure, if I was driving a Cab and I encountered a very rude Drunk, I would probably refuse service too, mostly for my safety. But that doesn't mean I would refuse service to a relatively cordial person just because I smell alcohol on their breath, or because they are carrying a closed container of it. Or because they have a dog with them.

The point is, these guys are going a little overboard because of their Religious beliefs.
If I were them I would find a job which was conducive to my Religious beliefs.

It's just a little too much Religious Insanity, don't you think???:crazy:

the customers can eat shit and die AFAIK

Workers should have first say concerning the conditions of their work environment.

along with their Religious complaints, then they should find another job!

I guess Coalminers who don't like dying in collapses should find different jobs to. Or how about people who work at bars and don't like second hand smoke.

If customers don't like the cabbies' decisions they should find another way to get home.

not safety, and Religion has no place in a Public Service job, where one is serving people of many differing Religions, or perhaps no Religion at all!

Separation of Church and State should come into play here, even though this is a Private Company and not Government.

That's why if I were those guys and I felt this way, I would respect the Separation of Church and State issue and find another job. I would not want to impose my Religious beliefs on others who may not feel the same way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2675599&mesg_id=2676038

In order to not blend church and state you have to let people practice their religion unless it interferes with the rights of others. A Muslim who believes that it is wrong to transport alcohol or does not want to become unclean by contact with pets (i.e. non-service animals) is practicing his religion. There is no fundamental right to be driven around with your dog/booze, unless it is a service animal (Americans with Disabilities Acts gives people with service animals the right to take their animals with them wherever).

If cabdrivers were employed like most jobs, management could probably make them sign away their right to make such decisions. But taxi drivers are independent contractors and basically rent a car from the cab company and go out and work, on their own terms.

In fact this is probably the reason why so many cab drivers are immigrants. So that they can work 16 hours straight, not have to serve food that violates their beliefs, not worry about the boss disliking their lack of skill in English, not being questioned about lack of qualification or experience. These guys don't get to chose any job they want, their options are quite limited. More people should be able to define the terms of their work. If there is one thing we don't need it's more shit from the bosses telling us how we have to work.

a huge difference between being an Employee and being an Independant Contractor,
so I understand that's why these guys get to do more of what they want, as you explain.

And that's where the problem lies. (for the Cab Companies)
Try to save a buck or two by joining in with the Privatization of America,
but you pay dearly in the end in some way or another!

services for the general public.

They should strip those guys of their medallions/licenses and kick their fundy asses to the curb. They're not fit to provide a service to the general public.

is because there have been more Muslim refugees. And no, they don't have the right to do that.

But, hell, pull their cabbie licenses after a FIRST TIME refusal to transport a disabled person with a service dog.