If you drink, some cabbies won't drive


#1

That’s just a small hint of what it’d be like to live as a dhimmi under Islamic sharia :

“The one who drinks, the one who transports, and the one who makes a business of it, they have the same category,” he said.

“So, by my transporting my alcohol in your cab, you are sinning?” I asked.

“Sinning to God, yes,” he replied.

Adan is not alone. About three quarters of the 900 cabbies serving the airport are Muslim, and many have been regularly refusing passengers carrying beer, wine or liquor.

cnn.com/2007/US/01/25/oppenheim.cabbies/index.html


#2

Compare: Catholic pharmacists being required to dispense abortofacients

Compare: Catholic adoption agencies being required to facilitate adoptions by homosexual couples

Compare: Catholic churches being required to pay for contraception and abortion through health coverage


#3

What Woodstock said.

It makes little difference ultimately whether we are religious dhimmis under Islamic shariah law or secular ones under materialistic secularist governments. Both are totalitarian ideologies and we’re dhimmis under either one. Two relevant stories from Britain.

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2-2564721,00.html

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/ngay24.xml

And Britain is not the only place in Europe where this is occurring. Nor is Europe. Catholic adoption agencies in the U.S. are facing the same situation.

I have said many times that we as Christians need to get ready … we’re going to have to dig in for some tough times. It’s my personal conviction that we are entering an age of persecution and martyrdom that is going to equal or surpass the one experienced by the early Christians in the Roman Empire. And we’re either going to do those martyrs proud or we’re going to have them as our accusers ont the Day of Judgement.

That may sound alarmist to some, but I think that such people are being naive frankly. The Church is being besieged from within (scandals, heresy and apostasy) and without (Islamic imperialism and secular materialism). We all know that salvation comes through the Cross and that suffering brings purification, but we have probably only ever understood this intellectually in the most abstract of ways until now. Now we’re increasingly likely to have to experience it in the flesh.

But, as Pope John Paul The Great said many times during his pontificate, we must not be afraid. Christ is still Lord and Saviour and His Church will endure until the end of time. Let’s pray, and love, and stand up and be counted without fear of what we might lose in the process. We have much more to gain than we will ever lose. :cool:


#4

And there are also those who refuse service to blind people because of the dogs, since Muslims consider dogs unclean.

They’re very quick to claim:

“This is America, we have freedom of religion”, says one cabbie. We could see their feelings are intense–that the issue seems to cut to the core of their identity.

I wonder if we would have the same “freedom of religion” if they ruled here??:rolleyes:


#5

Do you know of any such requirements in Catholic institutions or organizations that do not accept governmental funding in some way?


#6

Karen,

That’s my point, which was apparently missed. We should be free to work within the rules and regulations of our religious beliefs as long as that action is not posing an immoral threat to others.

The cab drivers have no obligation to give rides. They are not hired by the airport. They are independent business men who provide a service. That they choose to conduct that service according to their religious convictions does not bother me in the least.

The person in the article who had to wait 20 minutes for a cabbie who would transport alcohol would have had the same wait had the Muslim cabbies not been there. If there is such a demand for non-Muslim cabbies, then send some Christian men who need jobs down there and they ought to make a good living. If they really are in such demand, it will put some of the Muslim cabbies out of business. I don’t see the problem here.

I don’t believe Catholic laity, charities, or institutions should be required to perform actions outside the morality of their faith convictions. Therefore, I don’t believe a Muslim cab driver should be forced to act outside his own, either.

The whole “lights on the cab being discriminatory” thing was stupid, though. It also sounded like it was being called discriminatory by an unrelated group, not the cabbies. I have no problem with Catholic pharmacists putting up signs saying they don’t dispense abortifacients, and I have no problem with Muslim cabbies putting signs in their windows saying they don’t transport alcohol.


#7

And just in case my point was missed, I agree with Woodstock’s second post too. A man’s conscience is sacred and no one should be forced to act against their conscience. That sounds fine as a moral principle to which I adhere personally, but I see the inherent dangers.

The logical conclusion then should be that Muslim cab drivers should not be forced to carry passengers who are transporting alcohol if they believe it to violate their religious convictions (an aside here: despite the fatwas mentioned in one of the articles, there is not universal agreement among Islamic scholars as to whether or not transporting a passenger who is carrying a sealed bottle of alcohol in their bags is in fact a sin).

But now move the example to the Muslim cab drivers who refuse to transport dogs in their cabs. news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/us_nm/muslims_taxis_dc If we’re talking about the 65 year old society granny with her poodle, we might simply shrug our shoulders and say “the cabbie thinks dogs are impure. It’s a religious conviction. He doesn’t have to agree to transport a dog in his cab.” And it might end there.

But what about the blind passenger with a seeing eye dog? U.S. fair access laws normally make the refusal to admit a seeing eye dog to your establishment or taxi a civil or criminal offense. Should Muslim cab drivers be obliged to obey the law here? Why should a Muslim be permitted to refuse a dog and another person, say someone who just doesn’t like dogs or is allergic to animal hair or indeed has a phobia about them, not be allowed to refuse?

As far as I know, cabs fall into the category of “Public Services” and anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. generally follow the line that if you are in the business of offering public services then you are not free to pick and choose which members of the public are permitted to enter your establishment or avail themselves of your service. No more than a restaurant owner is free to bar couples with small children from his establishment or a bar owner to refuse to serve black clients in his bar.

It’s a more difficult question than it seems at first. Catholic pharmacists should not be obliged by law to sell condoms and contraceptives, including abortifacients. If the law determines that they may be legally sold, fine (though I do not like it) … but must the law therefore be interpreted to mean that because the may be legally sold by pharmacists, then all pharmacists must sell them? Most of us would insist on the freedom of conscience here … why should a person be forced to choose between exercising his livelihood or sacrificing his conscience, right?

Ahh, but now what to do if you are a non-Catholic living in a small town and your only pharmacist is a Catholic pharmacist who believes that it would be a sin for her to sell those items? Do we oblige him to do it? Or do we maintain that he must be free to follow the dictates of his conscience?

History demonstrates that we Christian have had a difficult time striking a balance in this area. The problem is that while we Christians have the words of Christ ***Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s (Mt 22:21) *** as well as St. Paul’s admonishment to **Render to all men whatever is their due; tribute to whom tribute is due; taxes to whom taxes are due; fear to whom fear is due; honour to whom honour is due (Rom 13:7), ** to guide us, the Muslims do not. The Koran makes no distinction between “the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s”; between divine and human law, between religious and civil authority. And this is a problem which is going to be thrust upon us more and more as the Islamic presence in Western countries continues to grow.


#8

It would appear that, at the very least, cabs with Muslim drivers should be clearly identified so people can avoid them.


#9

To those who think the Muslim cab drivers are morally and legally right to deny service to AMERICANS who carry alcohol - it is discriminatory and offensive.

It is probably a breach of anti-discrimination laws. No public service provider has the right to discriminate on such grounds. How would you like it if a cab driver would discriminate against people who wear rosaries or crucifixes, for instance?

It may also be a breach of the cab driver’s licence. Nobody has the automatic right to drive a cab and pick up passengers - cab drivers have to apply for and be granted a cab licence.

It is also highly offensive for immigrants to dictate to the host people. American citizens have the right to expect no discrimination from public transport systems. The United States of America is not subject to sharia laws. Not yet anyway.


#10

Being Muslim has about as much to do with immigration as being Catholic does. Shall we throw in a Muslim saying that living in a Catholic dominated land means being surrounded by drunkenness to round out the hateful stereotypes? :rolleyes:


#11

I thought that was where you were headed, but wanted to make sure. I also wanted to find out if you did indeed know of exceptions to the question I asked.

As to where I was headed with it—I see no problem in groups deciding to act in accordance with their faith in such matters when acting in a privately funded capacity. To the best of my knowledge the examples you gave would only come into conflict if such groups were also accepting federal funds through Medicaid, etc. By choosing to do so, they were also choosing upfront to be willing to abide by the federal regulations (non-discrimination on the basis of religion) imposed by the funders.


#12

It is also highly offensive for immigrants to dictate to the host people. American citizens have the right to expect no discrimination from public transport systems. The United States of America is not subject to sharia laws. Not yet anyway.

Taxi cabs aren’t public transport systems.

Private businesses do have the right to refuse service for a number of reasons. McDonald’s doesn’t have to allow you to bring your own beer along if you want to eat in; There’s no law that says Wal-Mart has to develop pornographic photos. Private businesses have every right to refuse to engage in activities that they disagree with, and this is exactly such a case.


#13

Karen,
Unfortunately, there are currently exceptions which require private Catholic businessmen and institutions to act outside the bounds of their consciences. In some states, Catholic schools or other large employers must cover birth control and other immoral sexuality related “health care services” to its employees. In the UK, there is currently a law going into place requiring Catholic adoption agencies to facilitate adoptions for homosexual couples. I believe some US states also have such a requirement, but an not positive if they went through. I know the debate over dispensing abortifacients against one’s will is also very popular in the Culture of Death discussions to date. Another popular law frequently put on the ballot requiring debate concerns emergency responders such as ER doctors, rape response nurses, social workers, and EMTs being required, against their will, to suggest and dispense abortifacients to rape victims. This extends to all health care workers, including private hospitals and clinics. I no more wish such laws on the Muslim Americans than I do on us Catholic Americans.


#14

Yes they are. Cabs are considered franchisees of a particular sector of the public transport system - as part of the licencing system. Nobody has the right to just put up some lights on a car and call it a cab - they are all licenced.

It is a condition of the cab licence that they take all passengers without discrimination.

As for McDonalds’ - you’d find it is part of their restaurant licence too. In Germany, for instance, they do serve beer.

If non-Muslim cab drivers were to refuse to take any Muslim women who wear the hijab I’m sure pro would be the first to shout “discrimination, you evil kafirs”.


#15

And no one has the right to just build a building and call it a Church; but that doesn’t mean that all Church property is public.

Cabs are not public. They are private spaces, just like a restaraunt, and just like in a restaraunt, the owner of that private space has the right to refuse service for a variety of reasons.

It is a condition of the cab licence that they take all passengers without discrimination.

No, it’s a condition of being in business that you not engage in racial, gender, or ethnic discrimination. “People who drink alcohol” isn’t a protected category, and never will be. There is no law on any public book in any state that says “it shall be unlawful to discriminate against people possessing alcohol.”

As for McDonalds’ - you’d find it is part of their restaurant licence too. In Germany, for instance, they do serve beer.

Uh, what exposure to “restaraunt licensing” do you have in the US? I’m betting none. There is no such provision. McDonald’s has every right to refuse alcohol, orange juice, or anything else that it wants to refuse on its property. There is no such law here that you seem to be envisioning.

If non-Muslim cab drivers were to refuse to take any Muslim women who wear the hijab I’m sure pro would be the first to shout “discrimination, you evil kafirs”.

That would be religious discrimination, which is illegal. If a Muslim cab driver refused to pick someone up because the person wore a cross, you can bet he’d be open for a lawsuit. But that’s not what we’re talking about here–the possession of alcohol doesn’t give any person in the US added protection.


#16

I’m not sure it would be helpful to construe being Catholic with being a drunkard. That might be a highly offensive suggestion to some people.

Religions should be kept to oneself - the moment you impose your religious beliefs on someone else you’re bound to ruffle some feathers.


#17

Wrong. See this link: news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/us_nm/muslims_taxis_dc

You can get your cab licence suspended if you refuse fares.

The difference between cabs and churches should be obvious. Churches are private property but a cab ceases to be private when it is not allowed to ‘refuse fares’.

The church did not sign a legal document to make itself ‘public’ but the cab owner sure did.

[quote=pro]No, it’s a condition of being in business that you not engage in racial, gender, or ethnic discrimination. “People who drink alcohol” isn’t a protected category, and never will be. There is no law on any public book in any state that says “it shall be unlawful to discriminate against people possessing alcohol.”
[/quote]

It is considered a breach of the cab licence unless that person is a threat to public safety.

You know - authorities want people to take cabs home when they’ve consumed alcohol - instead of driving. So it is morally offensive of cab drivers who refuse to take these passengers in my book.

[quote=pro]Uh, what exposure to “restaraunt licensing” do you have in the US? I’m betting none. There is no such provision. McDonald’s has every right to refuse alcohol, orange juice, or anything else that it wants to refuse on its property. There is no such law here that you seem to be envisioning.
[/quote]

Apparently more than you. I do know that restaurants in the US have to comply with their liquor licences.

Here is the restaurant liquor licence in the state of Minnesota (which is the place of the Muslim cab kerfuffle). service.govdelivery.com/docs/STPAUL/STPAUL_136/STPAUL_136_20060605_101400_en.pdf

[quote=pro]That would be religious discrimination, which is illegal. If a Muslim cab driver refused to pick someone up because the person wore a cross, you can bet he’d be open for a lawsuit. But that’s not what we’re talking about here–the possession of alcohol doesn’t give any person in the US added protection.
[/quote]

So you think you can discriminate against other peoples on the basis of YOUR religion and it’s not discrimination?


#18

Uh, no. That’s the airport making another private decision: Only cabs that pick up every fare can do business at the Airport. That has zero to do with some law against discriminating against alcohol (which is perfectly legal), and everything to do with conditions set on picking up at the airport. So be it, but there’s no law there that says “you can’t discriminate against people with alcohol” in private spaces.

The difference between cabs and churches should be obvious. Churches are private property but a cab ceases to be private when it is not allowed to ‘refuse fares’.

Sorry, but you do not understand American law. This is not how it works.

It is considered a breach of the cab licence unless that person is a threat to public safety.

No, it’s not. It depends on where the cab is picking up, and what regulatory agency is over the cab. This has precisely zero to do with a)protecting alcohol possession or b)a cab being public property (which it’s not-you just don’t understand how commercial law in America operates on private businesses.)

You know - authorities want people to take cabs home when they’ve consumed alcohol - instead of driving. So it is morally offensive of cab drivers who refuse to take these passengers in my book.

Maybe so, but there’s no constitutional ban on discriminating against drunks, drinkers, or people carrying alcohol. No such law exists.

Apparently more than you. I do know that restaurants in the US have to comply with their liquor licences.

Liquor licenses do not require you to sell alcohol. Nor to permit it. A liquor licenses allows you to sell it if you want; there is no law anywhere in America that requires a private restaraunt to permit alcohol on its premises. None.

Here is the restaurant liquor licence in the state of Minnesota (which is the place of the Muslim cab kerfuffle). service.govdelivery.com/docs/STPAUL/STPAUL_136/STPAUL_136_20060605_101400_en.pdf

Great, now you see what I mean about the above. A liquor license is permission to sell, not a requirement to permit other people bringing alcohol onto your property if you don’t want it.

So you think you can discriminate against other peoples on the basis of YOUR religion and it’s not discrimination?

Uh, no. Where did you get that from my post?


#19

Sure it is. The airport is a private property that has rules for cabs. If they want to take passengers in the airport property they have to abide by the airport rules. If you want to disregard these rules you can bypass the airport. You don’t have the right to flout regulations that you implicitly agreed with. As a lawyer you should know about contract laws, don’t you?

As for this being only an airport making another private decision – the Metropolitan Airports Commission obviously has a cab licencing system – which the cab owners presumably agreed to abide by.

You have no right to flout a licencing system you agreed to.

Oh… I do understand it more than you. All you have done is state, ‘sorry you don’t understand American law’.

I know enough of the law to know that one has to abide by it. Contracts are legally binding. If you agree to abide by a cab licence you have to abide by it. That much is clear.

I’m not aware Churches had to sign a legal document agreeing to make their properties public spaces. Please show.

Methinks you’re making things up in your desperate attempt to yet again support the Ummah.

Please do me the courtesy to read the yahoo.news article. It’s right at the bottom of the page.

The regulatory agency – the Minnesota Airports Commission – has rules that state that cabs cannot refuse fares. In being unable to refuse fares the cabs have made themselves part of the public transport system. That is why they were granted licences in the first place. Nobody has the right to put lights on his car and call it a cab and drive into the Minnesota airport to pick up fares – that is not permissible – you have to obtain a cab licence from the MAC and in that licence you agreed to not refuse fares.

If you want to discriminate against people who carry alcohol you don’t have to pick up fares from the airport – you can just give it a miss.

Maybe so, but there’s no constitutional ban on discriminating against drunks, drinkers, or people carrying alcohol. No such law exists.
[/quote]

Who said anything about the law in this situation? I didn’t. I said in my view it is MORALLY offensive for cab drivers to refuse to take passengers who carry alcohol since it goes against our campaign against drink driving.

Minnesota has drink driving laws and people are encouraged to call cabs if they’re drunk so I think the Muslim cab drivers by refusing to take part in this are MORRALY OFFENSIVE.

Liquor licenses do not require you to sell alcohol. Nor to permit it. A liquor licenses allows you to sell it if you want; there is no law anywhere in America that requires a private restaraunt to permit alcohol on its premises. None.
[/quote]

Right – so that’s why McDonald does not sell alcohol since it does not have a liquor licence in the US.

One wonders if you’ve ever been in a McDonalds as you don’t know they serve orange juice.

cont.


#20

Great, now you see what I mean about the above. A liquor license is permission to sell, not a requirement to permit other people bringing alcohol onto your property if you don’t want it.
[/quote]

Wrong. One wonders whether you’ve ever been in America or what you’ve been doing if you have. There is such a thing as a BYOB licence that all restaurants who want to allow their customers to bring alcohol into their premises.

Here is an example from Chicago:
amazon.com/BYOB-Chicago-Bring-Your-Own-Bottle-Restaurants-Chicagoland/dp/0976413116

It is obvious you know nothing about liquor licences. Anyone who’s ever dined in America would know about the BYOB signs on the restaurant windows or doors that tell the customers that the restaurant has a BYOB licence and therefore they can bring their own alcohol into the premises at the price of a cockage charge.

Uh, no. Where did you get that from my post?
[/quote]

It’s the subject of this entire topic – whether Muslim cab drivers have the right to discriminate against non-Muslims on the basis of their Islamic religion.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.