1
   

Seperation of Muslims & State

 
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 10:17 pm
Re: Seperation of Muslims & State
nimh wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nimh wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
What's next, a Jewish taxi driver refusing a fare to someone with a cross? Or maybe a Christian taxi driver refusing to allow a gay couple into the taxi because that is against his/her religion? See where this can go? Of course i realize that it isn't PC to deny a muslim any accomodation.

Hmmm... would lambasting a Christian taxi driver for refusing to allow a gay couple in be PC, or un-PC?

Let me guess - lambasting a Christian driver for refusing people a ride on religious reasons would be liberal PC; but lambasting a Muslim driver for refusing people a ride on religious reasons would be commonsensically un-PC.

A Christian taxi driver wouldn't get away with it, the ACLU would be on him/her like stink on poop.

You didnt answer the question.

You did provide a pointer, though, so let me take you up on it:

If the ACLU would be on a Christian taxi driver "like stink on poop" for refusing to carry a passenger on religious grounds, would it be being PC?

Are the conservative critics of the Muslim taxi drivers who are refusing to carry a passenger on religious grounds, being PC?

I didn't see this post until you brought it forward, that's why i didn't answer it before.
I'm not sure, i think it would be more along the lines of the ACLUs blatant anti-Christian attitude that they have displayed quite regularly.
I can't & don't speak for all conservatives, only for myself & i think i answered that in my previous post.
If you're looking for conservatives hate muslims, i'm sure some do, I'm just as sure that some liberals hate muslims too, i don't hate them, I disagree with their religion just as they disagree with mine. I do recognize their right to worship in any faith that moves them. Now radical muslims, just as radical Christians, Jews, Buddas, or whatever, are a big thorn & I absolutely do not recognize their rights to terrorize.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 10:42 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nimh wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

Hhhmmmmm, ohkay.. So thats all your beef is about? Like, if they refuse the same passengers for the same reason on, say, Downtown Tourist Square, you would not have a problem with it?

If those drivers are independent drivers, with no agreement with the airport, of course it would be their individual right, IMO, to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

OK, thanks for a straight answer.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 11:14 pm
maporsche wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I am wondering if the refusal of these catholic orphanages reflects the prejudice of those who run them, or if the relinquishing parents have specified catholic, or at least christian, parents?


I would guess that the preferences of the mother would be relinquished at the release of her parental rights.



Then in many places your guess would be quite wrong.


Adoption laws differ enormously from place to place.


Many western countries are moving away from what is called "closed adoption" entirely, for instance.

I believe that parental preferences are often taken into account. I, for instance, if I were to adopt a baby out, would prefer non religious parents.


Here, for instance, the bar for adoptive parents is extraordinarily high, and includes (for good or ill) marriage, and a marriage that has lasted a number of years. This when no private agencies have anything to do with adoption of Oz born babies and decisions are made by a secular state.


Rules for overseas adoptions are somewhat different, but still pretty stringent, as I recall.


You may well be correct about the rules where you are, though.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 01:18 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
revel wrote:
If Joe is right and taxi drivers can't refuse passengers on those grounds, then the taxi drivers should be fired or whatever.

However, LSM is wrong about ("it not happening") Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives at pharmacies.

Culture war hits local pharmacy

Quote:
CHICAGO - The culture wars have already seeped into hospices, movie theaters, and the Super Bowl. Now, even the corner drugstore has become a battleground.

From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.

It's a debate that weighs personal morals against professional responsibility. It pits religious rights against patients' rights and raises the question of just where pharmacists stand on the spectrum of health-care professionals.

Many pharmacists point to the "conscience-clause" exceptions that nearly every state has in place for doctors, allowing them to recuse themselves from performing abortions or other procedures they object to. They believe they should have similar protection.

Critics point out that filling a prescription is a very different job from writing one, and question whether pharmacists can deny a legal drug on moral grounds. And the patients who have been denied are simply angry to see their prescriptions become fodder for a public debate - especially when the prescriptions they wanted filled were for something as time-sensitive as emergency contraceptives, often known as the morning-after pill.

"Most observers seem to say it [refusing to give out contraceptives] is picking up, and there seems to be a more organized campaign to allow pharmacists to refuse," says Adam Sonfeild, an analyst with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health issues.

And as the issue gets more attention, politicians are weighing in - on both sides:

• In Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) last week issued an executive rule clarifying his view of state law: Any pharmacy that sells contraceptives must promptly fill a woman's prescription for them.

• Four states, including California and New Jersey, are considering laws that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions despite any religious or moral objections, unless they could find an alternative that doesn't inconvenience the patient.

• Thirteen states are considering giving pharmacists the kind of conscience-clause outs that doctors have, allowing them to refuse to fill some prescriptions that go against their personal beliefs. (Four already have such laws on the books.)

• In a related issue, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R) exercised a rare veto this week, for a bill that would have required all hospitals - including Catholic ones - to inform rape victims about the availability of emergency contraceptives. Among other concerns, he questioned the constitutionality of forcing religious institutions to engage in speech counter to their principles.

With the pharmacist battles, it's principles of individuals, rather than institutions, that come into play. While no hard numbers are available, anecdotes have cropped up with increasing frequency.

Two pharmacists at a drugstore in Texas refused to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive for a woman said to be a rape victim. They were later fired. In Wisconsin, a judge reprimanded Neil Noesen this year for not only refusing to fill a college student's prescription for birth-control pills, but for balking at transferring the prescription to a pharmacist who would fill it.

Governor Blagojevich's ruling was prompted by a pharmacist at a downtown drugstore who refused to give emergency contraceptives to two women. "The governor said that there seems to be a pattern here, and it was important to take action quickly to make sure pharmacies in Illinois know they have an obligation to ensure a woman's access to health care," says Abby Ottenhoff, an aide to the governor.

Public opinion tends to come down in favor of the patient. In a November New York Times poll, just 16 percent of respondents said they believed a pharmacist should be able to refuse to dispense birth-control pills for religious reasons. Among white evangelical Christians, that number grew to just 24 percent.

But many pharmacists believe it's possible to accommodate their consciences and still ensure a patient gets her prescription. "We support the pharmacist stepping away, but we don't support them stepping in the way," explains Susan Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which adopted a policy calling for conscience protections, as long as the pharmacy had an alternative system in place - another pharmacist on duty, for instance, or an agreement with a neighboring pharmacy. The issue first arose not because of contraceptives, she says, but over pharmacists in Oregon concerned about taking part in assisted suicide.

Ms. Winckler is concerned about the order in Illinois, which she says has caused many drugstores to reverse their policies and doesn't take into account that pharmacists may refuse to fill a prescription due to health concerns as well as moral objections. She's also worried about proposed laws that give too much weight to either the pharmacist's rights or the patient's rights, instead of considering them both.

Still, in a conflict, the patient's rights should win, say some medical ethicists. "For the past few years now, pharmacists have wanted to model their relationship with the patient on the physician-patient relationship, which is not really appropriate," says Evelyne Shuster, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Others wonder about the implications down the road: A pharmacist only agreeing to give contraceptives to married clients, for instance. Defenders of the conscience clause dismiss such fears as ridiculous, and contend that pharmacists - who have an obligation to look out for their clients' interests when it comes to, say, adverse side effects or potential allergies - are healthcare professionals who should have the same protections as doctors do.

"We intervene and stop prescriptions and make doctors change prescriptions," says Karen Brauer, a pharmacist in Lawrenceburg, Ind. The pharmacy she works at refuses to stock contraceptives - a fact she explains if people come in looking for them - but she feels that workers at any pharmacy need to be able to follow their conscience.

Ms. Brauer, along with some other pharmacists, has a particular problem with emergency contraceptives because they work by inhibiting ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. While most medical professionals define pregnancy as beginning with implantation in the uterus, she and some others consider a fertilized egg, even before implantation, to be human. "We should be free to opt out of killing humans at any stage of development," she says. "If women really want this drug, they are going to have to find a willing provider."

Others voice more tempered views, but still feel that allowing a right of conscience shouldn't have to keep a patient from being serviced. "We don't force doctors to perform abortions, and we shouldn't force pharmacists to dispense contraceptives," says Steven Aden of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom.

He doesn't buy the argument that referring a client elsewhere can be too burdensome or cause delays that threaten the effectiveness of the morning-after pill. "You don't force somebody to do something they think is morally wrong because somebody can't get into a car or a bus and access healthcare."

Reproductive-rights advocates note that keeping a woman from the morning-after pill can cause more unwanted pregnancies - and potentially abortions - than making it available. But above all, they say the issue comes down to discrimination that no woman should have to face at the pharmacy. "A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication," says Steve Trombley, president of Planned Parenthood Chicago. "Not moral judgment."

LSM never said it not happening[/I]. I realize that you & a couple of others love to tell people what they said because you think that's what they said, but as usual, you & a couple of other people are wrong. This thread is not about pharmacists, this thread is about some muslims that are using their religion to deny some people their rights. You want to talk about pharmacists or some other malady that you find abhorrant, start a thread.



Quote:
The reason I ignored the question was because the Christian pharmacists didn't get by with that either, but you knew that, just a little trick you tried to avert the topic by you.


source

I don't know where I got the idea you said, "it not happening." In any case, you are right you didn't say it. You said they didn't get away with it and so far you are right, they are not getting away with it, but they working awful hard to get away with it.

My point is simply this, if a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion that is at this time legal in the United States because of "conscience-clause" then I am not sure why either a Muslim can't refuse to let passengers in their cabs because of their "conscience" or a pharmacist can't deny a woman the morning after pill or contraceptives for the same reason. We ought to be more consistent and clear in our laws of this nature in all states in my opinion to avoid confusion and unfairness.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 03:27 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.

As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.

If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.
0 Replies
 
MizunoMan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 05:08 pm
Tighter airport cab rules proposed

Officials want tougher penalties for refusal to transport passengers carrying alcohol.

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport officials want to crack down on Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to carry alcohol or service dogs in their cabs.At a meeting Wednesday of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), airport staff members asked the commission to give the go-ahead for public hearings on a tougher policy that would suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse service for any reason other than safety concerns.

Drivers who refuse to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked two years for the second offense, according to a proposed taxi ordinance revision.

"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," commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said.

The penalties would also apply to drivers who refuse a fare because it is too short a trip.

The full commission is expected to vote on the proposal for public hearings at its next meeting, scheduled for Jan. 16.

Airports Commissioner Bert McKasy called the dispute -- in which some drivers complained that carrying alcohol or dogs violated religious precepts -- "unfortunate," but said that serving the public has to be the primary goal.

"I think it's pretty much the consensus of the commissioners and the staff that we have to provide good service to the public, and that's pretty much the bottom line," McKasy said.

About 100 people are refused cab service each month at the airport. Roughly three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim. In recent months, the problem of service refusals for religious reasons has grown, airport officials have said, calling it "a significant customer-service issue."

Last year, the airport proposed a system of color-coded lights on taxis, indicating which drivers would accept passengers carrying alcohol. That proposal was dropped.

Hogan said the goal is to have a new policy in place by May 11, when all airport taxi licenses come up for annual renewal.

"We want the drivers to know about the policy in advance, so that if they don't think they can work under these conditions, they have the option of not renewing their license," Hogan said.

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

Eva Buzek, a flight attendant and Minneapolis resident, called the new proposal "great news." Buzek recently was refused service by five taxi drivers when she returned from a trip to France carrying wine.

"In my book, when you choose to come to a different country, you make some choices," said Buzek, a native of Poland. "I never expected everything to be the same way as in my homeland, and I adjusted. I never dreamed of imposing my beliefs on somebody else."

'A violation of faith'

But Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul, and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said that asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith" as well as of the spirit of the First Amendment.

Mohamud, an attorney who teaches Islamic law at William Mitchell Law School in St. Paul, said, "Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol." Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.

Mohamud said he would ask airport officials to reconsider, adding that he hoped that a compromise could be worked out that would serve as a bridge between the American legal system and the cultural and religious values of the immigrants.

Currently, he said, more than half of the state's taxi drivers are Muslim and about 150,000 people follow Islam in Minnesota, most of them in the metro area.

"So the commission should respect the will of the majority of the taxi drivers, with complete accommodation to the consumers," Mohamud said.

Many Somali taxi drivers don't have any problem transporting passengers with alcohol and are worried about a backlash, countered Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center. Jamal said he supports the tougher penalties.

"We tell the taxi drivers, if you don't want to do this, change your job," he said. "You are living in a country where alcohol is not viewed the way it is in your country."

But Jamal and Mahmoud both disagreed with the airports commission on another issue of religion and airport operation. Jamal said his group will continue to push for a separate prayer room at the airport reserved solely for Muslims.

That won't happen, according to Hogan.

"Our position is that there will be no room for one faith," he said. "We have a quiet seating area that can be used by anybody for quiet contemplation or prayer. If that is inadequate, we could possibly look at finding a larger space.

"In no case would we be looking at [exclusive] space for one faith or another."

http://www.startribune.com/462/v-print/story/913549.html
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 06:10 pm
Quote:
Drivers who refuse to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked two years for the second offense, according to a proposed taxi ordinance revision.

"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," commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said.

<snip>
Mohamud, an attorney who teaches Islamic law at William Mitchell Law School in St. Paul, said, "Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol." Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.

Mohamud said he would ask airport officials to reconsider, adding that he hoped that a compromise could be worked out that would serve as a bridge between the American legal system and the cultural and religious values of the immigrants.

Currently, he said, more than half of the state's taxi drivers are Muslim and about 150,000 people follow Islam in Minnesota, most of them in the metro area.



A few more interesting subjects to throw into the mixer:

Dry Counties based on religious views, prohibition based on religious views, Supreme court rulings prohibiting some bans but not all.



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dry county

A "dry county" is a county in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages. There are hundreds of dry counties across the United States, although they are most common in the South and Mid-West. There are also smaller jurisdictions which prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages, such as dry towns. Although the 21st Amendment repealed the prohibition of alcohol, it specifically prohibits the selling or production of alcohol in violation of local laws. Some local governments which had passed local laws in respect of alcohol during the Prohibition never re-legalized the sale of alcohol, maintaining a "dry" market. [1] Many of these counties and towns do not generally prohibit its consumption. Thus, they lose the profits and taxes from the sale of alcohol to their residents to "wet" or non-prohibition areas. The rationale for maintaining prohibition on the local level is often religious in nature, as many Protestant Christian denominations discourage the consumption of alcohol by their followers. Similar laws designed to restrict the sale and consumption of alcohol are also common in the Mormon-dominated state of Utah

<snip>
Transport

...While the 21st Amendment does give states the power to ban alcohol, that power is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Granholm v. Heald (544 U.S. 460 (2005)) that states do not have the power to regulate interstate shipments of alcoholic beverages, and therefore it may be likely that a city, county or state ordinance banning possession of alcoholic beverages by passengers of vehicles operating in interstate commerce (such as trains and interstate bus lines), where those passengers are simply passing through that state, would be unconstitutional.

Alcohol laws of the United States by state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States_by_state

And then we have Prohibition:

Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Board_of_Temperance%2C_Prohibition%2C_and_Public_Morals

American Temperance Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement



[quote]Mohamud said he would ask airport officials to reconsider, adding that he hoped that a compromise could be worked out that would serve as a bridge between the American legal system and the cultural and religious values of the immigrants. [/quote]

That quote is a synopsis of the problem and the solution. It isn't a subject that pertains to just the religious values of immigrants. It goes to the very core of our constitution and the conflict of interests therein between church and state. It is a very complex topic that may end up requiring equal treatment for all people, religions and businesses. Individual rights are bumping up against institutional and commerce laws. People were willing to look the other way when Christianity was the big religion of the day. Now that other religions are increasing in popularity, along with no-religion groups, the pressure on the constitution increases dramatically.


It may end up with similar treatment as the issue of official language. Do we allow all languages (religious views)or only one national language (religious view)? Either way, it is a major test of our constitution. It has been a long time brewing and the Islamic "boogeyman" fears have served to bring it to the forefront.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 07:27 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.

As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.

If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.



Yep.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 08:15 am
joefromchicago wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.

As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.

If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.


What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 08:21 am
revel wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.

As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.

If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.


What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?

If a doctor is in private practice, he should be able to refuse any service to anyone.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 08:51 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
revel wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.

As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.

If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.


What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?

If a doctor is in private practice, he should be able to refuse any service to anyone.


If that were true then why the need for the "conscience-clause" that states provide for doctors who object to abortions?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 09:04 am
revel wrote:
What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?

The difference is that, as part of his license agreement, a cabbie must pick up fares without exception. And that's because that is the only way a taxi system can function. If cabbies could routinely discriminate among which passengers to pick up, then passengers wouldn't have any confidence that they could hail a cab on the street or call for a taxi to pick them up, and so they would stop trying to get cabs altogether. For the system to operate, therefore, cabbies have to be obligated to pick up all fares.

The contrast with doctors in private practice, I think, should be obvious. Doctors have no obligation to treat every patient who walks through the door, and the system doesn't collapse because doctors can pick and choose among patients.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 09:04 am
Having not read all of the responses this may be duplication
If as in NY taxi medallions are issued by the city I suspect that the taxi commission would suspend revoke or otherwise punish a driver who refused to pick up passengers for the reasons stated. It is a private business but it is also sanctioned and controlled by the city.

That not being the case I suppose that the airport could ban drivers who refuse pickups at the airport.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 09:27 am
revel wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
revel wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
The taxi drivers sign an agreement with the airport, right? 'nuff said.

That is highly unlikely. Taxi drivers are regulated by the city or local municipal authority, not with the airport. The airport is just a destination -- its only rules deal with picking up passengers in designated areas in a prescribed sequence.

As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.

If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with transporting fares who are carrying alcohol, then there is a simple solution to his dilemma: he should find another job. Once he accepted the terms of his license, however, he cannot go back and say that certain parts of the bargain conflict with his religious views.


What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?

If a doctor is in private practice, he should be able to refuse any service to anyone.


If that were true then why the need for the "conscience-clause" that states provide for doctors who object to abortions?

What the state says has nothing to do with what I believe or my opinion. I didn't say the doctor has the legal right to refuse anymore than the muslim taxi drivers have the legal right to refuse a fare because someone has a bottle of spirits. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, or because something is right doesn't make it legal.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 09:32 am
joefromchicago wrote:
revel wrote:
What is the difference in a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion because of his or her relgious beliefs and a cabbie who refuses to let some passengers in because of his/her religious beliefs? Why can't everybody have the option of a "conscience-clause" in their choice of business?

The difference is that, as part of his license agreement, a cabbie must pick up fares without exception. And that's because that is the only way a taxi system can function. If cabbies could routinely discriminate among which passengers to pick up, then passengers wouldn't have any confidence that they could hail a cab on the street or call for a taxi to pick them up, and so they would stop trying to get cabs altogether. For the system to operate, therefore, cabbies have to be obligated to pick up all fares.

The contrast with doctors in private practice, I think, should be obvious. Doctors have no obligation to treat every patient who walks through the door, and the system doesn't collapse because doctors can pick and choose among patients.


You make a logical argument, however, if doctors can refuse to treat patients, why the need for a "conscience-clause" to protect doctors who do not want to perform or treat patients which goes against their religious beliefs?

The History and Effect of Abortion Conscience Clause Laws

I note that I personally oppose abortion and I am not really wanting to beat this to death, I am just curious.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 10:07 am
revel wrote:
You make a logical argument, however, if doctors can refuse to treat patients, why the need for a "conscience-clause" to protect doctors who do not want to perform or treat patients which goes against their religious beliefs?

The History and Effect of Abortion Conscience Clause Laws

I note that I personally oppose abortion and I am not really wanting to beat this to death, I am just curious.

Those "conscience clauses" are for doctors who receive public funds. I specifically limited my response to doctors in private practice.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 10:33 am
joefromchicago wrote:

The difference is that, as part of his license agreement, a cabbie must pick up fares without exception. And that's because that is the only way a taxi system can function. If cabbies could routinely discriminate among which passengers to pick up, then passengers wouldn't have any confidence that they could hail a cab on the street or call for a taxi to pick them up, and so they would stop trying to get cabs altogether. For the system to operate, therefore, cabbies have to be obligated to pick up all fares.

The contrast with doctors in private practice, I think, should be obvious. Doctors have no obligation to treat every patient who walks through the door, and the system doesn't collapse because doctors can pick and choose among patients.


I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one Joe. Are taxis really obligated to pick up every passenger? I don't think so. They are able to refuse to pick up people who are too drunk or are headed to neighborhoods they don't want to go in. How are taxis more obligated than physicians? How would the ability to refuse service cause the taxi system to fail but not the health system?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 10:55 am
FreeDuck wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one Joe. Are taxis really obligated to pick up every passenger? I don't think so.

As I stated in an earlier post:
    As part of their licensing, cabbies agree to pick up any passenger, without exception. The only fares that they can refuse are those that pose a danger to the driver or those who are, in some way or other, disruptive or causing problems. A driver cannot, however, decide that he won't pick up a passenger because the passenger's status conflicts with his religious views.

I didn't want to continue to include this caveat because I had stated it before and I wanted to emphasize the general rule rather than the exceptions. I thought I had made myself clear already, but apparently I needed to repeat that.

FreeDuck wrote:
They are able to refuse to pick up people who are too drunk or are headed to neighborhoods they don't want to go in.

Not in Chicago they can't. If a cabbie refused to go to a destination because he didn't like the neighborhood, he could have his license pulled -- and justifiably so. That's not to say that it doesn't happen (in fact, it happens far too frequently), but rather that it shouldn't happen.

FreeDuck wrote:
How are taxis more obligated than physicians? How would the ability to refuse service cause the taxi system to fail but not the health system?

Because taxis are only allowed to operate as a service to the general public. People on the street, within certain limitations, cannot pick and choose which taxis they will hire, and people at airports typically cannot pick and choose at all (they must take the first taxi in line). As such, the government obligates all cabbies to pick up passengers without discriminating (save for those exceptions that I've already mentioned and won't mention again). If it were otherwise, the system could not function (for the reasons that I have already stated and won't repeat).

Doctors in private practice, in contrast, don't have to take every patient who walks through the door (doctors who accept public funds are in a different situation, but I don't want to belabor that exception). That's because people have much more choice in what doctors they will see as opposed to what cabs they will hire. The medical system can function even if doctors are free to refuse to treat some patients, whereas the taxi system would cease to operate if cabbies were allowed to pick and choose their fares.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 11:59 am
All right joe, I understand your points. I don't necessarily agree that it is fair.
0 Replies
 
MizunoMan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 12:28 pm
In the case of the cab drivers it is fair, because they're given choices.

They can find another job where their religious sensibilities aren't offended.

They can relocate to live under the religious laws of their choice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 10:42:44