Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up blind people

[Darth Wong]

Seriously, I heard about this a while ago on the radio. Some Muslims cab drivers refuse to pick up blind people because of their seeing-eye dogs (it seems that Muslims think dogs are "unclean"). When told that they are discriminating against the blind, they say that their critics are discriminating against Islam.

Comments? Isn't this an abuse of the concept of tolerance? Let me discriminate against a minority because if you don't, then you're discriminating against my beliefs?

[Beowulf]

Other Muslim cab drivers have refused to pick up people with alcohol in their possession. It very much is an abuse of tolerance.

[lazerus]

That's absurd, you can quickly turn that around and say that the cab drivers are discriminating against their critics beliefs, add infinitum. Even the most liberal peacenik I've ever encountered admits that the "tolerate everything" nonsense dosn't apply to intolerance, both for idological reasons and because it quickly generates such absurdities otherwise.

[Eris]

Agreed that it's definitely an abuse, on the grounds that discrimination in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. What's important for it to be an intolerable sort is that it's arbitrary and unwarranted discrimination. For instance, if I discriminate in my choosing of a whom to hire as a practicing physician to people who have graduated med school, that's discriminating but in a way that's both non-arbitrary and warranted. It even works on racial and sex grounds. Say I'm a casting director for a movie on Martin Luther King Jr. It seems reasonable that I discriminate against everyone but a black man to play him. Contrast that with a case like hiring a CFO for a company. Race and sex are not legitimate qualifications for a position like that; competency is. Thus we can rule out certain forms of discrimination as illegitimate.

(For those of you interested in the principal at work here, it's something like any discrimination employed in a public setting must be justifiable by demonstration that the qualifications are rationally related to the issue at hand.)

Discrimination on religious grounds is always going to be arbitrary, since the justifications comes down to the sky pixie told me so. Thus, the cab driver's just being a religious dick.

[Surlethe]

Well, he is actually discriminating against a minority. I don't know that they should be required to pick up blind people, though; if they don't want to pick up blind men, then it's their loss.

On the broader issue of "I believe it's okay to discriminate against X; if you don't let me, you're discriminating against me", I think it's true, but not wrong. Be tolerant is a good rule of thumb, but it breaks down at the edges, as in the case of being tolerant of intolerance.

[General Zod]

Well, he is actually discriminating against a minority. I don't know that they should be required to pick up blind people, though; if they don't want to pick up blind men, then it's their loss.

On the broader issue of "I believe it's okay to discriminate against X; if you don't let me, you're discriminating against me", I think it's true, but not wrong. Be tolerant is a good rule of thumb, but it breaks down at the edges, as in the case of being tolerant of intolerance.

Since he should be following the guidelines of his taxi company as to who is an acceptable passenger and not his personal beliefs, then he's negligent in his job by refusing blind passengers unless there's some sort of restriction on animals in the guidelines. (Though most places allow for aid dogs on their vehicles.) So regardless of their personal beliefs, they're letting it interfere with their job, which should, in theory at least, get them fired.

[Surlethe]

Since he should be following the guidelines of his taxi company as to who is an acceptable passenger and not his personal beliefs, then he's negligent in his job by refusing blind passengers unless there's some sort of restriction on animals in the guidelines. (Though most places allow for aid dogs on their vehicles.) So regardless of their personal beliefs, they're letting it interfere with their job, which should, in theory at least, get them fired.

That's a rather large detail of which I was unaware; thanks. Beliefs are fine; actions should get them fired.

Actually, I think that could be a general rule: be tolerant of beliefs, but regulate actions. You can't make it a crime to think something, but you certainly can make it a crime to do something.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I was actually in Vancouver when this broke open in mid-November, and for me it just seems like a milestone in a kind of dialectical process that any liberal society must pass through when it chooses to harbor and respect intrinsically intolerant beleif systems. Either limpwristed hyper-PC forces will allow the abitrary tradition to carry on in some kind of mutually inconvenient arrangement that accomplishes nothing but frustration for both parties, setting an ugly precedent that betrays the principles of tolerance that the country was founded on; or the cabbies and other Muslims across Canada will just have to get accustomed to removing one more stick from their asses as a standard immigration procedure.

[FSTargetDrone]

Blind or sight-impaired people have special "rights" that others do not. A blind person can take a seeing-eye dog in any public space, as far as I'm aware, including restaurants and shopping malls. What if one of the store clerks in such a mall had similar objections, as our nutty cabbie does?

This is similar to fundies who work in pharmacies or drug stores who want to be able to refuse to sell people contraceptives. It may be against their beliefs, but I don't care. They should not be allowed to impose said beliefs on another, especially when the item or service in question is already legal.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Found this article:

Airport wants to crack down on taxi drivers
By John Reinan, Star Tribune
Last update: January 03, 2007 – 5:55 PM


Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport wants 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, airport staff 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 two years for the second offense, according to a revised taxi ordinance proposed by the commission's staff.

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

About 100 people are refused cab service each month at the airport. Roughly three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somalis, 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.

And link. Seems fair. Don't want to pick up people at the airport? You don't have to. You just can't pick-and-choose.

[Raw Shark]

Since he should be following the guidelines of his taxi company as to who is an acceptable passenger and not his personal beliefs, then he's negligent in his job by refusing blind passengers unless there's some sort of restriction on animals in the guidelines. (Though most places allow for aid dogs on their vehicles.) So regardless of their personal beliefs, they're letting it interfere with their job, which should, in theory at least, get them fired.

I don't know about other cab companies, but the one I've worked with has no such guidelines. It never fires drivers because it never hires drivers. The driver is their actual customer, and (while they do pay lip service to the benefits of courtesy for business in general) as long as he pays up on Monday morning the customer is always right. If they wanted to run it any other way they'd have to guarantee us minimum wage.

Well, he is actually discriminating against a minority. I don't know that they should be required to pick up blind people, though; if they don't want to pick up blind men, then it's their loss. *snip*

Quoted for truth. Not only can individual facilities flat-out refuse to let obnoxious drivers pick up on their property, as CaptainChewbacca's article describes, but the blind man is the cab driver's friend to begin with. Most of them get ride vouchers from the taxpayer, so they'll take long, meandering trips for errands in the middle of the day when business is slow. A lot of them also use that assistance to hold down jobs further away from their homes than any reasonable wage-earner would commute by cab, making them an awesome regular, and a small percentage of those even tip.

Re: Dogs and Cleanliness: Not to put too fine a point on it, but I wish every human I've driven was house-trained as well as the average Seeing Eye Dog.

[Shroom Man 777]

That's a complete load of crap. What if said Muslim was one of the hardcore types and won't allow a woman in his cab because it's against his beliefs to have women outdoors without burqas or shit? And when he gets called up on it, screams religious discrimination?

[General Zod]

Since he should be following the guidelines of his taxi company as to who is an acceptable passenger and not his personal beliefs, then he's negligent in his job by refusing blind passengers unless there's some sort of restriction on animals in the guidelines. (Though most places allow for aid dogs on their vehicles.) So regardless of their personal beliefs, they're letting it interfere with their job, which should, in theory at least, get them fired.

I don't know about other cab companies, but the one I've worked with has no such guidelines. It never fires drivers because it never hires drivers. The driver is their actual customer, and (while they do pay lip service to the benefits of courtesy for business in general) as long as he pays up on Monday morning the customer is always right. If they wanted to run it any other way they'd have to guarantee us minimum wage.

According to Chewie's article, they do seem to have such policies, or at least they were recently instated. I'd suggest reading it a tad more carefully.

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

[Raw Shark]

That's a complete load of crap. What if said Muslim was one of the hardcore types and won't allow a woman in his cab because it's against his beliefs to have women outdoors without burqas or shit? And when he gets called up on it, screams religious discrimination?

Self-Correcting Problem. I would be very surprised if that guy was able to make enough money to meet the company's sole enforced standard on behavior, unless he's driving a cab in an area where those attitudes and that manner of expressing them are the norm.

[Raw Shark]

According to Chewie's article, they do seem to have such policies, or at least they were recently instated. I'd suggest reading it a tad more carefully. :Razz:

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

The airport license is not the same as the Herdic license or a rental agreement with a cab company, at least in this municipality. As I said above, private facilities can and do find ways to kick cab drivers they don't like off their property, but the cab company itself doesn't care as long as you pay up on time because that's where their money comes from.

[Broomstick]

The issue of dogs being "unclean" arises out of a misunderstanding of Koranic texts. In other words, the objections of these cab drivers arises out of a misunderstanding of their own religion (an all too common phenomena among religious people, if you ask me).

Mohammad objected to, basically, ornamental pet dogs - NOT working dogs such as hunting or herding dogs, of which he approved. Thus, a seeing-eye dog would meet such a test of "usefulness" and would have been approved by the prophet.

In other words - ignorant assholes are being ignorant assholes.

[Plekhanov]

Other Muslim cab drivers have refused to pick up people with alcohol in their possession. It very much is an abuse of tolerance.

This isn't quite the same as refusing to let blind people in which is discriminating against what people are which is almost never justified, refusing to let people with alcohol on is discriminating against what people are doing which is rather easier to justify. I'd take their cab licences off them in either case though unless of course you're talking about open containers of alcohol.

[Zor]

Physical disabilities are alot diferent than Religion, the blind people in this case need the dogs and they can't just stop being blind and the Muslim does not have the same thing going for him. This is why i'm going to side with the Blind people here.

Zor

[ray245]

Although you can say the same with pigs and muslims. From what I understand from my muslim classmates, pigs aren't even allowed to touch one, even if the pigs try to approach them.

I find that as much as the community here hates religious belief, we should at the least give others the freedom to practice it. It's their religion, their belief. If we try and force them to convert to your own belief and ideas, we won't be any different from Fundies who try and convert others.

Besides, it their car. A person who has allergies to fur should at the least have the right to turn people with dogs down right? So while they may turn down a blind due to walking dogs, as workers in the service industry, they should at the least arrange another cab for the blind.

[spikenigma]

Although you can say the same with pigs and muslims. From what I understand from my muslim classmates, pigs aren't even allowed to touch one, even if the pigs try to approach them.

I find that as much as the community here hates religious belief, we should at the least give others the freedom to practice it. It's their religion, their belief. If we try and force them to convert to your own belief and ideas, we won't be any different from Fundies who try and convert others.

Besides, it their car. A person who has allergies to fur should at the least have the right to turn people with dogs down right? So while they may turn down a blind due to walking dogs, as workers in the service industry, they should at the least arrange another cab for the blind.

...and of course racist white-supermacist cab drivers should be allowed to turn down custom from Orientals, Blacks, Jews, Indians etc because it doesn't fit with their ideology right?

because like you say, if we try and force them to convert to your own belief and ideas, we won't be any different from Fundies who try and convert others

[Zor]

Although you can say the same with pigs and muslims. From what I understand from my muslim classmates, pigs aren't even allowed to touch one, even if the pigs try to approach them.

Your annology is wrong, Religion is still very much a choice and unless someone desides to take a knife to there eyes, the blind people did not choose to be blind and need said dogs to get about.

I find that as much as the community here hates religious belief, we should at the least give others the freedom to practice it. It's their religion, their belief. If we try and force them to convert to your own belief and ideas, we won't be any different from Fundies who try and convert others.

I am not sugjesting anything on that goddamn line, i am saying that in terms of who is getting the worst end of this, it is the Blind people by a considerable margin.

Besides, it their car. A person who has allergies to fur should at the least have the right to turn people with dogs down right? So while they may turn down a blind due to walking dogs, as workers in the service industry, they should at the least arrange another cab for the blind.

Again a bad annalogy, comparing people with a Physical Disability to someone with religious quams is apples and oranges. One is voluntary and the other is not. Dog allergies are a Physical condition that as of yet can not be reliably treated, in this civilization Religion is something you follow by choice.

Zor

[Beowulf]

Other Muslim cab drivers have refused to pick up people with alcohol in their possession. It very much is an abuse of tolerance.

This isn't quite the same as refusing to let blind people in which is discriminating against what people are which is almost never justified, refusing to let people with alcohol on is discriminating against what people are doing which is rather easier to justify. I'd take their cab licences off them in either case though unless of course you're talking about open containers of alcohol.

Not quite the same, but the motivation is the same: use of religon as a club to discriminate against those you don't like (dogs, people who drink). It discrimination based off of what you do, like me refusing you service because you do/don't eat meat.

[Tranan]

Well, If he were a driver in my company. he wood bee kicked faster than he cud say rascal discrimination. Refusal to drive a dog is only accepted if you drive a cab fore allergic people.

[Darth Wong]

I find that as much as the community here hates religious belief, we should at the least give others the freedom to practice it.

Only to the extent that they are not harming others. If 75% of the cab drivers at the airport at Muslims and blind people have to wait for extended periods of time to get a ride because they're being discriminated against, then they are being harmed. Your right to practice your religion ends when you start harming others.

[Darth Servo]

What exactly does the Koran (sp?) say on this topic? Are Muslims not supposed to come withing a certain distance of a dog or something? Somehow I seriously doubt it includes giving an "unclean" animal a ride in your car.