Moderateman Moderateman

American MUSLIMS DEMAND Special Treatment

▼

American MUSLIMS DEMAND Special Treatment

Political Correctness rears its UGLY HEAD, Once Again

from JoeUser Forums

A minor issue at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has
potentially major implications for the future of Islam in the United States.
  
  Starting about a decade ago, some Muslim taxi drivers serving the airport
declared, that they would not transport passengers visibly carrying alcohol, in
transparent duty-free shopping bags, for example. This stance stemmed from
their understanding of the Koran's ban on alcohol. A driver named Fuad Omar
explained: "This is our religion. We could be punished in the afterlife if we
agree to [transport alcohol]. This is a Koran issue. This came from heaven."
Another driver, Muhamed Mursal, echoed his words: "It is forbidden in Islam
to carry alcohol." They also refuse to carry anyone with a dog because it's considered that as dogs saliva is 'UNCLEAN" even if the person is blind and freezing and NEEDS his dog to live his life with some dignity.

If the Muslims chose to take a job in the public service sector, the should be made to obey the taxi laws just like everyone else does, but no, not the Muslims..they are special and want all Americans to bow to their will and their religion.

  
  The issue emerged publicly in 2000. On one occasion, 16 drivers in a row
refused a passenger with bottles of alcohol. This left the passenger - who
had done nothing legally wrong - feeling like a criminal. For their part, the
16 cabby's lost income. As Josh L. Dickey of the Associated Press put it,
when drivers at MSP refuse a fare for any reason, "they go to the back of the
line. Way back. Past the terminal, down a long service road, and into a
sprawling parking lot jammed with cabs in Bloomington, where drivers sit idle
for hours, waiting to be called again." I think that if they refuse fares they should not be allowed to pick up fares at the airport, period, after all the airport grants permission for cabs to ply there trade there and can revoke this privilege at any time.
   
  To avoid this predicament, Muslim taxi drivers asked the Metropolitan
Airports Commission for permission to refuse passengers carrying liquor - or
even suspected of carrying liquor - without being banished to the end of the
line. MAC rejected this appeal, worried that drivers might offer religion as an
excuse to refuse short-distance passengers.

America needs to stand up and see what is happening, the Imams that set themselves up to get thrown of the airplane so security might get relaxed so there suicide bomber brothers can bomb innocent Americans again. Now Muslims telling Us what they will or will not do at work. Does this mean as a Jew If I was A taxi driver I could refuse any once displaying a cross because it offends me? Or carrying Crab or pork because it is unclean and against my religion> When will we stop playing the accomadation game with minorities that are trying to subvert our way of life?
  

"
religion
6,199 views 37 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Bingo, Baker. All I ask is that they get bumped to the end of the line like anyone else who refuses a fare and not get preferential treatment. "


Bumpage should be proportional to their stupidity, really. At least their position in the moral climate of the nation they live in. The more wacko you are, the worse your business will be. If you are a landlord that lives in one of the gayer parts of SanFran, well, then you're gonna pay for your aversion to gay tenants.

I really don't see this as any more wacko than anything else. It's just a moral decision, not nearly as extreme as the Amish not using technology or Christian Science folks refusing medical treatment. They don't want alcohol in their cars. Whoopdeedo.

Wait, I said I wasn't going to post any more. Sorry about that. I can't read many blogs from this camp any more without thinking about Bill Cutting in Gangs of New York. I'm a native, but I guess I'm suspect because I'm 'lukewarm'.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I really don't see this as any more wacko than anything else. It's just a moral decision, not nearly as extreme as the Amish not using technology or Christian Science folks refusing medical treatment. They don't want alcohol in their cars. Whoopdeedo.


No, you're right, it's not whacko. I think it is just as legitimate as Christians who refuse to work on Sunday, or the pharmacists with the "morning after" pill.

But in the case of this particular airport, the policy is to bump cabs who refuse a fare, and that's the understanding they have to get the contract. So they should be bumped, they shouldn't gripe about being bumped, and the airport shouldn't make a deal out of them refusing the fare.

I'm sorry you think my response on this one is extreme or bigoted, Baker, but I honestly don't see how that conclusion can be drawn. I am simply asking that they not be excepted from the airport's policy based on their faith based decision (which, by the way, is the airport's point of view as well).
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is the same deal as what went on with JU being Draginols/Brad's thing. It's a service, and he can do whatever he wants with it.

Why should their business be any different?


That's the point. It shouldn't be.

Just as Brad can run JU in whichever way he wants if he stays within the bounds of the law, so can taxi drivers run their cabs in whichever way they want if they stay within the bounds of the law.

But as far as I know taxi licences do not allow a driver to refuse to carry a passenger because he carries a bottle of wine. In fact, I am sure the law specifically forces the taxi driver to accept the fare. And that's it. It's the law.

You can argue against the law, but you cannot claim, as some here appear to do, that a taxi driver violating the law is the same as Brad not violating the law. Taxi drivers are not that different from other people. They only seem that way.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

well now that everyone has had his or her feel good moment let us look at this one fact, or moment of reality. TAXI DRIVER may not for any reason refuse a fare, unless they perceive said fare as a THREAT of harm to themselves, bodily harm.

If a white refused a black A pick up I would be pissed and writing about it, If a Jew refused someone eating a Ham sandwich a pickup I would be writing about that.

The back of the line thing was ALREADY  a concession to the Muslim drivers, but now they want more concessions, they do not want to have to go to the back of the line, they do not want to lose there spot at all.

Lucas? whip is right you are an asshole.

Baker? I owe you an apoligy, you are an asshole at time, but an asshole I still admire and one I respect too.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Baker? I owe you an apoligy, you are an asshole at time, but an asshole I still admire and one I respect too."


I *deeply* appreciate that Modman, and you know damn well that I appreciate and respect you too.

The reason that I react this strongly is because, to me, it is like people running around a burning house, claiming the reason family members are dying is the color of the drapes. I don't like to see people just stand around while the house burns down.

Until people really start to address the problems that cause this hateful fundamentalism to flower, it won't just persist, it will GROW. Why? Because what you are doing is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The fundamentalist cheerleaders say we hate Muslims and that we don't care whether people are taxi cab drivers or terrorists.

What do we do? We get oversensitive and let every detail we hear on the news make us rabidly irate. Then, we rant online about cab drivers and reinforce the idea that it is "Islam against the West". The best thing we can do is shed light on the real rot, and stop giving Muslims the impression that our aim is the degradation of destruction of Islam.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

What do we do? We get oversensitive and let every detail we hear on the news make us rabidly irate. Then, we rant online about cab drivers and reinforce the idea that it is "Islam against the West". The best thing we can do is shed light on the real rot, and stop giving Muslims the impression that our aim is the degradation of destruction of Islam.
Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Monday, January 08, 2007

 

While I agree in principle, all I see these days is muslims pushing the boundaries in America, trying to provoke some kind of incident, look at the Imams on the airplane, they knew exactly what they were doing. Now Imagine for one moment A Jewish Taxi driver handing anyone a list of paper with the following on it, are you carrying any pork products, any fish that are bottom feeders? any kind of crab or shell fish, if so you must exit my cab as all these things are against my religion. Or someone looking at a Catholic cross, and demanding you leave their cab because it is just to close to IDOLOTRY for their religious liking. Where does this end?

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Or someone looking at a Catholic cross, and demanding you leave their cab because it is just to close to IDOLOTRY for their religious liking. Where does this end?"


I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, but I still would like to know if you believe pharmacists should be forced to carry RU-486. Maybe my recollection is off, maybe it was someone else, but I thought I recalled you having a different opinion in that circumstance.

Should landlords be forced to rent to homosexuals? Should employers be forced to walk on eggshells when they decide not to hire someone, for fear that it might be construed to be because of this or that? I think you have this backwards, MM.

The real sin of this, the REAL pain in the ass is when we tell people what they can and can't do. There's complaints about lawsuits and junk above, about how if you refused a Muslim that you'd be sued black and blue. Oddly, that is presented in a negative light.

Then... you want to turn around and impose in the exact same way? That kind of tit-for-tat thing to me lacks principle. If it is wrong for ever white cab driver to walk on eggshells for fear people might think they drove past because the person hailing was black... it's right to put Islamic cab drivers in the same position?

Why not just back the hell off and let everybody do what they want? Hey, if someone doesn't want me in their cab, or their rental property, or their hotel, or their lunch counter, then I damn well don't want to be there. I'm not the kind of person who would litigiously impose myself, and I don't think you are either.

We started down this ugly road during the civil rights era. We stretch "common carriage" to the point that now a hotel or a restaurant or a cab might as well be a government service in terms of the owner deciding not to serve who they like. Do we really want to PRAISE that bull? Not me.

I can't sit here and say that these cab drivers have to be forced to carry alcohol, yet in the same breath say that pharmacists shouldn't be forced to sell RU-486. People should have the right to make whatever decision they want in their business, and suffer whatever ECONOMIC consequences that result. If people want to boycott, etc., fine, but good lord conservatives are the last people who need to start preaching this stuff.

If we do, it is SERIOUSLY going to be used to bite us on the ass eventually...
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
That was long. Sorry.

All I am saying is if you think business owners shouldn't be imposed upon by Muslims who, say, get angry because the food that is served, or the decor, whatever, then why in the hell are we turning around and telling Muslim businesspeople what to do? If a Muslim said McDonalds HAD to have food they can eat, you'd be ticked off. There's a satire blog about that here, right now.

Yet... when a cab driver wants to run his business the way he wants... You don't think that setting precedents that can be used against us is a bad thing?
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
My last reply is all the qwords I am going to exchange on this subject, politley we will have to agree to disagree.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, but I still would like to know if you believe pharmacists should be forced to carry RU-486. Maybe my recollection is off, maybe it was someone else, but I thought I recalled you having a different opinion in that circumstance.

Should landlords be forced to rent to homosexuals? Should employers be forced to walk on eggshells when they decide not to hire someone, for fear that it might be construed to be because of this or that? I think you have this backwards, MM.

The real sin of this, the REAL pain in the ass is when we tell people what they can and can't do. There's complaints about lawsuits and junk above, about how if you refused a Muslim that you'd be sued black and blue. Oddly, that is presented in a negative light.

Just when we are going to war, you declare peace.  OK, not really, but I guess (perhaps?) we are on the same page.

Let them have their beliefs.  Let the market decide.

You are irascible!

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
this reminded me of somethin about which i'm still sorta mystified.

immediately after 911--and for some time thereafter--the only vehicles permitted to enter los angeles international airport and deliver/pick up passengers were busses and cabs. i believe this was also the case elsewhere.

as one of my former employers was wont to observe: 'i always knew you were an asshole but i didn't realize you were a stupid asshole.'

pretty much sums up my take on the dept of homeland security.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Tuesday, January 09, 2007
this reminded me of somethin about which i'm still sorta mystified.

immediately after 911--and for some time thereafter--the only vehicles permitted to enter los angeles international airport and deliver/pick up passengers were busses and cabs. i believe this was also the case elsewhere.

as one of my former employers was wont to observe: 'i always knew you were an asshole but i didn't realize you were a stupid asshole.'

pretty much sums up my take on the dept of homeland security.

homeland security should be called the department of of "look don't you feel better now that you think we might be doing something"