Just watched the news last night, and there was a spot on a problem they have in the airport of Indianapolis, where muslim cabdrivers says, that according to their religion, they aren´t allowed to carry alcohol in their vehicle. This is obviously a problem for people returning home from a trip abroad.
The questions now are simply: 1) Is this a legit claim to make in a plural society?

2) Should they be forced (economically) to bend on this claim?

1) Is this a legit claim to make in a plural society?

This is supported by the First Amendment, so yes.

2) Should they be forced (economically) to bend on this claim?

Actually, economics will impact this religious practice. Independent cabbies will not have as many fares as those who are willing to transport booze, wine, beer and so on.

Those working for a company won't meet their goals as easily. The company might fire the cabbies who refuse to carry alcohol by using the indirect method of production loss. It's not that you're Muslim, it's that you aren't making quotas.

This goes back to whether Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. What's more important, your religion or your income? If religion, then find a different way to make money.

Back a while, we had this problem with systems programmers in the mainframe environment. Some had religions that barred them from working on certain days of the week, most often Sunday. Trouble was, systems programmers had to cover systems 24x7 to make the Five Nines for uptime. Well, let's just say these people had to find different positions in what was called Data Processing at the time. It's not discrimination against religion when the religion stops a person from doing the job.

I'm wondering if the Muslim cabbies will refuse to give a ride to someone taking Nightime Nyquil. And what if they find out that everyone produces alcohol naturally in their digestive tracts?

Link

Guess that would stop any Muslim from transporting anyone, including themselves.

Absolutism is so darn inconvenient.

1) Is this a legit claim to make in a plural society?

Yes and no. A cabdriver who works for a business should adhere to the policies of that business. If Frank, owner of "Frank's cabs", wishes for his drivers to transport alcohol that is what Franks employees should do, just as the Muslim cashier at the Safeway must process transactions even if they involve wine, spirits, or beer...or choose another job, or employer, or start their own mom and pop store that doesn't carry alcohol. Private cabs don't have to transport anything they don't wish to.

2) Should they be forced (economically) to bend on this claim?

No. I read about a solution in Minneapolis airports. Cab drivers who don't wish to transport, for example, large cartons of wine from the Nappa Valley will have different colored lights on them. Airport workers can steer alcohol-carrying fares to cabs that will take them. Obviously this will likely increase business for those willing to tote alchohol, and I'd assume that those people just coming home from a vacation in Napa Valley would be better than average tippers, too. Capitalism at work.

1) Is this a legit claim to make in a plural society?
Cab drivers do have a right to be choosy about their customers, just as customers have a right to choose their cab driver. So yes, this is a legit claim.

Is this a legit claim to make in a plural society?
It depends. If the employee has an understanding with his/her employer then the government should butt out. The employer has the right to change his mind about the agreement, too.

Should they be forced (economically) to bend on this claim?
Employees can't be forced to perform work against their will or against their religion. At the same time, as soon as a potential or former employee takes the company to court alleging a civil liberties violation regarding the religious freedom the judge should toss the lawsuit. Refusing to transport alcohol illustrates why the federal government and perhaps state governments shouldn't legislate conscience clauses for pharmacists who refuse to fill out birth control and Plan B.

First off, I am 99% sure that this is Minneapolis, not Indianapolis. (a lot more Danes and Swedes up there )

Is this a legit claim to make in a plural society?
Absolutely not. This is not a business practice, employment law or religious freedom issue. It is discrimination pure and simple. And misguided discrimination at that.

Wrong. Taxi drivers at the airport are required to take the next customer in line. They most certainly do not have the "right to be choosy." Perhaps you don't live in a city, my friend, but this is a big deal for those that take taxis.

Taxis serve as a common carrier. They are licensed and required to carry passengers for a set fee, agreed by the city or other governing body. Common carriers have a specific legal designation. If you have an insurance policy, you may note that it covers you in a specific way when you are traveling on a "common carrier" like airplanes, public transport, or yes, taxis. They are required to transport passengers without discrimination. Taxi drivers may not discriminate against certain individuals, based on race, gender, "bad neighborhoods," short trips or even carrying alcohol.

From dictionary.com
1. Transportation. (in federal regulatory and other legal usage) a carrier offering its services at published rates to all persons for interstate transportation.

Should they be forced (economically) to bend on this claim?

Every Muslim cab driver that declines a fare should be disciplined on the spot. When they accumulate enough disciplinary action, they should lose their taxi license. Companies that tolerate this behavior from their drivers should lose their license to operate a taxi business.

For those of you tolerant of allowing shar'ia law in taxis in Minneapolis, would you also allow Muslims to refuse rides to other unacceptable groups?

- unmarried women traveling without an escort
- women without veils
- homosexuals
- Jews
- unclean animals (like guide dogs for the blind)

Does this mean you don't have a problem with WalMart losing pharmacy licenses?

I think I agree with carlitoswhey now. I didn't realize (I suppose I should have, but it didn't enter my mind) that there is an agreement made with the state that sets specific procedure for those cabs, so it differs from a private business entity. Should the state force Walmart to carry any product? I don't think so. But, a state-run clinic would be another story. Similarly, if the state regulates its cab service it could, IMO, legitimately fine these cab drivers.

Religious exemptions are designed to protect believers from laws that unreasonably compromise their freedom of conscience. But in some cases US law overrules those exemptions (if it violates fundamental public policy, is unreasonably discriminative, ect). The question lies in where exactly the line is drawn.

In fact, I just found that in Australia some cab drivers have been refusing to transport the blind because of their dogs. I'd say that is WAY overboard.

You and AuthorMusician have both made this analogy and I don't see it. Alcohol is carried by the passenger. No one is forcing the taxi driver to drink alcohol, which he says is against his religion. Not drink it, sell it or even serve alcohol, as some sort of taxidrivingbartenderguy. He's just required to transport passengers and their (legal!!!) hand baggage to wherever they wish to go. Can't speak for the koran, but my commandments all say quite helpfully "thou" shalt not do this or that. Not "thou" shall not give a ride to a guy who may have done this or that. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and what not.

Rather than discussing Wal Mart pharmacies, would you care to respond to my other areas of potential cab driver discrimination, helpfully listed above. I'm sure it's not exhaustive, but again I'm not an expert on the koran. I suspect that these ignorant taxi drivers aren't experts either.

This brings up an interesting question. Suppose someone with a bottle of alcohol left a party and was too drunk to drive. The person has no designated driver. He calls a cab (this does happen) and the driver refuses transport. The person then gets in his car and drives drunk.

Remind you, I'm no authority on Islamic law, or how literally one interprets it, but under such circumstances the driver would, in addition to collecting a fee, be performing a public service.

Under these circumstances, I doubt even the most hard shell Baptist would have any problem providing transport.

No one (generally) forces a pharmacist to work at a pharmacy that fills (legal!) prescriptions. No one forces the pharmacist to act against his religious conviction and take birth control. The thou-shalt-not’s never gave Christians a pass to enforce the rules on others, something we’re quick to point out when it comes to Muslims.


I’m certain two, maybe three items on your list are safe based on existing anti-discrimination ordinances predating emerging religious immunities granted in religious texts and interpreted to justify modern prejudices and political preferences that don’t have squat to do with personal salvation.

I would swear that this debate is about taxi drivers and alcohol. Apparently, you see "Christian" when I see "Muslim" and "pharmacy" when I see "taxi?" Is a Christian pharmacist compelled to give me whatever pills generate that effect?


So, we agree that cab drivers shouldn't discriminate on at least three out of five. Be honest, you mean 4 out of 5.. Since currently emerging anti-discrimination ordinances that post-date the Constitution elevate women, gays and dogs (female or otherwise) beyond reproach, that leaves those pesky Jews. Maybe the Jews could wear some sort of insignia so that the taxi drivers will know who they can ignore? I know, the Jews could all get together and take the train instead!

I view the examples as interchangeable. If the state doesn’t defend a constitutionally guaranteed right a litigant can initiate a case and press for protection through incorporation (due process). Your civil rights aren’t violated if your pharmacist doesn’t fill a prescription. Your civil rights aren’t violated if a cab driver refuses to take you on board because you’re carrying alcohol. This has nothing to do with the passenger’s race/religion/sex/etc. Then it becomes an issue for the federal government through the commerce clause or states granting rights (or withholding licenses) through local laws.


What the hell’s going on? Discrimination against Jews predates Muslim Diaspora through the 1967 CVA and refusing dogs is a discriminatory practice according to the Americans with Disabilities Act; two overreaching, anti-federalist laws according to the States' Rights crowd. The examples you gave on women could be discriminatory, but I don’t think homosexuals are. How many ordinances, state or federal laws are you aware of that protect sexual orientation in civil rights lawsuits?

Anyway, why did you use the Nazi card? I've been arguing that I don't give a damn about religious convictions keeping the employee from doing his job. That’s between him and his boss, and if his boss disagrees he can stand in the soup line.

The customers can be discriminating as well. Here in DK we´ve had numerous of cases, where people are calling a cab, asking for it to be a car able to carry a dog, but it´s just a code for the central, that they should not send a cab with an imigrant driver.
But back to this thread, I think this is so familiar a line of muslim minority thinking, from the DK muhammed cartoon buisness, to lately the pope buisness, which in my mind shows their feelings of supremacy and superiority. And these feelings are constantly fed in the mosque. No other religion speaks so vile (dogs and pigs), of nonbelievers, if not in the koran, then certainly by the local imam.
Of course the effect of this must be, that you feel entitled to make even the most ridiculous demands, always referring to your religion.
People in this country can go to prison by law, if they ideologically refuse to fulfill military duty. In a western society your personal beliefs is a private matter, and is not taken into account in society, or by your employer for that matter. If this is unacceptable by muslims, they should never have come here.
I´m afraid, that refraining from drawing a clear line in the sand to muslim minorities, (btw as we would have towards any other group in society), will backfire imensely in the nearest future.

P.S. Sorry for my poor American geography, and yes it is kind of funny that MINNEAPOLIS has so many danish decendants.

Interesting that we're having a debate over a supposed religious issue, and no one has (yet) seemed to have bothered to check what the religion itself says about the issue: ie, IS it against Islam to transport alcohol? The answer seems to be yes. What does the Quran say about alcohol?



So, it would seem we do have a valid religious concern here. This changes the issue considerably, IMHO. This is not just an issue of "I don't like alcohol, so I don't want to transport it"...but involves whether or not one should be required to commit a sin when employed as a cab driver. That doesn't seem to jive very well with our supposed notion of religious freedom in this country. Further, making such an allowance doesn't seem to infringe much on one's ability to get a taxi. IF you have alcohol with you, and IF that first taxi you see is driven by a Muslim who doesn't wish to transport it, then you just get the next one. No big deal. I don't know why we should force someone to commit a sin when essentially it's a relatively minor problem to accomodate it.

You have reference a hadith, not the Quran. Nothing in the Quran prohibits the transport of alcohol.

Link.



I suppose you're right that, at this point, it might be easy to pick another cab (I don't usually use them so I wouldn't know). Here's a question for you: Could an airline pilot demand the same exemption (no alcohol on board his flight)? What's the difference other than scale?

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/CO....4.14.06_2final[1].pdf

Taxis are regulated. According to the city of chicago, "When you hail a cab, drivers cannot refuse service unless the "Not for Hire" sign is displayed." Admittedly the due process would be different if you were refused for being black or female vs. being in possession of a legal bottle of wine, but either way they have to take you. They also can't refuse you for your specifying a short trip, or a trip to a neighborhood that is inconvenient for the driver. Or for carrying alcohol, unless you have an illegal open container. As BoF noted, preventing drunk driving is one of the many benefits of taxis. Living in the city, I avail myself of this service at times


To be quite literal, what if he goes and stands in the soup line, and a person refuses to serve him soup on religious grounds - he's a Jew and the guy asks for shrimp or something? More seriously, I don't have to defend the "States Rights crowd" or the ADA, or the CVA or Christian pharmacists. I'm arguing against these taxi drivers in this situation.

You seem to take issue with my use of the word "discrimination" although I don't know what else to call a taxi driver discriminating against someone with a box of wine from Napa. It's NOT a matter of 'how they do their job' it's a matter of employees choosing to be taxi drivers, knowing that their governing authority mandates that taxi drivers may not arbitrarily refuse fares, and then doing so anyway.


What part of "congress shall make no law" would you say this falls into then?

I don't give a damn about their religious beliefs, taxis are public transport and not the same as a private business. If a Muslim shop doesn't want to stock pork, fine by me, but that's completely different. As Mrs. Pigpen noted, what about airline pilots? Could they refuse to fly to Las Vegas? New Orleans maybe? Lots going on down there to object to.

I'm pretty sure that gambling is forbidden in the Koran. Should we allow taxi drivers to refuse known gamblers or passengers who just arrived from Vegas? Or who have lottery tickets in their pockets?

edit - again, I'm no expert, but isn't charging interest against Muslim beliefs as well? Besides the issue of whether they can refuse to pick up a bank employee after work, I wonder whether those expensive taxi medallions are financed? The cabs themselves? These deep questions made me want to ask the imam.

Sounds like the imam is pretty lenient to folks working with stores selling haraam (forbidden) items. Merciful indeed.

Your link doesn’t work.


I haven’t denied taxis are regulated. I don’t think the fact that taxis must apply for licenses means my position is wrong. You seem to be saying state regulation makes them a—a what? A public business venture?

Minneapolis could, if it wants to, make it illegal for taxi drivers to refuse drunk passengers without addressing alcoholic containers.


You should be able to guess my answer. In this example, another ridiculous religious objection, it depends on whether the soup server and his boss have an understanding.


But precedent applies to Muslims refusing to carry passengers with alcohol. Licensing does not, by itself, amount to state endorsement. The definition of state action is not boundless. In Moose Lodge v. Irvin (1972) “Irvis challenged the club's refusal to serve him [based on his race], arguing that the action of the Pennsylvania liquor board issuing the Lodge a license made the club's discrimination ‘state action.’” SCOTUS “reasoned” that “all private associations that received electricity, water, and fire protection would be subject to state regulation”. Brennan dissented, saying “the State of Pennsylvania became an active participant in the operation of the Lodge bar” when “Moose Lodge obtained its liquor license”, but he was in the minority.

Are the taxis leased by the state to private companies? Are they headquartered on government property (as was the case in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority)? If the answer is no, then a policy allowing Muslim drivers to refuse people with alcohol is not subject to judicial review.

It could be subject to judicial review under the Equal Protection clause if the state, not the company, does not tolerate refusing passengers with alcoholic beverages. With the Court's composition today I think the state would lose.


Define arbitrary, Carlito. Is it arbitrary if the driver consistently refuses to board passengers with alcoholic beverages, or by arbitrary do you mean the possibility that Muslim taxi drivers could come up with more reasons why they can’t fulfill their contract as an employee? I can’t rule out the latter, but until then we're speculating.

We discriminate all the time. Sometimes with good reason. Sometimes we discriminate to justify our prejudices. However, if the discrimination isn't backed by state action and the discriminated don't have a civil rights case on their hands we're running in circles.

Wow, a lot of discussion. I always enjoy the threads that get me thinking about things in a new way or seeing sides I'd never considered.

I'm not sure I can meaningfully address the "legitimacy" of the belief that transporting alcohol is a sin. I'm not a scholar, can't weigh the Qua'ran against the Hadith is determining working religious beliefs so I've decided to assume the belief is sincere.

On the other hand, a sincere belief is not, in and of itself, a reason for not doing the job you're hired to do. To me it comes to down to the expectations set on the part of the Government and the cab company on the drivers and on what conditions (if any) they may refuse to take a passenger.

To be honest, I'm not sure deciding not to transport alcohol runs afoul of common carrier laws as there is (so far as I know) no type of person more likely to carry alcohol in a cab (that is, it's not as if you're saying we will carry any passenger wearing a yarmulke or single passengers in high heels, any fare to neighborhood X or a fare starting from a Catholic Church - thinly veiled means of excluding passengers based on belief, gender, race whatever). In this case, the driver is refusing to take anyone (even, one presumes, another Muslim ) who is carrying booze. It's not my belief and, to be honest, after a long flight I'd be pretty annoyed at having to wait for the next cab but the drivers have a right to fulfill the requirements of their religion up to the point it violates the law (which is why they couldn't refuse women, or Jewish folks, or guide dogs, or to service certain destinations, neighborhoods, etc). Of course, a clarification of the law may change my opinion on that. If it's really illegal for a taxi driver to refuse a fare for any reason, then that settles it.

Now, having said that, I think there is another group whose rights must also be accounted for here, owners of cab companies. To put it directly, if a cab company has a policy of taking everyone and that policy is made clear to new hires, then I think any driver not complying with that rule could be terminated. If your job is to drive anyone who can pay the fare anyplace within your territory and you are not willing to do that for whatever reason, it sounds like you're in the wrong line of work. I'd assume some companies would require all drivers to take anyone, others would be more accommodating to drivers desires (as much as is legal) and the market would decide (presumably, the more willing you are to drive folks, the more money you'll make, making it easier to pay the rent on your medallion, etc, etc).

So, to sum up my rather rambling answer:

If a taxi driver doesn't want to transport alcohol due to religious concerns, that is they're right HOWEVER that refusal should be grounds for dismissal if it violates company policy or local, state, federal law.

I believe this is just a semantical argument. One could certainly take the Hadith and construe it to mean that carrying alcohol is a sin, regardless of its inclusion in the Quran. An analogy might be if a preacher tells you something is cursed, even though the Bible had no specific mention of it. Either way, one could construe that act to be a sin.

From Wikipedia:



What does the Quran itself say that might lead to this interpretation?:

Al-Maidah, 5 / 90




Now, we could get into a lengthy discussion of this on religious interpretation grounds, but I think that goes beyond the scope of this debate. I do think the above does indeed indicate that followers of Islam can quite clearly believe transportation of alcohol to be a sin. Would you agree to that? If so, the question isn't whether or not it is against their religion, but whether or not cab drivers (in particular), or others (in general) should be required to perform acts they believe are against their religion as part of their job function. My answer is pragmatic: we should accomodate them to the degree that such accomodation doesn't drastically impact the system being served by that job function. I can see where others might not want to start making exceptions (as Carlitoswhey seems to be arguing), and still others might claim that religious freedom should almost always be given preference, regardless of practical implications. All of these are valid stances even if it is granted that this particular instance (transportation of alcohol in cabs) does indeed constitute infringement of religious freedom.



However, the discussion you link below does raise an interesting question, which might bring the fact that it is a hadith and not a direct statement of the Quran back into play.

On the flip side of this, which is more relevant to other discussions regarding Islam, there is indeed often a disjunction between what the Quran says, and what is often believed within the Islamic community--the treatment of women being a classic example.



It isn't completely clear from this whether or not carrying someone who is carrying alcohol constitutes a violation. IFor myself, it seems it would depend on whether or not they know they person has the alcohol--but that would be the case in all of situations where this becomes an issue.



Interesting...I was thinking of this exact same analogy when I made the above post. My answer would be no, with scale in fact being the difference. Whereas it is quite easy to get another cab, creating little disruption to the cab system or the people who use them, allowing airline pilots to make the same claim would throw the airline industry into turmoil. I guess they have an out though...ALL planes carry alcohol, so they could screen that as part of the hiring process. But, the taxi issue to me doesn't have a good answer to the 'So what?' question, whereas the airline example does.

You have to cut and paste it. It has a [1] in it, so the linky thing doesn't work. Don't bother, it's a 50 page PDF of regulation on chicago cabs.

Respectfully, on this issue I can't tell exactly what your position is. You started with "it depends" and seem to be focusing on employment law. I don't understand this view at all.
Sort of. It's a mode of public transportation. Like a bus or a train, except that you pay more in order to specify the pickup and dropoff points. I guess the closest legal transportation parallel would be a privately-administered tollway maybe. Subject to the same speed limit and traffic laws, but perhaps owned by a private entity.

May I be so libertarian as to ask - isn't it better for cabbies to do their job, rather than the government legislating yet another aspect of everyday life?


I hear you and those cases are all very relevant. Allow me to state unequivocally that I don't care about judicial review, due process, the ADA, FDA or CIA. The question was "should these cab drivers be forced to do their job" and I answer yes. If they go to court, God knows what the courts of Minnesota would find.

In the United States, it is legal to go to a liquor store, a bar, buy wine, be a banker, be an astrologist, be a psychic. None of these have special protection under civil rights laws, yet a Muslim cab driver could refuse you service on "religious" grounds. That Muslim cab driver was born in Somalia and moved here for a better life. I humbly suggest that he:

a) return to Somalia or find another nice Muslim country
b) fulfill his contract as a cab driver
c) seek other work

Pick any one of the above. All reasonable options. No one forced anyone to come here, or to be a taxi driver.

In terms of "religion" and being "arbitrary," at least one Muslim organization condemns the cab drivers for their stance. They also bring up some of the more reasons questions that I was "speculating" about. Which apparently wasn't speculating at all.


Perhaps I'm paranoid about "creeping sharia" but seeing 2 year old girls have their genitals mutilated in Georgia and Muslims keeping slaves in California and, here in Chicago, a teenager is forced to undergo "sensitivity training" from CAIR for jokingly touching a Muslim woman on her head. Given Islam's track record for oppressing freedom, I'm not terribly excited about Islamic law finding a foothold here in the states.

Ok, my turn this time I guess ...you're starting to convince me. Primarily if indeed it is true that most Muslims don't agree that this is an issue. So, you have a minority within a religion who has this problem. As you suggested above, then perhaps being a cab driver isn't a good occupation for them. I would also imagine that such cabbies could be restricted from going to locations where this would be likely to occur, such as the airport. I guess you never know when you might have a fare that is carrying a bottle of wine over to a friends for dinner, though.

I would further add, although I'm not sure how relevant this is the issue, that it is fairly common knowledge that some of the finest, most well stocked liquor cabinets on earth are in Saudi Arabia--just all consumed in private. That doesn't mean that there aren't others within the religion who might take such an issue a lot more seriously, but ...

Okay...


I don’t mean to come across as a jerk indifferent to possible “Islamification” of state and federal laws. If I had any say in a taxi company I’d fire anyone who refuses passengers for religious reasons. The accuracy of their claim, whether or not transporting alcohol is a sin, does not interest me.


Well, busses are city owned and operated, so that’s out. In the toll example you give new cities are unfortunately outsourcing city hall, but I think this example also falls under state and federal laws. The private companies administering government services on behalf of taxpayers and funded for by taxpayers ultimately have to answer to a government body.

I think Hobbes is correct when he brings up the scale factor. One person’s religious freedom doesn’t cancel everyone else’s right to travel. The government doesn’t have to take every aspect into consideration in order to deal with a problem, but it could enter dangerous territory if it attempts to regulate religious expression in the private sector.


Yes it is better, but I get the feeling that you support, or think, the government has a greater say in how the company operates based on the fact that cities issue or withhold licenses and that’s where I disagree. Not because I want to give one religion special consideration over other religions. On the contrary, I think it’s in our best interest to see a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination against a private employee by a private employer get smacked down in the courts and send a clear message. I don’t want to see what is happening in Europe happen here. I don’t want government to encroach on religious liberties in the private sector by regulating expression with speculative and overly broad, impermissibly content-based legislation against an Islamophobic backdrop encouraging state supreme courts to find for the government, only to have the same government make ridiculous concessions for the Muslim community, and possibly other religious groups if they try jumping on the bandwagon, after the law is struck down. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way extremists can win a “war”.


This is what worries me and this is why I think state and federal conscience clause laws are trouble. If you interfere in the private sector to create state/federal constitutional protections for one religious objection, why not protect other religious objections when the demographic changes?


These are legal choices but there is no such thing as an absolute right, enumerated or otherwise.


Well that’s good to hear. I don’t have anything to add to it.


The first two examples are no brainers. There's a federal statute banning FGM, and the 13th outlawed slavery. Creeping Sharia can't get around the supremacy clause in Article 6, Paragraph 2. One hundred and forty-one years after the Civil War Congress is still mostly male and mostly white, and I just can't see that drastically changing in another century.

I can’t comment on the CAIR case. I need to register. Can you cite the passage where the teenager is forced to attend?

I think that we agree on this. The 'islamification' problem in the US, while nowhere near that of Europe, lies when they have numbers. It ultimately will be a demographic shift that will drive these issues. In this case, some have argued that it's a question of scale. Well, more than half the cabbies at this airport are Muslim.

Taxis in Minny do answer to a government body. That's who came up with the genius "no alcohol in my cab" light idea.

I still don't see who is asking "the government" to do anything about this. The airport and the taxi companies are going to have to handle this based on public demand and probably some regulatory pressure. I don't think that it's not a constitutional issue.

I respectfully disagree, but thanks for putting it so clearly. Unfortunatlely, if the extremists have a level-headed person like you using silly rhetoric like "Islamophobic" then they have already won a battle in their "war." Which is, of course, the whole idea.
You see, the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist enabling organization. The MAS is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. the MAS, this June, issued a fatwa regarding the taxis carrying alcohol.


An interesting point indeed, as this is going to be driven entirely by demographics. Did you know that public schools in Denmark serve only halal meats?

Would it be xenophobic to ask that we more stricly limit immigration from Muslim nations in favor of Western and Christian nations, whose populations have more hope of integrating with our own?



I can. It seems that even after he apologized, the muslim woman was "still so angry" - go figure.

I will address this question based on the same reasoning as pharmicists that refuse abortificants in a pharmacy they own- because it is a quasi-goverment entity, and requires licensure, it should abide by the state rules and not be allowed to refuse business in regards to thier license. Pharmicists are allowed to be a "legal drug dealer" (as opposed to the cool dude down the street with lot's of traffic at his home at all hours and no visible means of support ) - and therefore, his very job is a created entity of the state- it is not private enterprise at most levels, except that they are allowed to make a profit on thier product. Same with cabs- if any person can line up thier car on a Friday night to earn some dough, as long as they have a drivers license and insurance, well then, refuse away- but as long as the entry is limited in this job to specific licensure- then, the Muslim cabbies have to abide by those rules, personal beliefs notwithstanding.

A quaker shouldn't go to work at Colt and expect not to have to build guns, a vegetarian by religious conviction can't close down the meat packing plant because they want a job there etc!

If Islamophobia wasn’t real right-wing articles telling us to vote Republican or die couldn’t sink fearful claws into anyone and no such articles would exist. There is Islamophobia as a political tool, and then there is Islamophobia as creeping Sharia. It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest judges will rule with the latter in mind in deference to public opinion only to have their judgment reversed for the right reasons, spurring CAIR into a reactionary campaign denouncing double standards, demanding and getting prosecutorial slack for Muslims, and continue putting off the reality that Muslims left the Mid East/Indo Asia behind. I won’t apologize for bringing up what in my opinion is a flawed approach entailing legislative action that can blowback in the judiciary because addressing problems with Islam to the exclusion of other faiths may seem like a good idea to Americans subscribing to a political philosophy I disagree agree with. We will not be able to get away with characterizing all Cuban immigrants as marielitos again. We have to be smarter this time, not tougher, and avoid having the rule of law used against us by disregarding it.

Ultimately Moose Lodge will be revisited in the Muslim context. I doubt SCOTUS will reverse itself, or stray too far from state action and agree with your view of government involvement in cab companies. We’ll just have to wait. But you made an assumption about Jews and now Islamophobia. Why? To paraphrase a friend, I’d personally have sex with another woman in Times Square standing on a stack of Korans if it dealt their psyches a blow by showing we will not sell our free speech rights short for their ego’s sake.


Yes I knew, and that’s an unwarranted accommodation for a government-run institution to provide, at least it is if I substitute my understanding of U.S. law for Denmark’s, which I’m not familiar with and less comfortable commenting on.

And no, it wouldn’t be xenophobic to ask as long as quotas don’t unfairly favor one group over another.

Ugh, battery. Well, there’s another possible judicial ruling.

Well, you will be surprised to learn that I respectfully disagree. I disagree with 'hate crime' laws, but they do provide useful statistics. Per-capita hate crimes are by far higher against Jews than they are against muslims, here in the land of CAIR. And this in a country where "random isolated incidents" of Muslims driving trucks into students or shooting synagogues is not even recorded as a hate crime. Western leaders have been doing backflips and assuring us that Islam is a religion of peace for 5 years running. The fear you cite is not of Muslims, but of terrorists, and that threat is obviously a real one.

I'm sure that you think I'm being a simpleton here, but I'm not looking down the road at potential litigation or the relevant case law. I just want the cabbies to pick up the passengers. Per the debate question, I'm happy with them being forced to do so economically.