Separate But Equal
By streiff Posted in Culture — Comments (149) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As many here an elsewhere have noted, it seems to be a characteristic of muslim communities in the West that they not only refuse to adapt to the norms of the cultures of the countries where they have immigrated but they insist that their religious beliefs receive special consideration, often on pain of death and injury as we have seen with Theo Van Gogh and the Muhammad cartoon kerfuffle.
In Ontario there was a demand that civil arbitration be conducted under shari’a. The Muslim community in Britain has demanded the closure of pubs because they are near mosques notwithstanding the pubs, in some cases, are centuries old.
Recently this tendency hit Minneapolis.
Read on.
It would seem that the muslim cabbies in Minneapolis were refusing to take fares who were carrying alcoholic beverages.
Mursal and hundreds of other Muslim cabdrivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport refuse to take fares they know are carrying alcohol. No one is searching bags, but a Napa Valley wine box or a see-through bag from the duty-free store can be enough to leave a fare waiting for the next cab. Airport officials estimate that happens at least three times a day.
Not content to shun those carrying adult beverages they have also been refusing service the transgendered, though Heaven knows how they found out. (In other places muslim cabbies have denied service to fares with seeing-eye dogs)
Generally speaking, cabbies don’t have the option of picking and choosing fares. As the holder of a public franchise they are required to provide a public service. The concept dates from the idea of non-discrimination in public accommodations. The whole “separate but equal” thing.
The Minneapolis Airports Commission had attempted to square the circle by allowing cabs driven by muslims who disapprove of alcohol to have a special light affixed to the top of their cab.
Now, the airport and cab drivers have worked out a proposal that calls for cabdrivers who won't carry alcohol to have a cab light that's a different color. That way, the airport workers who hook up travelers with taxis can steer alcohol-carrying fares to cabs that will take them. Airport officials hope to have the new lights ready by the end of the year.
The resulting publicity sparked a public outcry and the Airports Authority rescinded their decision.
The proposal created a public "backlash," says Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the commission. The commission received 400 e-mails and phone calls, almost all of them opposed to the proposal, he said.
On Tuesday, the commission rejected the proposal. That means the current policy stays. The policy says drivers who will not transport alcohol must go to the back of the taxi line.
That can force a cabbie to wait another three hours for a fare, says Abdisalam Hashim, a Muslim from Somalia who manages Bloomington Taxi.
While this decision was a step in the correct decision but the solution would have been to make serving all passengers a condition for working the airport cab rank. I hardly think the Airports Commission would have agreed to a special light to designate “no homosexuals,” or “no blacks” or “no women without veils and showing too much skin”. But it was a small if reluctant step back from dhimmitude.
"When I'm American, I have freedom to practice my religion and freedom to work anyplace I want to work," Hashim says. "This is the way we address Islam. ... We have the right to say this is how we do it."
It is this attitude that is most disturbing about muslim immigration to the United States. At the risk of sounding like a Know-Nothing or Pat Buchanan, but I repeat myself, we cannot accept the immigration of people who simply will neither assimilate nor ignore the greater culture.
When the Irish immigrated they did not try to establish a Gaeltacht in the areas where they settled. The Italians and Poles and Russians did not insist on elevating their civic institutions above those extant upon their arrival. In most cases, descendants of the immigrants arriving after the 1850s retain a sense of cultural heritage but are thoroughly American. We do not see that behavior in muslim immigrants.
We have the opportunity to prevent what we see happening in Britain, Germany, Canada, and Australia and we should take advantage of that opportunity.
Lest we think this was an incident of innocent, devout muslims being put upon by the infidel:
One driving force behind the move to accommodate the drivers' beliefs is the Minnesota Chapter of the Muslim American Society.
MAS was founded by U.S. members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which promotes the spread of Islamic influence through political parties and militant groups in the Middle East. MAS members say they do not promote violence.
Hassan Mohamud, vice president of MAS of Minnesota says the Airports Commission decision will not help customers or taxi drivers.
"More than half the taxi drivers are Muslim and ignoring the sensibilities of that community at the airport I think is not fair," he says.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | The Geraldo Rivera Gets Hit By A Chair Memorial Open Thread. — Comments (27) »
Separate But Equal 149 Comments (0 topical, 149 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I like the current rule. It allows cab drivers to choose who and what they will carry, and yet provides an incentive for them to carry everyone (that 3 hour wait is a big incentive). If their beliefs are really that strong, they'll ignore their economic welfare and go to the back of the line. More likely they'll start to ignore their "sensibilities" and start carrying all comers.
were it not for the nature of the public franchise granted to these drivers. They are granted an exclusinve right to pick up at the airports and in exchange for that protected franchise they sacrifice some freedom of choice about how they conduct business.
I'd agree with your argument if the commissions lift the exclusive franchise and lets anyone operate a public conveyance and pick up at the airports.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
and does anyone think we would be having this debate if it was Christian cabbies who were refusing passengers?
I think in general you either carry whoever needs carrying or you lose the fanchise to somebody else who will do so.
Said Christian Cabbies would have lost their franchises and been replaced.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Some bad logic there that could come back to haunt conservatives I think.
"..were it not for the nature of the public franchise granted to these drivers. They are granted an exclusive right to pick up at the airports and in exchange for that protected franchise they sacrifice some freedom of choice about how they conduct business."
I fully support pharmacists rights to refuse to dispense medicines such as "morning after" contraceptives based on a strongly held moral belief. Your standard could call that right into question as a pharmacists also has a public duty.
As a matter of personal conscensious, the Muslim taxi drivers can refuse to service those bearing booze, as long as they want to go to the back of the line. Pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives I think are required to offer assistance in finding other places for prescriptions to be filled, which I think is a good compromise. They also loose that business, fair enough.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Anybody with the qualifications can be a pharmacist. There is not some government body picking and choosing who gets to be one. If I wanted to be a cabbie or start a cab company, however, I'm out of luck... unless I have the right political connections. The marketplace for taxi transportation is purely USSR-style command and control. This has nothing in common with the marketplace on the pharmacy side, where there is plentiful competition and no barriers to entry. As a result, they don't operate under the same rules, nor should they.
There's also a difference between a medical professional, who has considerably leeway and responsibility in trying to protect their patients health, and a simple driver, who has none of that.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I was about to post that I thought the cabbies had every right to refuse to pick up whoever for whatever reason.
Now I'm confused. What is this command and control that cabbies are subject to? Is this nationally the case, or specifically in Minneapolis?
There is a small, constrained pool of permitted cab companies and they can only have a certain number of cabs. These levels are all set by the government. Their fares and rules are set by the government. They are really more an arm of the government than a private business.
In many countries anyone can offer their own taxi service without breaking the law. I don't know of anywhere in the US that is the case.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
In order to become a cabbie, you have to be licensed by the municipality and/or state, depending on the state you're in. Other than that, you obviously need a vehicle and insurance and anything else your state/municipality requires.
Cabbies DO have the right to carry whomever they desire or not carry whomever the dont desire. But, as in the case of the blind and transgendered previously mentioned, opens them to serious discrimination lawsuits as well as affecting the bottom line in more mundane manners.
ALSO, if these cabbies are causing a problem, the Airport Authority has every right and full power to yank that permit to operate at the airport and force them out into the rest of the city.
So, lots of ways to deal with the situation, and the AA has made the wrong move at every turn, it seems...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
I read your comment, with all these levels of government and Authorities, numerous requirements and regulations, and I just have to shake my head.
This is just not pleasant ground for a conservative to fight on, I think. If we weren't seeing a trend of Muslim immigrants here and elsewhere expecting carveouts of the law specially for them, I'd personally rather ignore this whole taxi matter.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Who drives a cab. Got my information from there. Bottom line is that these cabbies receieve their license to service the airport on the sufferance of the Airport Authority. If the AA thinks they're too much of a problem, they can yank those licenses in a heartbeat and foce them to find fares elsewhere...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
...is that the question of whether supplying over the counter abortificiants should be permitted has not yet been resolved in American culture. To put it mildly. Refusing commercial services to a class of people for any number of various arbitrary grounds has. We're against it. And, yes, there are more than enough people out there who don't think that the first question is a subset of the second for all of this to matter.
If anyone feels that he can't be a good cabbie and a good Muslim at the same time, he's more than welcome to pick one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Can someone refresh my memory as to the general Redstate consensus on this issue? This is an honest question, as I really don't remember.
Did you believe that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse the morning after pill even if their employers didn't want them to have the option of refusal? Or did you believe that pharacists should have the option of refusal only if employers gave it to them?
So, you're trying to play a gotcha game, but can't be bothered to a) come up with a specific person to yell Gotcha! at, or b) do your own research.
Or if I'm wrong, why else does a 'general Red State consensus' matter to anything?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I wouldn't call it a "gotcha" but I think the distinction is important as whether there is similarity between the pharmacist debate and this one. Maybe I'm not using the search correctly, but I couldn't any old discussions to come up.
My guess was that the consensus was that pharmacists should be able to refuse to give the morning after pill, even if their employers don't want them to have that option. But that was only a guess, so I didn't want to base any argument on it.
At least as far as I'm concerned. There is certainly a diversity of opinion on RS and I'm sure someone would agree with that statement, but I suspect they would be in the minority.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Well, that's why I asked.
If one is willing to say that the employer is able to dictate the terms of employment (that is, force his pharmacists to dispense morning after pill against their religious beliefs), then I feel that is consistent with the state forcing cabbies to pick up fares that go against their religious beliefs.
the pharmacist to take the job. Once taken, it is the employer's job, not the pharmacists'. Likewise, the cabbie.
In Vino Veritas
Pharmacists are not easy people to come by, and most pharmacies are more than willing to accommodate the consciences of their pharmacists, since in most cases those conscientious beliefs are so strong that the pharmacist will quit rather than dispense abortifacients.
So, the real issue is whether the government can force pharmacists to dispense abortifacients even when both the pharmacist and the pharmacy don't want to.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
we decided long ago in this country, to a degree we even fought a war over it, that places of public accomodation cannot refuse to serve a customer because of the customer's race, religion, etc.. And now we have government officials proposing rules that institutionalize the same behavior by a vendor?
How about gays? Muslims don't approve of gays; no gays in my cab. What about Jews? They really don't like Jews; no rabbis in my cab. What about seeing-eye dogs? Muslims don't approve of dogs; no unclean dogs in my cab. If you are a Catholic restaurant owner you can't tell a Muslim customer to come back nearer closing time.
These folks need to grasp that they are in America and we play by American rules, not sharia. Going to the end of the line is not sufficient; they need to carry the passenger or lose their hack license and find some line of work where they don't have to accomodate the public.
And I understand the argument about Pharamcists and I don't see it in the same light. Pharmacies do not have exclusive, government guaranteed, franchises in a particular neighborhood.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
of employment on accepting the job; do it the way the employer describes it, or find an employer with a different job description. Not analogous to a public accommodation.
In Vino Veritas
While I agree that this action is completely retarded on the part of the Muslims and the officials, I'd like to play devil's advocate and point out that nobody is getting discriminated against based on any physical characteristic or religious belief. If the people really want a cab ride they could, presumably, throw their alcohol in a garbage can and hop into the cab.
I don't know of any law that says you can't discriminate against someone based on whether or not they are carrying alcohol on their person.
In fact, in certain areas of the country (like PA until recently) it was impossible to buy hard liquor on Sunday. There was a state run monopoly on liquor sales, and those stores were closed on Sunday.
I just hope that you guys are so strongly indignent about Christian-inspired blue laws as you are about this Muslim idiocy.
What about the blind people that can't get a taxi because they have a seeing eye dog? They are being discriminated against because they are blind and need a seeing eye dog.
Sorry, you are correct about that. My point about alcohol and blue laws still stands, though.
As I said initially, I think that this is completely absurd.
I'd also like to point out that the seeing-eye-dog issue has nothing to do with what happenedd in Minneapolis. The Airports Authority never condoned cabs discriminating against blind people.
possession of alcohol is not illegal in this country so I fail to see where this poses a valid basis for their actions. They are taxi drivers, not keepers of the public morality --- which is what they are aiming at.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
I never said that it was illegal. I just pointed out that "person carrying alcohol" is not a protected category, as far as discrimination laws go, so comparying this to discrimination based on race or religion is spurious.
I would also point out that the morning after pill is not illegal in this country. Pharmacists are not keepers of the public morality.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
But I wouldn't pin them on Christians at this point. These laws have anti-competitive businesses as their biggest cheerleaders now. There was a proposal to enable car sales on Sundays here but car dealers fought it and took out ads opposing it. It never got passed. The same goes for restrictive liquor sales... these laws help the local liquor store and hurt the other players who sell or would like to sell alcohol.
In any case, there would be no problem if there was a Minnesota state law that you cannot take alcohol into a cab. The problem is cabbies substituting their own judgment for the rules they are supposed to follow. Rules they agree to follow by performing their government regulated job.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
pharmacists are licensed professionals. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc have historically had the right to choose their clients except when the rules of their profession demand they treat the indigent, take pro bono cases, etc.
A bus driver can't refuse to pick you up if they pick up the general public. A restaurant can't refuse service.
What is the philosophical/legal/whatever basis for giving doctors, lawyers, etc, the right to choose their clients, and not giving the same right to other types of service providers?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
if you have trouble telling the difference between a doctor or lawyer and a hack driver of hotelier I really can't help you out very much
I can't see where one can be called a Public Service provider and the other can't be. You'll have to enlighten me as well as to why one group is allowed to pick and choose their customers and the other is not.
Matter of fact, there's more reason to force doctors to see all patients than there is to force cabbies to carry all fares...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
this makes me feel like standing in front of the cab line and handing out bottles of booze to anyone getting a taxi.
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
That the 3 hour wait is gone with these new lights. Now they'll have to spend the 50 bucks one time or whatever to get the different colored light. And when there are no cabs with the right colored light? I guess you are just out of luck if you are carrying alcohol, gay, jewish, having a seeing eye dog, aren't wearing a burkah, or are wearing a pro-Bush T-Shirt.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
You know, I like the idea of the different colored lights if the passenger also has the right to refuse the cab and make them go to the back of the line because they dont like the driver.
had an ounce of non-moonbat sense they would pull the hack license of anyone who refuses a passenger. There are times when issues cry out for confrontation; some Minneapolis taxi driver should force the confrontatione a point by refusing to carry a black man or a pregnant woman or a minister. Lets see how the commission deals with that. Lets see how the ACLU responds. Lets find out.
I'm willing to bet I already know the answer, and it smells like a very lucrative lawsuit to me.
This has to stop mow before it gets out of hand.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
.. and I agree on the dangers of this. I hope the market will take care of this.
I wonder, though: These cabbies presumably are using religion as an excuse to not perform duties for which they are licensed, and which, as you point out, involves a public service. How does this differ from licensed pharmacists who, because of religious convictions, refuse to fill certain prescriptions? While I disagree with the decision these pharamacists have made, I find it hard to condemn them, because they are, after all, following deeply held and genuine beliefs.
In any case, great post, though I think you skim over the cultural battles of immigrant groups. For instance, Protestants didn't much like how German Catholics would drink on the Sabbath, and this caused huge political and cultural battles, at least in the city where I now live.
under any circumstances they want to.
A cab has a public franchise, and from what I understand (somebody may know better) the number of franchises is limited-as in you can't just put a "cab" sign on your car and pick up passengers at the airport and collect the fares.
And in some cases, the state does too, and you have to provide for all requirements of that license before you can put the "Taxi" sticker on your hoopdie...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
The comment about pharmacists is addressed above, I think we can all see there is a difference between their circumstances.
As to your latter comment, it may or may not be true, but unless the German Catholics were making people drink on Sunday to honor their beliefs I don't see the point.
The fact is that while some groups of immigrants have been slow to assimilate, it is difficult - I would say impossible - to find groups who demand that the larger society not only allow but adhere to their beliefs. The closest you would come would be Orthodox populations in Crown Heights, Kiryas Joel, etc. but even they do not demand that everyone else not drive on the Sabbath.
which is a rare occurance. Being muslim gains a person no more special rights than are in the Constitution. Muslims are allowed to believe in Islam in America... but America should not and will not change to accomodate those beliefs.
it can never end with that. Muslims historically will always claim special rights and privileges and try to force their culture on others. They have to be dealt with harshly in no uncertain terms, and told not to even try to impose their will on us. We have to put the legal smack down on them.
specifically on them, so they get the message that we are not going to bend over and take it like the Europeans.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
to indicate it doesn't serve Blacks? Yeah right! I'd like to see how the good liberal folk in MN would react to that, and I await somebody showing me the difference in Constitutional terms.
In Vino Veritas
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Was withdrawn after public outcry of just that variety, as prevous comments above pointed out...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
...what several others have said, but with a more direct take on the issue.
It's certainly interesting to compare this to the case of the pharmacists, and analyze the public-service franchise aspects, and point out how similar discrimination against blacks or gays would immediately be condemned.
But the bottom line is that we have a group of people who want to transform our social norms to be more congenial to them. Even worse, they want to change our norms because they think our existing ones are evil.
There are only two ways to respond to this. One way is an emphatic, forceful and uncompromising "NO." All other responses, including fine-grained parsing of laws and precedents, are effectively forms of "Yes." I say this because those who would change our way of life believe with all their hearts that they are doing God's work, and with conviction like that comes implacable strength and endurance. We can't change their minds with logic or laws.
And we are the ones who are responsible to say "NO" to the Muslim colonizers (for that is what they are). Not the Minneapolis airport commission. This is a moral struggle, and we simply can't rely on elected officials and bureaucrats to do the right thing. Britain has shown us the wrong way to approach this: let's learn from their mistakes.
We can't bring in any laborers from Mexico legally, but we have no problem bringing in Muslims from dysfunctional holes in the ground like Somalia, legally and en masse, through the asylum process. Since we going to be involved in a war with Islamofascism for the foreseeable future, that seems like an incredibly dumb idea.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Now architecture inflames Muslims.
A Muslim group says the Fifth Avenue store is an insult because it resembles an Islamic holy structure, but an Apple spokesman says no resemblance was intended and the company has never referred to the site as "Mecca."
The cube-shaped entrance to the underground store resembles the sacred Ka'ba in Mecca and is therefore blasphemous.
Good grief. I thought it just looked stupid. Like somebody built an outhouse in front of the GM building and forgot to finish the walls.
I will never be able to walk by that store again without chortling.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Again, I'm going to agree that this is stupid, but play devil's advocate.
When Christians fight so hard to have their symbolism enshrined in government ("under god" in pledge, crosses in parks, 10 commandments in courthouses) is it so surprising that other religions also try and throw their weight around? Call me an evil, monstrous secularist, but maybe the way to keep Muslims from attempting to change policy based on their religious beliefs is to get everyone to stop attempting to change policy based on their religious beliefs.
no cigar because the Muslim taxi drivers don't like them.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Both Christians and Muslims attempt to get their religious idiosynchrisies recognized by government.
but certainly sophistic.
The difference is that Christians are trying to keep their symbols from being eradicated. On the other hand, we see our children participating in notional muslim pilgramages and having to recite the muslim profession of faith in California high schools. We see prayer rooms set aside in public schools for muslims yet there is not a chapel in sight.
So I think your comment is just silly.
I'm not sure that I see the difference between one religion trying to keep their symbolism in government and another religion attempting to get their symbolism in government.
I will agree with you wholeheartedly that Muslim kids shouldn't be getting special religious accomodations in public schools and that the Koran, if studied at all, should be treated only as a historical-mythological document.
you said:
keep/get "symbolism" "in" government
The sentence in which you employ the above is meaningless.
Could you be more specific after you answer these well-structured questions:
1-Do you consider all religions equally constructive or destructive opiates for the unwashed masses?
2-Do you favor Liberty, ie government by the consent of the governed or judicial oligarchs?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Wow, I guess that by "well-structured" you mean "loaded". Seriously, "judicial oligarchs"?
1 - Of course not. But the specific item we are discussing here (cabbies refusing fares based on whether they are carrying alcohol) is hardly "destructive". I'll readily grant you that it is stupid, but it isn't destructive.
2 - Well, what I actually prefer is to have laws enacted through joint effort of the executive and legislative branches, with the judicial branch having the option of nullifying said laws if they appear to violate the tenets of the Constitution.
My point, which I think I've articulated several times is that Christians getting 10 Commandments in courthouses = Good, Christian pharmacists not giving out morning after pill = Good, Christians not allow gay people to adopt = Good, Muslims not accepting cab fares that are carrying alcohol = Bad. At least accoring to most posters here. I'm just not seeing the logic.
good vs. bad. First of all, my main point was that WE THE PEOPLE govern ourselves rather than having judges govern us. More specifically, that judges not mis-interpret the Firts amendment or the 14th to make law they think is good.
We the People get to decide what laws are good and bad, usually by majority vote.
Cabbies must obey current law, but I can think of many non-religious reasons for not requiring cabbies to transport alcohol. But they must seek to change the law thru free speech and persuasion of a majority of voters.
Much like was done when courthouses were decorated by still life prints of bowls or fruit, Zeus on Mt olympus or the 10 commandments. None of which violate the constitution.
Free speech. Then vote.
Logically, I don't think we do disagree.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Logically, yes, we probably agree. Philosophically, though, we almost certainly do not. But that is what makes things interesting.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
"When Christians fight so hard to have their symbolism enshrined in government ("under god" in pledge, crosses in parks, 10 commandments in courthouses)..."
There's a difference between properly stopping government from creating a state church, and forcing government workers to remove every reference to religion, no matter how tenuous.
"get everyone to stop attempting to change policy based on their religious beliefs."
So all religious believers should shut up and let the secularists decide everything? Doesn't sound too appealing.
I prefer the Constitution's approach: You can believe anything you want, and even act on it, providing you don't use the government to promote one church over another.
I believe that principle is why was so offensive. Muslims were being offered an out that nobody believes a Christian, Jew, or atheist would have been given, if he also decided not to serve alcohol-carriers.
The right to practice our religion should not be infringed. But that doesn't include signing up to do a job, and then refusing to do important parts of it.
religious and secular displays since before 1776, none of which established a church under the 1st amendment. I don't want to stop Muslims from exercising free speech and trying to get laws changed. I just want to defeat their attempts at same that I disagree with and which undermine the judeo-christian values upon which this country was built.
Now if we could just get the academic, legal and dem party power elite to stop undermining our values, we would really have done something.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
just drive through Alabama on their way to Florida. Just try to attribute theological origins accurately and your posts will have much more credibility with the more educated readers.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
If every cube ever in existance is going to offend them, then they'd better ban salt.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Knowing what I do about Apple's Execs, I think the Muslims are right in this case. I think Apple really IS trying to insult them.
That building alone makes me reconsider my devotion to Apple's competitors...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
I agree with Kyle and Steele above that we have to be firm on this one. If they refuse to follow the taxi rules of taking all comers, then their cab licenses have to be revoked. One warning, and then out.
Of course on a more general level this is but another example of the culture clash with radical islam that we see daily going on in Europe. Laws need to be enacted so that radical islamists are denied entry into the US and those already here are legally deported. I define a radical islamist as anyone who supports jihad attacks either here or around the world or anyone who seeks to impose sharia law among the islamic population of the host country. I don't know if all the Muslim cab drivers in this case can be defined as radical islamists. But this should be taken most seriosly, IMHO.
Allow Muslim cabbies to carry only practicing Muslims. Set up a separate (but equal) line for them. Of course you'd probably need one line for Shia and one for Sunni, but what the heck.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
They could move that line to Mogadishu International and deport them.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
We are talking about cabbies (primarily aslyum cases from Somalia) who refuse to pick up certain passengers. We should encourage them to return to Mog and discriminate as much as they like in who they pick up.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
It was a little vague. Glad to clear it up though, thanks!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Refusing to pick up the wrong person in Mog might very well earn you a few hundred brand new 7.62mm holes in you cab.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
But at least they won't be carrying wine in a box, no siree!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The trite and banal comments are much better than any of the feeble attempts to deconstruct this story.
This is the most I have laughed all week.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
If we let them get away with not picking up certain fares, then what is next? Do we let them work on a hog farm, because they have the right to work anywhere they want, and allow them to stay at home and get paid because they can not be around pigs? We need to stop preferential treatment now before we have to carry a handbook around so we can treat people appropriately.
If the requirements for your job are clear and your faith will not permit you to meet them, find a new job! I don't care whether it's working in a non-kosher deli, or at a pharmacy, or driving a cab -- you don't have a right to alter the job description to meet your desires.
If the employer wants to make reasonable attempts to accomodate your faith, that's fine by me, to a point. But I would think that's up to the employer, not the employee.
(An odd side note: this goes for politicians who are anti-death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal as well. They don't have the right to veto executions based on their personal beliefs.)
"When I'm American, I have freedom to practice my religion and freedom to work anyplace I want to work," Hashim says. "This is the way we address Islam. ... We have the right to say this is how we do it."
Frankly, I think he's right - if self employed - he should be able to get a cab and go work it.
Of course, that may not be what he means?
I'm sure he's looking for special Muslim exemptions to the laws the rest of us follow.
If we're going to have regulations, we can't carve out Muslim exemptions. Either license cabbies and require them to take all fares, or end the whole regulatory mess and let it be a free market, I say.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
to let the free market say that if one is a white supremacist cabbie, one can put "White Only" on the side of your cab? Same question.
In Vino Veritas
Right now, there is a limited market for cabs, and if users are rejected by licensed ones, they have NO ALTERNATIVE. If the market opened up, well, then there will be competitors ready to pounce.
But yeah, I'm not a big fan of all parts of the Civil Rights Act, so I'm all in favor of letting idiots be idiots with their own business, as long as they aren't being given government-guaranteed market power.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
...that a black man has a very difficult time getting a cab in NYC and other urban areas?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
...in NYC the answer is yes. Even a black man wearing a suit and tie will have trouble getting a cab to stop. But since essentially every NYC cabbie is a non-English-speaking immigrant (preponderantly Pakistanis, French-speaking Africans, and Eastern Europeans), are you prepared to say they are racists? (The cabbies who wear turbans often have big stickers in the cab with American flags, and the statement "I am a Sikh, not a Muslim.")
I think the issue is that the cabbies don't want to leave midtown at rush hour (because they will have to deadhead back), and their (prejudicial) assumption is that a black man wants to go uptown or to Brooklyn. Of course it's illegal to refuse a fare (and the TLC ferociously enforces this reg), so if you're black the cabbie just "doesn't see you." I'm a person of pallor, so they stop for me, but I gave up long ago on trying to get a cabbie to take me to Queens at rush hour. He's not allowed to refuse, so he simply folds his hands, bows his head, and says nothing until I leave the cab.
They are cab drivers operating under a government franchise in a controlled market. We grant them an exclusive privilege in exchange for which they must provide carriage for anyone that shows up. If they don't like driving for someone with alcohol then they can go find some other occupation where they don't have to be faced with that disgusting problem.
But the most important factor is that they are simply not allowed to make their own rules in that trade. If they can refuse someone with alcohol the next argument will be that their religion forbids associating with homosexuals or Jews or whatever. What do we telll the gays or Jews? Take the next cab, don't want to offend the Muslims.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
That is certainly going to be the case if you are trying to hail a cab anywhere outside the airport anywhere outside of a city like NYC or London. They are somewhat rare and you are lucky if you happen upon one. Even if there is a line of 5 cabs, what if all of them won't take you because you have a seeing eye dog or because you are a jew or for some other reason?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
We had that debate in Virginia a few years back when the KKK wanted to "Adopt a Highway"
The final decision was "Yes, they can do it. And they can either wear their hoods while cleaning and take the chance, or go without and let veryone know who they are..."
I am all for restaurants putting signs in the window that say Whites/Blacks/terrorists only. I don't think they'll stay in business long, but they should be free to do it.
And that goes for ANY business out there.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
So long as who gets to do what is limited by a government agency, they should not be allowed to turn away any paying customer
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
but he is part of a system of public accomodation. He can change jobs, free country, he can drive a taxi in some part of town where there are no liquor stores, free country. He cannot dictate the terms under which he provides public accomodation outside of those already established in the law; he must provide service to blacks, Jews, homosexuals, seeing-eye dogs, etc. If he can refuse to serve someone carrying alcohol he can refuse to provide service to a guide dog and that is simply unacceptable. He doesn't like the rules? There are airplanes leaving the country every day.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
as much as you, and maybe I, would like it to be.
He is issued a license by Minneapolis to carry passengers, his ability to keep that license depends upon following the rules. He no more has the right to choose his passengers than he has a right, as a self-employed person, to drive without insurance.
Once we decided that one could not discriminate by race in the use of one's private property in public accomodations of sufficient size and in employment in businesses of sufficient size, and in many other uses of private property, this issue has been settled, as pertains to race.
But this isn't race. And I am not sure that I would favor forcing a cabbie to haul alcohol. GC needs to think...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
just like race and gender. So my religion, the Church of Chivas Regal, encourages alcohol, yours doesn't allow alcohol at all; you can't discriminate in your public accommodation. I'm not arguing the right and wrong of the issue or the 64 Civil Rights law, I'm just arguing the IS of the law.
In Vino Veritas
even if he has only one employee and that he can't refuse service to one that does something against his religion? There is no allowing for the cabbie's religious sensibilities?
I also suspect this is the law, but I have handled cases years ago that I found exceptions for very small businesses. I am not familiar with taxi licenses.
I also want to make clear that I do not favor general religious exceptions in the law, esp via judges!
Blue laws come to mind, which were supported and opposed for religious, BUT also non-religious grounds.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
and regulated by the government, he is a governmental actor. Even if you can find a crack in the civil rights laws that might let a sole proprietor cabbie discriminate, don't think you can, you can't find one that would let a governmental actor discriminate.
Were I were some avaricious, ambulance chasing plaintiffs' attorney, I'd argue that since the cabbie was an agent of the government, he's no different from a "Southern Sheriff" and bring a Section 1983 action against him. Sound like fun?
In Vino Veritas
But, I was thinking more along the lines of transporting alcohol and arguments about the dangers of the substance, but without a jury I un-picked, I'll defer to achance I would lose!
Foreced to also say that our system is made stronger by responsible trial lawyers!
btw guy, you aren't a lawyer, are you, yet you know the law better than me! but gimmee the 12 and i'll...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
if you can read and remember. Those Sunday School teachers who made me memorize Bible verses are the best thing that ever happened to me; if all else failed, "Jesus Wept."
The World was a better place when if a young man had established himself as having a certain acumen, he might be engaged to clerk and "read law" with some attorney. After he'd done that for a while, he might be invited to appear before "the bar," and should he satisfy them, he joined "the brotherhood."
I was born in the same year and about fifty miles from Clarence Thomas. Had someone paid my way to the Ivy League, you'd be addressing me as "Mr. Justice." I had to do it the "White Trash" way. No regrets, no real bitterness beyond that of any Southerner who understood that a Southern accent meant you had to twice as good to be though half as much of. Or should that be, to be thought of twice as much - I never really got Yankee English. Besides, I got to hire, fire, and evaluate lots of lawyers with better pedigrees than mine.
In Vino Veritas
smile
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Doesn't that make for a pretty wide sweep? I think tons of businesses and professions are licensed and regulated by government. Does that make them all government actors?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Aren't just licensed. They are every bit as regulated as public utilities. Would it be all right for a electric company to start disconnecting service for people they didn't like?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
If I could figure out a way to get real competition into that industry...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
If a hotel is considered a public accomodation even though it is privately owned, then so is a cab. Cab quantity is limited by the state, which then grants a license to engage in the activity. It only gives a limited number of such licenses. In NYC, one who drives a car for a livery company (you know, a limo service), can be fined (or even lose his livery license) if he picks up fares off the street. Only yellow cabs can pick up hailed fares.
There is no room for "religious sensibilities" unless there is room for all such "sensibilities." That would mean that an Orthodox Jewish cabbie could refuse to carry anybody that would cause him to become ritually unclean (as in those carrying non-kosher items or even a woman having her period). We let a conservative Christian refuse a gay couple because he considers them sinners. Then we get into the question of what is a religious sensibility. Since we can't have the state determining what is a "valid" religion or what are "valid" sensibilties, you would in effect allow an exception to any cabbie that claimed his religious beliefs precluded him from carrying certain fares.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
God, I love the free market!
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
...after all the legal issues have been clarified and agreed upon, how do you deal with a guy who doesn't assent to our laws in the first place?
The Muslim cabbie intends to follow what he accepts as God's law, and he looks on the laws that bind the rest of us as beneath his contempt, and in no way binding on him. And this is completely regardless of the fact that he may be seeking or may indeed have obtained US citizenship.
BHedd, I hope you read the Pope's "reason" speech and some of the better commentary. If you would like, I can get together my links to the best of same. I thought it was a brilliant reaching out to the secularists he means to convert in Europe with no holds barred against any religion that would seek conversion at the point of a sword. Imagine, a reasonable God, Creator of an ordered universe, and a culture based upon same combined with Greeks that raises up reasonable men that wish to settle differences non-violently.
God bless
and
LETS GO METS!!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Benedict is turning out to be a very interesting guy. There's no comparison to John Paul, who will be a Saint, but a great many people including myself will be refreshed by Benedict's upholding of the basic idea that religion calls us to change rather than seeks to market to us, as everything else does in our world.
A few months ago, Benedict also wrote (or ghost-wrote, I'm not sure) an article that was excerpted in First Things, about the history of the peoples of Europe and the Near East, a 3000-year perspective that long predates the rise of nation-states. Awesomely perceptive.
Part of what Benedict was saying in that speech at Regensburg was that our understanding of Reason is not the same as God's, and part of our problem is that we insist on seeing His world through our eyes. We don't yet have all the information, even though we think we do. I like to imagine what it was like to be a physicist around 1890. They thought they had an essentially complete understanding of the world, and then along comes radioactivity, relativity, and everything else. They had no idea in 1890 that their understanding of the world was so incredibly incomplete. The same is probably true about us today.
But about this minor little spat in Minneapolis: as far as radical Islam is concerned, I've become very concerned that we will need to combat it on our own soil. As always, the aggressor sets the tone and chooses the weapons. Therefore, we'll need to fight against him with means that are exceedingly distasteful to a nation that is committed to laws and tolerance. Radical Islam doesn't accept our laws or tolerate our tolerance: it rejects the very fabric of our society.
As always with Western nations, our distaste for the struggle will keep us from engaging it until it's too late to keep it small. The very worst part of it is that, as in Britain (and as in 1861 America), we'll be struggling against people whom we like: our friends, colleagues, even family members. And many of them will be natural-born American citizens.
And as in 1861, the outcome is not foreordained.
Assuming that the robber holds robbery laws in contempt.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
He can go follow his higher law in the unemployment line, and his former company can pay a nice stiff fine. If that invalidates his visa, he can have a free economy class airfare back to his country of origin.
...you're assuming that our valiant public servants will have the cojones to actually enforce our laws and regulations. Our culture and popular opinions are driven by images on television. Our laws and regulations are easy to nullify, simply by protesting loudly enough.
You might respond: "heck, if I saw a bunch of Muslim cabbies protesting and then saw CAIR and the chin-stroking liberals on TV telling me that the cabbies are right, I'll reach for my guns!" I submit to you that you may feel that way but you probably won't do anything about it.
The people who are in position to do something about it, the bureaucrats and elected officials, depend for their continued power on keeping their press friendly, not on doing what the American people demonstrably want done. The whole immigration mess has taught us that lesson. None of this will change unless We, the people do something dramatic to change it.
There was a big outcry here a few months ago when, oh I think it was Massachusetts, attempted to force a Catholic adoption agency to place children in gay households.
So, should the government be able to force semi-private entities (the adoption agency got a lot of their funding from the government) to act against their religious beliefs if those beliefs have a negative impact on the ability of the citizens to take advantage of the services on the entity? The gay adoption case seems to indicate that government should not be able to do so, but the comments in this thread seems to indicate that it should.
But the government is certainly free to make its funding contingent on acting in a certain manner or providing a certain service, should the people's representatives see fit to do so.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why are these issue different? In both cases, you have government entities attempting to use some kind of "persuasion" to force a semi-private entity (in one case, due to licensing, in the other, due to funding) to act against their religious beliefs when those religious beliefs impair the ability of the public to take advantage of the services of the entity.
I respect that you have a consistent opinion on these matters, but most opinions on the Catholic adoption case were diametrically opposed to most opinions here.
There's no such thing as a semi-private entity. If you take government funds or licenses, expect to pay for them in government control.
I know my church synod has had no end of trouble over its radio station license. The station doesn't meet racial quotas. It matters little that we're incredibly unlikely to do so, considering our membership is dominated by descendants of German refugees. We still have to go through a huge song-and-dance number every renewal period.
There's a legitimate public policy question here. What shall the goverment demand of its clients? I think trying to force adoption agencies not to discriminate against gay couples was a bad idea. But no one can sensibly deny the government has a right to withdraw its money and license when it's not satisfied.
Of course, that's a great argument for keeping government out of as much as possible. The more interference, the less freedom.
the objective of adoption is to place a child in a family. A family consists of a married man and woman. Each circle farther from that objective you move, the less you are able to move an already injured child into a stable environment where he can live as close a life to normal as possible.
And don't go anywhere near that "gay marriage" chimera created by judicial fiat in a court that has lost touch with the meaning of plain English words.
All of my points have been said in various posts in this thread pretty much but I would like to put them together.
I find nothing wrong with the cabbies ATTEMPTING to change their environments to suit their religous beliefs. However they should accept the consequences of those attempts.
Since they are providing a public service they must adhere to our anti-discrimination laws. If they don't want adhere to those laws they should start a tee-totalers limo service. Advertise it in the Yellow Pages and have those who would prefer a limo not sullied with the stench of alcohol, use your service.
The city should not bow to this sort of pressure though. The laws are the laws and it doesn't matter whether you approve of your patron's lifestyle or not. Either perform the service you have agreed to perform by obtaining a city dispensed license or find a new line of work.
I don't think this is part of any nefarious Muslim secret agenda to take over our way of life. It's how people have operated in this country since its beginning. The only difference here is that their way of life is considerably different than ours so we notice it more.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...one of the ways to respond to this issue. Paraphrasing you:
1) Our laws are what they are, and everyone has to obey them.
2) Muslims don't challenge point 1. They are not threatening, just different.
This is a bright, sunny, and optimistic way to view the world, full of faith in the stability of our social order and in the general acceptance of it on the part of essentially everyone who lives here. To a degree, I envy you your certainties. I do have a question for you (to which I don't wish a public answer, since the only answer you could reasonably give would be "I'm not.")
What will you do if it turns out that you're wrong?
regarding cabbies versus pharmicists.
As has been repeatedly noted above, hack licenses are limited grants of commercial authority by the state. Once the quota is filled, no more licenses are issued until someone surrenders one, or the quota is raised.
Pharmacists are also licensed, but without numerical limits on their number, so the state is not limiting the market's supply. If an independent pharmacist chooses not to dispense specific non-prescription medicines, that's his choice.
If the pharmacist works for a chain, though, his conscience or beliefs are not necessarily accomodated. It's up to the employer to set policy and up to the employee to follow policy or work elsewhere.
Those who find excuses for the Muslim cabbies who wish to redefine the rules under their religion will adapt quite well to dhimmitude.
Does anyone else feel sickened or saddened by the lack of orthodox conservative/republican/free-market/capitalist thought in this thread?
I should be free to refuse to engage in business with anyone I choose. I should be free to engage in business with anyone I choose. Anyone should be free to engage in business with me or to refuse to do so for any reason whatsoever.
If I want to drive my car to the airport and offer a ride to someone in exchange for money, why should the government be involved in that? If I choose not to offer a ride to a person or class of persons, what business is it of the state?
I should be free of government compulsion to sell medicine that I choose not to sell.
I should be free to offer my labor to an employer in exchange for money. The arrangement is mutually beneficial to us both. Either of us should be free to terminate the arrangement at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.
Does anyone really want to argue that a citizen has a constitutional right to a cab ride, or medicine, or a job, or someone else's labor?
Give me a break. This whole situation takes massive government intrusion into this market as a GIVEN.
Talk about ENDING the taxi regulations, and I bet you'll get a whole lot of agreement with that. But the question here is that, given the existing rules, do we want to carve out special Muslim exceptions?
I don't think it makes me a pinko socialist to say NO.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
of suspected pinko socialists.
I take goverment interference in business as an anti-constitutional evil that should be reversed.
Even given the current state of government regulation of the livery industry. I think the government should take no action at all in this situation.
If a muslim doesn't want to give me a ride, I couldn't care less. I will gladly give my cab fare to someone else. His disincentives should be financial, not legal.
Besides, why would I want to strap myself into three thousand pounds of steel propelled at high velocity by the combustion of flamable liquid with a muslim who believes that he will be rewarded in paradise with seventy-two virgins for killing me?
What does the US Constitution have to do with the City of Minneapolis?
I guess if it makes one socialist to favor federalism, then I'm a socialist.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
As Neil was trying to point out.
The argument is not whether there Should be regulation in this field (which is the argument you are making and the one in which you already have a great deal of agreement on).
The argument is that there IS regulation in this field and what should be done with/to those who wish to Violate said regulation.
Get into the right argument and you'll appear smarter. Continue to argue the wrong argument, and you'll just appear stupid to the point that no one will argue with you.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
confusion on your part as to what constitutes "orthodox conservative/free market" views and what constitutes libertarian hogwash.
Let me help out a bit
I should be free to refuse to engage in business with anyone I choose. I should be free to engage in business with anyone I choose. Anyone should be free to engage in business with me or to refuse to do so for any reason whatsoever.
It has been some decades since we left the Jim Crow era behind. Generally, if you do business with the public you have to do business with the whole public. That's why banks and insurance companies can't "red line" areas. It is more important that this is the case when your chosen line of work happens to be as a licensee in a government monopoly because your decision to not serve a particular person is a violation of the terms under which that license is held.
You may not like that position, but monopoly franchises have been granted by the US government and state governments since the founding of the republic. Turnpikes, canals, railroads, telegraph, telephone, electric power, Indian agencies, the growing of tobacco, have their roots in government monopolies.
If I want to drive my car to the airport and offer a ride to someone in exchange for money, why should the government be involved in that? If I choose not to offer a ride to a person or class of persons, what business is it of the state?
See points above. You are confusing libertarianism with conservatism. I, for one, like the idea that when I hop in a cab the driver is licensed, that he's insured, that the car is safe (in most cities anyway), that the fares have to be publicly posted, etc.
You are free to set up a business that chauffeurs people you like and approve of about, but you simply can't do so with a cab medallion. And airports, rail terminals, etc., have the right to keep you from picking up passengers on their property.
I should be free of government compulsion to sell medicine that I choose not to sell.
I wasn't aware that any pharmacy had to stock medicine it did not wish to sell. Where does this happen?
I should be free to offer my labor to an employer in exchange for money. The arrangement is mutually beneficial to us both. Either of us should be free to terminate the arrangement at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.
I don't think anything in the article or story questions this. But as an aside, that concept does not apply in union shop states and hasn't for about 70 years.
Does anyone really want to argue that a citizen has a constitutional right to a cab ride, or medicine, or a job, or someone else's labor?
Yes. Gideon v. Wainwright pretty much established the idea that an indigent defendant has the right to legal representation and most, if not all, state bars make the providing of pro bono representation. Indigents showing up at an emergency room have a right to the doctor's labor.
I don't know that anyone is arguing someone has a constitutional right to a job but I suspect someone somewhere is.
but I think you are making my argument for me.
All of the things that you cite above (union shops, court decisions, regulatory poliies) are liberal/democrat ideas.
I give much more credence to principles enshrined in our founding documents than I do to wrongheaded court opinions or statutes enacted by liberal congresses.
But a more thorough understanding of American History shows me that it was never like that. There was no time in our nation's past when we had no government intrusion in the marketplace.
Now there was a time from 1865 to about 1892 when corporations and government conspired together to allow companies the maximum prices with the minimum social liability, responsibility,and competition, but we long ago decided that was not a good thing.
As for doing business with whom you want to. I have some sympathy for that position. But as Streiff points out, if a business has a license for a particular service it must comply with those regulations pursuant to that license.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
to cover their faces like bank robbers.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Read the Bruce Bawer book "While Europe Slept."
These Muslims are getting laws passed in Paris outlawing nude and topless sunbathing. They are pushing to re-legalize marijuana throughout the Netherlands. And they are throwing stones, tomatos and otherwise harrassing Gays in the streets of Amsterdam.
The murder of Theo van Gogh was just the tip of the iceburg. And the murder of popular Dutch politician libertarian Pim Fortuyn was covered up. People were made to believ the assassin was a crazed environmentalist. He was more a crazed Muslim sympathizer.
Libertarians AND Republicans must unite against Muslim tyrynny seeking to destroy our civil liberties and social tolerance.
I don't want my wife/girlfriend forced to wear a burka from head to toe!
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
tomorrow its Beer, and pork. The Euro's are completely lost. They have not the will to resist. Best we can hope for is to get
some of their best and brightest as they flee the coming European caliphate.
Unfortunately the refugees will probably support Democrats.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
There is also a group of Muslim immigrants from Somalia who are suing a chicken-processing plant here in MN because they want 5 prayer breaks a day.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.