Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

In the name of religious freedom.....WTF?!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Xilonen



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 465
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForgottenCode wrote:
Wait, wait... Bus drivers are allowed to kick people off busses for such trivial reasons in the states? That's crazy.


generally it takes a lot to get kicked off a bus, like harassing people, screaming profanities, or exposing yourself. but the point is that they have total control over who does and doesn't ride, and there are rules posted stating such.

on the other hand, a friend of mine was almost kicked off for saying "that's shit" in general conversation late at night on a nearly-empty bus.. no children present. it's entirely dependent on the driver.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Dro



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3850

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess this does worry me, because I feel pharmacists' refusal to provide contraceptives because of religion is an abuse of power due to their monopolistic control of pharmacy service in some towns. They refuse, people have to struggle to get it. Here, being a cabbie isn't so monopolistic, but I don't like the thought that someone can enter a profession where an activity is expected and then refuse to do that activity, when they could easily be replaced by someone willing to participate in the full scope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 16633
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ditto that.

i'm not sure how much choice the passengers have in the matter, either. at the airport here, the cabs are lined up, and you have to take the first cab in line. i, for one, would not care to ride in the cab of someone who refused rides to people who carry alcohol, not because i habitually carry alcohol, but because i feel that this invades my rights to privacy (in that i would have to declare that i was not carrying alcohol to ride in this cab). i wonder if i would be able to reject the cab, or would i have to depend on the cab rejecting me, or what?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xilonen wrote:
Major Tom wrote:
"3)"
i believe you're mistaken, and perhaps fundamentally, about the ability of bus drivers to refuse passengers that are carrying food and drink, or their ability to ask or require that passengers not carry food or drink.

eating or drinking on the bus is significantly different than carrying food or drink.

you're not claiming that a bag of burgers from mcdonald's is legally different than a bag of canned soup from the foodmart.

if you are claiming this, please provide precedence.


by "food or drink" i meant open food or drink. however, this does not change the fact that a bus driver can refuse a passenger based on all nature of criteria, such as language or dress.


before you are allowed to slip by with loose association, please provide specific detail as to what you intend to indication by "language" and "dress".

there are, of course, precedents for expulsion due to threats or verbal abuse("language"?) and health code violations ("dress"?) and these are not applicable to your argument.

Xilonen wrote:
to this extent
this extent is not established by any means

Xilonen wrote:
most any place of business has posted "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

this is a most untrue statement. those signs exist in any number of places and don't exist in any number of places -- i do believe it is reasonable to assume that if you counted, the places these signs don't exist are in majority, and the places they do exist share something in common.

you have not established the commonality in general, nor established a similar placement in these cabs for that matter, nor yet established a reasonable expectation that the cabbie has the same right to refusal that other persons displaying such a sign have -- this enters into the portion of the argument where the cabs themselves exist with some legal sanction from local government (medallions) and the open-service expectations that may exist from the agreement entered into in order to gain this legal sanction.

Xilonen wrote:
this certainly covers the right to refuse service because providing such a service would infringe upon the freedoms of others, even if that other is the operator of the business.


no, it does not certainly cover anything. you have not earned the certainty by any lengths yet taken. begging the point -- bad form.

Xilonen wrote:
as i said before, there is no constitutional guarantee to taxi service, but there is a guarantee to be able to freely practice religion.

we're not talking constitutional right to taxi service, we are talking abiding by the guidelines established by a business arrangement -- admittedly, even if that "arrangement" being discussed includes the perceptions that have existed long enough and broadly enough to be considered "common law" or "common sense".

we are, however, discussing the constitutional right to discriminate, which i believe is not a constitutional right.

Xilonen wrote:
thus, as long as that practice does not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others, it's legitimate and needs to be upheld.


i don't believe you are discussing a constitutional right that exists (see above).

i believe you are defending discrimination, not defending religion.

Xilonen wrote:
Major Tom wrote:
"2)"
please bear with and answer the question. it goes directly to the heart of the matter.

it is not absurd to follow a claim to the potential extent of the assertion and examine the extremity of implication. it is, in fact, full consideration -- quite literally.


fine. despite the fact that the end result has arguably little bearing on the constitutionality of the matter at hand, i'll humor you.


how good of you to consider the implications of what you yourself are arguing.

Xilonen wrote:
does a cab driver then have the right to refuse service based on a suspicion? yes. this is clearly a part of the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any non-constitutionally protected reason.


not reasonably established. (see above)

Xilonen wrote:
does a cab driver have the right to search passengers like an airport? well, that one depends on the heirarchy of the company they operate under. for some businesses, high ranking managers/security personell have every right to search the belongings of anyone on the premises. i don't know enough about how cab franchises operate to know if the driver would be allowed the same liberties in his cab or not. on the street outside the cab, no, there would be no right, but there is quite possibly the right once inside the cab.


like rumsfeld, you start by changing the question until you can answer it in a way to your liking.

curbside pick-up; luggage search but only once the luggage is inside the cab. this is the ultimate extention of your cabdriver's right to assure he is not carrying alcohol by proxy.

so, the cabby cabbie can delay the trip by putting the luggage in the trunk and then searching it.

then he can eject the luggage and the passenger.

that doesn't sound right to me.

Xilonen wrote:
Major Tom wrote:
"1)"
where lies the line between passenger and cargo?

as the initial story reads, the cabbies have not been asking people to discard cargo. in fact, one cabbie not only dropped the bags and refused passenge, but announced to the other cabbies that they should not carry this passenger, because of her cargo.

this is quite directly opposed to your view that there is a separation being drawn between one and the other, and your suggestion that the bags and not the person are objectionable in the consideration of the cabbies.


here, the problem as i see it is that you bolded the wrong segment of the quote. the passenger was rejected "because of her cargo". had the cargo been discarded, the passenger would be allowed, but since cargo is not a paying customer and will obviously not be picked up by a cab without a human accompanying it, the passenger, unwilling to part with the substabce in question, necessarilly cannot be provided service.


this is completely theoretical and/or derivitive -- it bears no direct relationship to events as reported in the story. to wit:
Quote:
Eva Buzek, a flight attendant who grew up in Poland, said that when she asked a driver to be careful with her suitcase because it had wine in it, he dumped her bags and told other drivers not to carry her either. Four more refused her service.


the cabbie did not explain to the passenger and offer an option. he rejected the passenger and instigated a boycott of the passenger.


Xilonen wrote:
however, the passenger and cargo are still distinct
in that it was not anything about her physical person that prevented her from obtaining a ride.


this is not meaningful in that she was not given an option to divest herself from whatever offense her luggage had made. she, herself, was boycotted. you have not established that the cabbie distinguished her from her belongings; the events reported suggest that he specifically did not distinguish.

Xilonen wrote:
it was something distinct and completely seperate from her, and she made the choice to not comply with the conditions of the taxi driver. not that she should have, but it was completely up to her whether or not she could go.


she was not given a choice; she was made the victim of her circumstance without the benefit of being able to choose her belongings over this cab ride.

also, you are begging the question as to whether the choice was rightly imposed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm interested in what will happen next. How will the taxi companies and the city react ? Will they fire / revoke the medals of these persons ? It would make perfect sense from their standpoints, but that might start a storm of accusitions about racism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xilonen



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 465
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom, your method of misinterpretation and beating unsubstantiated points into the ground is tiring at best. my points have been explained, and free as you are to disagree, i'm sick of hashing and rehashing.

bottom line: the cab driver is free to practice his religion. pissing people off is not against the law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Fhqwhgads



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 1337
Location: sfcaus

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
ditto that.

i'm not sure how much choice the passengers have in the matter, either. at the airport here, the cabs are lined up, and you have to take the first cab in line. i, for one, would not care to ride in the cab of someone who refused rides to people who carry alcohol, not because i habitually carry alcohol, but because i feel that this invades my rights to privacy (in that i would have to declare that i was not carrying alcohol to ride in this cab). i wonder if i would be able to reject the cab, or would i have to depend on the cab rejecting me, or what?

Would you have to declare though? If you've got a bottle of wine in your luggage but don't say anything?

the article wrote:
Eva Buzek, a flight attendant who grew up in Poland, said that when she asked a driver to be careful with her suitcase because it had wine in it, he dumped her bags and told other drivers not to carry her either. Four more refused her service.

In this particular situation, if I really wanted to, I suppose I could simply advise the driver that I would prefer to handle my own baggage without stating the reason why. Of course if the driver were to explicitly ask me whether I was carrying alcohol it becomes a somewhat different issue.


the article also wrote:
Airport spokesman Pat Hogan said drunken passengers had not had trouble getting a cab, just the ones who let on that they're carrying a bottle. "It's slowly grown over the years to the point that it's become a significant customer service issue for us."

On another note, I have to admit I'm a little curious as to what the difference is between a person carrying alcohol in a bottle and a person carrying alcohol inside their body. Whaddya think? Double standard? Yes/no?
_________________
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xilonen



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 465
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't think there's a double standard, since once ingested the alcohol ceases to be seperate from the person. from a physiological standpoint, at the point where someone is drunk the alcohol is well on its way to being a metabolite of alcohol, but there is also a safety issue once the alcohol is ingested. a drunk person has significantly fewer options to safely get home.

to use the example of illegal drugs (under US law, not just religious law): you can legally drive with a person under the influence, but if you knowingly transport someone carrying drugs, you're legally guilty. i have no idea if islamic law works the same way, but it makes sense to me. you can't control what you don't know about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

xilo, as dismissive as you may wish to be, i find your position to be sufficiently questionable and sufficiently questioned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2430

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
were the latter truely the case, the cab drivers would have a constitutionally guaranteed right to inspect all packages/luggage before boarding, just like an airline does.

that doesn't sound right to me.

To be honest, that does sound right to me. I expect the relative ease with which one can create a taxi service would market-doom such a policy, but I can't see a justification for forbidding it.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jsimpleton



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 143
Location: maryland/dc area USA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xilonen wrote:

bottom line: the cab driver is free to practice his religion. pissing people off is not against the law.


damn straight
_________________
"I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff! And I want in."--homer simpson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3152

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately firing people because their religion prevents them from doing their job in the first place is becoming less and less possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group