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  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3440
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
or, y'know, believe there's no god and have a job


hur hur.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10065
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xilonen wrote:
Bunnubis! wrote:

The point is, why does it matter so much what someone else is doing with their body or even their immortal soul? Are you really being damned by proxy? If so, get a new job. People don't have to adapt to you, you have to adapt to people. Simple as.

I do. Buddhists do. Jews do. In fact, the only religion I know of that ever violently protests that everyone else does not absolutely respect their witless ramblings is Islam. I've known a good number of Muslims in my time who never gave a dirty damn about what everyone else around them was doing, so what's up with these fanatics? They're all reading the same book, why are they getting different messages?


ok, we'll avoid going into the problems with issues like "reading the same book" and the idea that because one muslim doesn't follow the rules everyone shouldn't.

my point throughout this whole thread is that it's entirely up to the taxi driver, no matter what their race or religion, what they allow in their own private personal non-public property. it's not a protest. it's not a riot. it's no different than a "no shoes in the house" rule. it's not infringing upon anyone's right to wear shoes, and it's not pushing values upon anyone. it's a personal rule in effect only in their own personal property.


You reminded me of the case the from last year (or was it the year before) where a secratary was fired by her muslim bosses after they repeatedly told her they did not want her eating a bacon cheesburger in their office building. It was with the bacon of course that they had a problem. If I remember correctly the courts sided with the employers because it was her actions that encroached upon her rights, no the other way around.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dro



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3850

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xilonen wrote:
my point throughout this whole thread is that it's entirely up to the taxi driver, no matter what their race or religion, what they allow in their own private personal non-public property. it's not a protest. it's not a riot. it's no different than a "no shoes in the house" rule. it's not infringing upon anyone's right to wear shoes, and it's not pushing values upon anyone. it's a personal rule in effect only in their own personal property.


Personal property used to carry out a city-regulated public function. Cabs are an interesting intersection of public and private. They are personal vehicles, but become "cabs" by leasing that designation from a public entity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thy Brilliance wrote:
Major Tom wrote:
or, y'know, believe there's no god and have a job


hur hur.


nono, for true - i don't find any infinite wisdom in my comment but i saw nothing of anything in yours, so it needed the balance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dro wrote:
Xilonen wrote:
my point throughout this whole thread is that it's entirely up to the taxi driver, no matter what their race or religion, what they allow in their own private personal non-public property. it's not a protest. it's not a riot. it's no different than a "no shoes in the house" rule. it's not infringing upon anyone's right to wear shoes, and it's not pushing values upon anyone. it's a personal rule in effect only in their own personal property.


Personal property used to carry out a city-regulated public function. Cabs are an interesting intersection of public and private. They are personal vehicles, but become "cabs" by leasing that designation from a public entity.


with regard to popular conception, cabs are part-and-parcel with the public transportation system. probably has to do with the limited nature of the city-sanctioned "medallion" system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3440
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
Thy Brilliance wrote:
Major Tom wrote:
or, y'know, believe there's no god and have a job


hur hur.


nono, for true - i don't find any infinite wisdom in my comment but i saw nothing of anything in yours, so it needed the balance.


I'll have you note that the capitalization of the word philosopher makes a world of difference compared to its uncapitalized counter part.

Anyone can be a philosopher, but not many people are Philosophers.

Difference of meaning in a single word my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

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

nothing and Nothing find the same place in the dictionary.

deal with the the.
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 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
Dro wrote:
Xilonen wrote:
my point throughout this whole thread is that it's entirely up to the taxi driver, no matter what their race or religion, what they allow in their own private personal non-public property. it's not a protest. it's not a riot. it's no different than a "no shoes in the house" rule. it's not infringing upon anyone's right to wear shoes, and it's not pushing values upon anyone. it's a personal rule in effect only in their own personal property.


Personal property used to carry out a city-regulated public function. Cabs are an interesting intersection of public and private. They are personal vehicles, but become "cabs" by leasing that designation from a public entity.


with regard to popular conception, cabs are part-and-parcel with the public transportation system. probably has to do with the limited nature of the city-sanctioned "medallion" system.


however, with whatever passenger they take on they also become the proxy carriers of all that passenger's belongings. if those belongings include alcohol, and it is against their religion to carry alcohol, they are well within their rights to screen passengers along those lines. if because of this the taxi company decideds the driver isn't bringing in enough money because too many people are trying to catch a cab with booze then let the system sort itself out, but the driver is protected from religious discrimination.
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: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, as it should be the cab driver is protected from discrimination based on his or her religion.

i don't see that this means the cab driver's discrimination of others, religiously based or otherwise, should be protected.

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.
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 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
yes, as it should be the cab driver is protected from discrimination based on his or her religion.

i don't see that this means the cab driver's discrimination of others, religiously based or otherwise, should be protected.

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.


that's where the private property thing comes in. the cab is theirs, 'rented' to the public or not. so just like you can ask someone to remove your shoes before stepping on the carpet, the driver can ask you to discard any booze before getting in the cab. if the passenger doesn't want to do so, fine, they can take another cab and the cab driver can accept the consequences to their action, such as loss of money or perhaps loss of their medalion. i don't see a constitutionally declared right to a timely cab, but i DO see protection of freedom to exercise religion.
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: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

so, does any cabbie have the right to refuse to carry any person for absolutely any reason?


separately, but in the same vein, do these cabbies have the right to their piece of the medallion consortsium if they reject passengers that they suspect are carrying booze?




i do believe it is important to remember that cabs are not private property the same way that living rooms are. they hold a place in public society but, even more to the point, they have gained status by way of authorization of the local government -- an authorization without which the cab would be an outlaw "gypsy" in many jurisdictions.
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 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) no, as has been mentioned, there are some portions of the population, such as the elderly, who must be picked up. there would also be huge issues if a cabbie were discriminating based on race, gender, etc. however, they do have a right to refuse to carry any non-protected person. and in this case the criteria has nothing to do with the person, but the cargo.

2) this goes above and beyond the realm of reality here, since no mention has been made of searches or suspicions. i also don't know if the koran has any disclaimer for carrying booze you don't know is there. but i don't imagine this will become a huge problem.

3) despite the fact that cabs are meant to be used for public transportation, they are still owned and operated by the drivers. so just like a bus driver, who doesn't even own the bus they operate, can ask passengers to not carry food or bevarage, or kick people off for using totally legal but offensive language, a cab driver can refuse a passenger for the same. i doubt there would be this argument if cab drivers of mixed race and religion stopped picking up people with open beverages or food, claiming the mess isn't worth the effort; the problem here seems to lie totally with the fact that it is muslims protecting their religion at a time when people are all too ready to hate muslims.
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: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"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.

"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.

"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.
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 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. to this extent, most any place of business has posted "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." 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.

as i said before, there is no constitutional guarantee to taxi service, but there is a guarantee to be able to freely practice religion. thus, as long as that practice does not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others, it's legitimate and needs to be upheld.

Quote:
"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.

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.

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.

Quote:
"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. 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. 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
ForgottenCode



Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 29
Location: Montreal, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Because bus transportation is by defintion public transportation. In other words, it's open to the public. Bus fares are usually reasonable, and a decent way of getting around, but you have to put up with the other people on the bus, and waiting times, etc.

Cabs are different. They are much more personal. It's just you and the cabbie. And while bus drivers don't own their bus, and in my mind shouldn't be allowed to kick people off for such trivial reasons (they certainly don't do that here), because a Cabbie owns his car, he is allowed to choose who sits in it.
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  Next
Page 5 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