[Newsbot]

Title: Cleveland Cabbies Refuse to Drive Gay Games Taxis
Category: Business
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2014-04-15 14:27:48

[N_Fiddledog]

In PC poker Muslim trumps gay.

[DanSC]

The only thing sillier than these cabbies' position is the fact we still live in a society that has The Gay Games.

[jj2424]

DanSC DanSC:

The only thing sillier than these cabbies' position is the fact we still live in a society that has The Gay Games.

WTF do they do at the "gay games"? do you have to butt fuck the judges to prove you're gay before you can compete?


What do they do? Run the 500m in tight leather chaps?

[2Cdo]

More "tolerance" from those of that faith.

[andyt]

They should move to Arizona - it's legal to discriminate there. Arizona, as we know, is a hotbed of Muslim fundamentalists making the laws for that state.

[N_Fiddledog]

Actually Governor Jan Brewer vetoed that bill in Arizona.

I know what you're talking about though. If that bill had gone through and what happened in Colorado, where the Bakery was sued for refusing an order to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage had happened in Arizona after that bill had gone through, it would have resulted in the gay organization losing. I believe in real life in Colorado the gay organization won.

What interests me is whether it's a cakes, photos, or bed and breakfasts the gay side pretty much always sues and wins.

Curious there's no lawsuit here with the Muslim cabbies.

I say it's because in politically correct poker Muslim trumps any other minority.

There was that one case in Canada involving a Muslim barber refusing to give a gay woman a man's haircut, but that one was settled out of court.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

They should move to Arizona - it's legal to discriminate there. Arizona, as we know, is a hotbed of Muslim fundamentalists making the laws for that state.

Look at the Muslim that assaulted the dude wearing a zombie Mohammed costume. This PC crap runs so deep that the judge hearing the case not only found the Muslim "gentleman" not guilty of assault, but even made excuses for his abhorrent behavior.
Fortunately common sense prevailed and the ruling was overturned. The point being, there are an awful lot of pinheads out there who are under the delirious impression that there exists some sort of right to not be personally offended by whatever.

[commanderkai]

If it was their own cabs, they should have the right to deny such ads on the top of their cars (much like I thought it was acceptable for having the baker deny making a wedding cake designed for a gay marriage, since it's their business, even though realistically it hurts a potential revenue source)...but they work for a larger cab company, so, they have less control over the cars they drive in.

Basically, form your own cab company, and choose the areas you operate and the advertising you want to use.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I say it's because in politically correct poker Muslim trumps any other minority.

There was that one case in Canada involving a Muslim barber refusing to give a gay woman a man's haircut, but that one was settled out of court.

See, I agreed with the position of the Muslim barbers in that case. Neither article I read had anything to do with her sexual orientation (oh I can make assumptions, and so could they, but there's no proof that played a part) and the reason why they weren't willing was because as Muslims, they can't touch a non-relative female's hair. The woman in question was all pissy even after the barbers found somebody willing to cut her hair in the shop, as she wanted to make some point against these guys who just want to run their business.

[BartSimpson]

I'm siding with the Muslims here. They should be free to refuse business from whomever they want.

That said, another taxi firm would be wise to publicly ask for the business.

Meanwhile, anyone who wants to should boycott the Muslim taxi firms in response.

That's all called 'freedom'.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That said, another taxi firm would be wise to publicly ask for the business.

Nailed it!

[Public_Domain]

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm siding with the Muslims here. They should be free to refuse business from whomever they want.

Not really, those cabbies just work there and not own the companies they can't refuse any business, at the very least they should be willing to accept docked pay for this. If their belief is strong enough to refuse work then it should be strong enough to accept a pay cut.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That said, another taxi firm would be wise to publicly ask for the business.

They haven't refused business, its the drivers who refuse to drive those cabs.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Meanwhile, anyone who wants to should boycott the Muslim taxi firms in response.

That's all called 'freedom'.

Fair enough.

[BartSimpson]

DD, if the taxi drivers are refusing to do the work their company wants them to do then they should find other work or start their own company.

A halal taxi company would likely do well and if they post all of their advertising in Arabic then that would effectively exclude most non-Muslims from riding in their cabs.

But, again, I side with these taxi drivers in that they should not be forced to perform work that they find religiously objectionable. The notion of forcing anyone to perform any sort of work against their will (regardless if I agree with their motivations) disturbs me far more than the notion of someone not getting a ride in a taxi.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DD, if the taxi drivers are refusing to do the work their company wants them to do then they should find other work or start their own company.

A halal taxi company would likely do well and if they post all of their advertising in Arabic then that would effectively exclude most non-Muslims from riding in their cabs.

But, again, I side with these taxi drivers in that they should not be forced to perform work that they find religiously objectionable. The notion of forcing anyone to perform any sort of work against their will (regardless if I agree with their motivations) disturbs me far more than the notion of someone not getting a ride in a taxi.

Hmmmmm, I wonder if you'd feel the same way if they were refusing service to blind people with guide dogs.