Mohammad Says No Booze In the Cab

[Tony]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/25/oppenheim.cabbies/index.html

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (CNN) -- It's always interesting to me, that in my own country, I often get assignments where I walk into a room, and everyone looks and sounds different from me. Different language. Different culture. And sometimes, different beliefs.

On this story, I crossed such a threshold.

I stepped into the taxi depot that serves the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport, where drivers sit and wait for their next fare. In this crowded, noisy room, most of the cabbies are Muslims originally from Somalia.

"We're doing a story about the conflict between the cabbies and the airport. The Muslim drivers have been refusing to take passengers carrying alcohol, such as wine or liquor purchased at a duty free shop," I explained.

A group of men gathered around us.

"This is America, we have freedom of religion," says one cabbie. We could see their feelings are intense -- that the issue seems to cut to the core of their identity.

These guys need to learn that, although they have freedom of religion in the US, that freedom doesn't trump the rights of other people.

[NobbyNobbs]

It's a Constitutionally-given right to take a cab?

[Tony]

It's a Constitutionally-given right to take a cab?

Yep. Just like it's a constitutionally given right to breathe air. It doesn't have to be explicitly written in the constitution for it to be a right.

[webfusion]

The Limo License the cabbies have been issued provides for the rights of the passengers to carry luggage and personal effects. If the drivers don't want to follow the rules, let them surrender their licenses and pursue other work.

[Darat]

The Limo License the cabbies have been issued provides for the rights of the passengers to carry luggage and personal effects. If the drivers don't want to follow the rules, let them surrender their licenses and pursue other work.


I was wondering about that - do you know what the licence actually says? For example if it says they can refuse anyone or refuse to carry anything for any reason then they are acting OK (but I would suggest the licence needs to be reviewed) however if the licence doesn't allow that then they should be prosecuted.

[King of the Americas]

Could a cabbie say that it is against his religion to provide services to a 'black' man, or a woman who's face and head isn't covered?

I mean, at what point do your beliefs become discriminatory?

[CFLarsen]

Yep. Just like it's a constitutionally given right to breathe air. It doesn't have to be explicitly written in the constitution for it to be a right.

Where can I see a written list of all the rights?

[Tony]

Where can I see a written list of all the rights?

I'm not getting sucked into your ********. Let's cut to the end, what's your point?

[webfusion]

I was wondering about that - do you know what the licence actually says? For example if it says they can refuse anyone or refuse to carry anything for any reason then they are acting OK (but I would suggest the licence needs to be reviewed) however if the licence doesn't allow that then they should be prosecuted.

Yes, standard TLC regulations specifically prohibit "Refusal" of this type.
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/rules/rules.shtml
(Taxicab Drivers Rules)

I don't have a copy of the Minneapolis-StPaul Airport TLC Rules, but I can pretty much guarantee they are similar to those of the New York City TLC, which inter-alia, in Section 2, Part 50, Paragraph D, indicates:

"A driver shall not refuse to transport a passenger's luggage, wheelchair,
crutches, other mobility aid or other property.

That's fairly clear.

[WildCat]

I was wondering about that - do you know what the licence actually says? For example if it says they can refuse anyone or refuse to carry anything for any reason then they are acting OK (but I would suggest the licence needs to be reviewed) however if the licence doesn't allow that then they should be prosecuted.
I know that here in Chicago, a cabbie cannot refuse to give a ride for any reason. Mostly it was meant because many cabbies were refusing to pick up black people, but the rule applies to this as well.

If they don't like the rules, being a cabbie isn't for them.

[webfusion]

Could a cabbie say that it is against his religion to provide services to a 'black' man, or a woman who's face and head isn't covered?

I mean, at what point do your beliefs become discriminatory?

Since these guys are Somalis, they are black, I would think.


Drivers of cabs are regulated by license, as I've already indicated, and there is a detailed list of "refusals" that they cannot perpetrate. If they do, their license is being violated.

NYC TLC - Section 2, part 50, Paragraph B
(b) A driver shall not refuse by words, gestures or any other means, without
justifiable grounds set forth in §2-50(e) herein, to take any passenger to
any destination within the City of New York, the counties of Westchester
or Nassau or Newark Airport.

wildcat said:If they don't like the rules, being a cabbie isn't for them.

Precisely.

[CFLarsen]

I'm not getting sucked into your ********. Let's cut to the end, what's your point?

If you can't list your rights, how do you know what rights you have?

So, can I see a list of all these rights of yours?

[webfusion]

CFLarsen --- I have the absolute and undeniable right to bring my luggage and personal property along with me on a hired cab ride. The cabbie cannot prevent me from doing so, under the terms of his TLC license.
This thread is about that particular right of mine, as a taxi passenger, to bring my luggage along, with whatever it contains (so long as it is legal).

If you wish to argue that these muslim cabbies from Somalia have any kind of legitimate case to refuse to carry luggage containing legally obtained liquor, please, let's hear your points.

Otherwise, go away.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Of course taxi drivers shouldn't be allowed to refuse fares carrying alcohol.

I'm however concerned about the xenophobic overtones of both Oppenheim, the reporter, and Tony.

Let's have a close look at the article:

The Muslim drivers have been refusing...

All of them? for that's what Oppenheim's grammar implies.

About three quarters of the 900 cabbies serving the airport are Muslim, and many have been regularly refusing passengers carrying beer, wine or liquor.

Okay, not all this time, merely 'many' of three quarters of 900. How many is that?

In the past five years, 5,400 would-be taxi passengers at the airport were refused service for this very reason

At first glance, that's a big number. How many taxi drivers would that represent?

If we assume an average of one fare carrying alcohol per taxi driver per day, that would make roughly 5400/(365*5), roughly three taxi drivers refusing fares.

One is called Aidan, another Khalid, the third has a name supplied by Tony: 'Mohammed'.

Unless Tony has a distinct source for this Mohammed, I can only assume he is making a metonymy, using a generic Muslim name to cover all Muslims.

And from three fundamentalist loonies, Keith Oppenheim and Tony have succesfully expanded it to all Muslim cab drivers and to all Muslims, respectively.

[Ranb]

If you can't list your rights, how do you know what rights you have?

So, can I see a list of all these rights of yours?

From the US Constitution amendment ten, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I do not need a permit to carry alcohol, as long as I am 21. There are no restrictions on taking it with me into a cab. The cabbies need a license to operate as a cab driver. It should be clear to the most casual observer that the passenger is not infringing on any rights the cab driver has. If the possibility of transporting a dog or booze is too much for anyone, then they need to grow a thicker skin or get another job. Anyone this dense or intolerant is certainly welcome to leave the country in my opinion.

Ranb

[SteveGrenard]

Airport moves closer to tightening taxi rules - the new rules to take effect May 11 if approved....


Jan 17, 2007 -- 4:11 PM CST

Abdi Aynte

The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is inching toward punishing cab drivers who refuse to drive passengers toting alcoholic beverages.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission decided Tuesday to hold a public hearing Feb. 27 before it considers a proposal designed to curb such refusals, which drivers said are based on their religious beliefs.

MAC staff members propose suspending the licenses of drivers who refuse a fare for any reason besides personal safety. Their licenses could be suspended 30 days for the first offense and two years for the second.

Muslim drivers, who make up one-third of airport cabbies, say that the proposed punishment is designed to kick them out of the airport. Many said they quit other jobs that caused them to miss daily prayers, or to directly deal with alcohol or pork, both of which are prohibited in Islam.

“I left my meat-processing job because I was transferred to a hog butchery plant,” said Nur Warsame. “I was jobless for a while before a friend convinced me that driving a taxi was the best option.

“And now I’ve to leave this job for alcohol?”

Different interpretations:

Muslim scholars have varying interpretations for the broad text that asks Muslims to avoid alcohol and pork.


Imam Hassan Mohamoud of the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society and Imam Abdirahman Omar of Abubakar Assadique mosque say pious Muslims should avoid transporting “visible alcohol,” though Omar insists that drivers should never search a customer’s luggage.

But the Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota, which includes more than 10 imams, issued a sweeping edict calling for Muslim drivers to transport “all customers,” regardless of “what they carry or who they’re with.”

In an interview, Imam Waleed Meneese of Dar Al-Farooq mosque and a member of IJCM, reproached drivers who refuse fares and called their actions “inaccurate” and “personal.”

“As long as the Muslim person isn’t directly dealing with alcohol, he or she doesn’t have the right to avoid non-Muslims for what they have in their luggage,” he said.

In the old days, he said, some Muslim scholars transported non-Muslims on horseback to churches and synagogues.

If approved, the new taxi rules would take effect on May 11.

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/userDiary.do?personId=5&previousDiaryId=0

[hgc]

If you can't list your rights, how do you know what rights you have?
If you're using a right, then you have it. Otherwise you can't be sure.

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen --- I have the absolute and undeniable right to bring my luggage and personal property along with me on a hired cab ride. The cabbie cannot prevent me from doing so, under the terms of his TLC license.
This thread is about that particular right of mine, as a taxi passenger, to bring my luggage along, with whatever it contains (so long as it is legal).

If you wish to argue that these muslim cabbies from Somalia have any kind of legitimate case to refuse to carry luggage containing legally obtained liquor, please, let's hear your points.

Otherwise, go away.

My point is that it doesn't make sense to talk about rights if we don't know what those rights are.

From the US Constitution amendment ten, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What, exactly, are those "certain rights"?

I do not need a permit to carry alcohol, as long as I am 21. There are no restrictions on taking it with me into a cab. The cabbies need a license to operate as a cab driver. It should be clear to the most casual observer that the passenger is not infringing on any rights the cab driver has. If the possibility of transporting a dog or booze is too much for anyone, then they need to grow a thicker skin or get another job. Anyone this dense or intolerant is certainly welcome to leave the country in my opinion.

Ranb

If a company allows its employees to make that decision on their own, you are free to choose another company. Right?

If you're using a right, then you have it. Otherwise you can't be sure.

That doesn't answer my question: What are these rights?

[WildCat]

If a company allows its employees to make that decision on their own, you are free to choose another company. Right?
Under the terms of their license, they cannot allow their employees to "make that decision on their own".

[Art Vandelay]

My point is that it doesn't make sense to talk about rights if we don't know what those rights are.Unless you can provide a complete list of everything that it does make sense to talk about, your position is utter crap. This has already been addressed ad naseum in other threads, and it's quite rude of you to keep making the same debunked "points" over and over again.

If a company allows its employees to make that decision on their own, you are free to choose another company. Right?Unless there is only one company, or all of the companies have this policy.

Could a cabbie say that it is against his religion to provide services to a 'black' man, or a woman who's face and head isn't covered?"Whose".

[CFLarsen]

Unless you can provide a complete list of everything that it does make sense to talk about, your position is utter crap. This has already been addressed ad naseum in other threads, and it's quite rude of you to keep making the same debunked "points" over and over again.

"Debunked"? What is "debunked"? I am asking for a full list of your rights. Do you have it, yes or no?

[Art Vandelay]

"doesn't make sense to talk about rights if we don't know what those rights are" has been debunked. Are you being delibearately obtuse?

And do you have a list of everything that does make sense to talk about, or not?

[CFLarsen]

"doesn't make sense to talk about rights if we don't know what those rights are" has been debunked. Are you being delibearately obtuse?

If it has been debunked, you should easily be able to show me what those rights are.

Can you, yes or no?

And do you have a list of everything that does make sense to talk about, or not?

Don't try to shift the onus. You are talking about rights. I want to know if you can list what those rights are.

Can you, yes or no?

[Grammatron]

If it has been debunked, you should easily be able to show me what those rights are.

Can you, yes or no?



Don't try to shift the onus. You are talking about rights. I want to know if you can list what those rights are.

Can you, yes or no?

Do you have a right to breath in Denmark, yes or no?

[CFLarsen]

Do you have a right to breath in Denmark, yes or no?

We are talking about rights in the US.

Do you know what those rights are?

[NobbyNobbs]

Yep. Just like it's a constitutionally given right to breathe air. It doesn't have to be explicitly written in the constitution for it to be a right.

You're kidding, right? You're saying that taking a ride in a taxi is a constitutionally given right? Amazing that the forefathers planned ahead for that.....




CFLarsen --- I have the absolute and undeniable right to bring my luggage and personal property along with me on a hired cab ride. The cabbie cannot prevent me from doing so, under the terms of his TLC license.
This thread is about that particular right of mine, as a taxi passenger, to bring my luggage along, with whatever it contains (so long as it is legal).


You are not a taxi passenger until the driver has agreed to convey you. I was always under the impression that, just like a restaurant, the driver has the right to refuse service.

This may derail a bit, but do you still have "the right" to bring your stuff with you on a taxi ride if what you are carrying is illegal and the driver refuses to carry it? If the driver says, "Sure, hop in, but you have to leave those 3 kilos of cocaine somewhere else", isn't he within his rights? And if so, where are those rights detailed?

[Ranb]

[QUOTE=CFLarsen;2291999].....What, exactly, are those "certain rights"?.....If a company allows its employees to make that decision on their own, you are free to choose another company. Right?.....QUOTE]

Those certain rights are listed in the text of the Constitution, look them up yourself. :)

Yes, I am free to choose another company. It appears that the cab company and/or the city is not going to allow their employees to be as intolerant as some of them want to be.

[Grammatron]

We are talking about rights in the US.

Do you know what those rights are?

Evasion noted.

I asked you a question: Do you have a right to breath in Denmark, yes or no?

[Grammatron]

You are not a taxi passenger until the driver has agreed to convey you. I was always under the impression that, just like a restaurant, the driver has the right to refuse service.
Apparently that is not the case.

[UserGoogol]

The problem with unenumerated rights is that there's no cut and dry way to distinguish between unenumerated rights and non-rights. (Precedent can help a bit, but there are so many things that precedent has never stated an opinion on.)

After all, a case could be made for both "the right to take a cab" and "the right to choose who rides in your cab," and yet they're very mutually exclusive. Libertarians tend to prefer the latter, while I prefer the former. But clearly, the constitution cannot protect both rights.

It's a nice enough idea to say that the bill of rights shall not be used to take rights away from people, but we live in a government of laws, so if the law doesn't definitively say whether something is allowed, then anything more that can be said is just philosophy. Although I do love philosophy. (Of course, maybe Godel's Theorem could be used to show that any legal system will inevitably contain some legal ambiguities, but it still bothers me when you have such gaping ambiguities as the ninth amendment.)

[DanishDynamite]

Nice to see the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is taking steps to ensure this ridiculous behaviour is ended. I would have thought their licenses could just have been revoked, but maybe that would take too long.

[webfusion]

You're kidding, right? You're saying that taking a ride in a taxi is a constitutionally given right? Amazing that the forefathers planned ahead for that.....

If the cabbie has indicated a willingness to provide service ("On Duty") then by law, he must provide it, to anyone who hails him.
That's how taxi service works...

You are not a taxi passenger until the driver has agreed to convey you. I was always under the impression that, just like a restaurant, the driver has the right to refuse service.

Nope. Grammatron is correct -- this is not the case.
If you read the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission Regulations that I linked to earlier, you'll see that your impression is wrong.
You hail a cab, he stops, you get in, and then the driver follows your instructions. He cannot decline to go where you wish (within reason), and he cannot negotiate "flat fares" or "destination limits" with you before you get in.

This may derail a bit, but do you still have "the right" to bring your stuff with you on a taxi ride if what you are carrying is illegal and the driver refuses to carry it? If the driver says, "Sure, hop in, but you have to leave those 3 kilos of cocaine somewhere else", isn't he within his rights? And if so, where are those rights detailed?

Again, if you read the link I have thoughtfully provided here, you'll notice that this is all covered in Section 2, Part 61, paragraph B of the NYC TLC regs.
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/drivrules.pdf

A driver shall not use or permit any other person to use his taxicab for
any unlawful purpose.

You know what I'm amazed at?
That these muslim guys have gotten away with this 'refusal' practice of theirs for so long already without being fired!

[TragicMonkey]

What about items that are not illegal, but would pose a risk to the cab? If I owned a cab, I'd refuse to take a passenger carrying twenty pounds of raw fish or an open bucket brimming to the top with green paint or armfuls of ziploc bags full of live insects. None of those items is illegal, but I sure as hell wouldn't want them in my cab. Is it someone's right to nastify my cab? What if I'm allergic to peanuts? Will I get in trouble for racing away from Mr Peanut, and he gives chase, waving his cane and screaming obscenities?

[webfusion]

What about items that are not illegal, but would pose a risk to the cab? If I owned a cab, I'd refuse to take a passenger carrying twenty pounds of raw fish or an open bucket brimming to the top with green paint or armfuls of ziploc bags full of live insects. None of those items is illegal, but I sure as hell wouldn't want them in my cab. Is it someone's right to nastify my cab? What if I'm allergic to peanuts? Will I get in trouble for racing away from Mr Peanut, and he gives chase, waving his cane and screaming obscenities?


Why are you having such a hard time reading the NYC regulations as presented?
The NYC regs are typical of all licensing rules, anywhere.

Section 2, Part 50, paragraph E, sub 3
(shall not refuse service unless...)
"the passenger is carrying, or is in possession of any article,
package, case or container, other than a wheelchair or other
mobility aid, which the driver may reasonably believe will cause
damage to the interior of the taxicab, impair its efficient operation,
or cause it to become stained or foul smelling;"

If you're allergic to otherwise normal stuff (perfume, peanuts, farts, or whatever) then don't drive a cab, OK?

[hgc]

armfuls of ziploc bags full of live insects
That's why I can never get a cab!

[TragicMonkey]

If you're allergic to otherwise normal stuff (perfume, peanuts, farts, or whatever) then don't drive a cab, OK?

That's very nice. There's nothing inherently peanut-requisite about a cab, yet that profession should be denied to people who are allergic? That's less of a burden on liberties than being able to tell passengers not to bring peanuts into the cab?

[Pyrrho]

We are talking about rights in the US.

Do you know what those rights are?
I sure do. We have the inalienable right to do whatever we choose to do that is not prohibited by law.

Any given taxi driver has the right to refuse me service. I have the right to take a different taxi.

Point to consider: even if rights exist, they are not guaranteed in actual practice. Sometimes we have to fight for our freedom. Sometimes governments refuse to allow us to practice our rights. Lack of freedom is not equivalent to lack of rights. For example, women in this country had the right to vote long before they were granted the freedom to vote, a freedom they had to fight for over many years.

Slaves in this country had the right to freedom long before they obtained that freedom.

[Art Vandelay]

If it has been debunked, you should easily be able to show me what those rights are.That is an outright fallacy.

Don't try to shift the onus. You are talking about rights. I want to know if you can list what those rights are.But the onus is on you. You have made a claim. I am asking you to defend it. Can you, yes or no? Quit being a jackass, and answer.

I've already answered your question. Now answer mine.

[hgc]

IAny given taxi driver has the right to refuse me service.If there are licensing rules that say otherwise, and if those rules are enforced, then this is demonstrably not so.

I have the right to take a different taxi.Ever tried getting a cab at rush hour in midtown NYC? The cabbie trying to refuse me his services may be the last available one I'll see for quite some time.

[webfusion]

That's very nice. There's nothing inherently peanut-requisite about a cab, yet that profession should be denied to people who are allergic? That's less of a burden on liberties than being able to tell passengers not to bring peanuts into the cab?

Peanut-requisite? What does that mean? A taxicab is a public conveyance, not a private vehicle. The locality/municipality issues a permit for the cab to be on the streets, available to anyone, and anyone who gets in has the absolute right by law to bring along his/her personal effects & luggage (so long as there is nothing illegal). If I'm eating peanuts, that is a normal benign activity, and I have every expectation that the driver has agreed (by the terms of his license) that it doesn't bother him.
If you are allergic to peanuts, (or have a religious prohibition from allowing liquor into your surroundings) you are ineligible, by definition, to be a driver of said public conveyance (same with bus drivers, or airline flight attendants or train conductors, etc). Those applying and being licensed for those jobs relinquish their "liberty" to be free from contact with peanuts (or perfume, or body odor, or liquor, or whatever).

BTW, Smoking is prohibited, by statute.
If you get a law passed to prohibit peanuts, then you have a case.

[CFLarsen]

Those certain rights are listed in the text of the Constitution, look them up yourself. :)

I know. But are those the only rights you have?

Evasion noted.

I asked you a question: Do you have a right to breath in Denmark, yes or no?

We are not talking about rights in Denmark, but in the US. Do you know what your rights are?

The problem with unenumerated rights is that there's no cut and dry way to distinguish between unenumerated rights and non-rights. (Precedent can help a bit, but there are so many things that precedent has never stated an opinion on.)

After all, a case could be made for both "the right to take a cab" and "the right to choose who rides in your cab," and yet they're very mutually exclusive. Libertarians tend to prefer the latter, while I prefer the former. But clearly, the constitution cannot protect both rights.

It's a nice enough idea to say that the bill of rights shall not be used to take rights away from people, but we live in a government of laws, so if the law doesn't definitively say whether something is allowed, then anything more that can be said is just philosophy. Although I do love philosophy. (Of course, maybe Godel's Theorem could be used to show that any legal system will inevitably contain some legal ambiguities, but it still bothers me when you have such gaping ambiguities as the ninth amendment.)

Ayup. What I find interesting is that people are not more interested in solving the ambiguities and finding out just what rights they have.

Again, if you read the link I have thoughtfully provided here, you'll notice that this is all covered in Section 2, Part 61, paragraph B of the NYC TLC regs.
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/drivrules.pdf

As someone else has already pointed out, it also allows a driver to refuse to drive with substances he feels can damage the car, e.g., cause it to become stained or foul smelling. He also can refuse to take drunk or disorderly passengers.

I sure do. We have the inalienable right to do whatever we choose to do that is not prohibited by law.

Where does the Constitution say that?

Slaves in this country had the right to freedom long before they obtained that freedom.

Do you think it is every man's (as in males) right to have babies if he wants them - as in getting pregnant?

That is an outright fallacy.

Huh? Do you even understand what a fallacy is?

But the onus is on you. You have made a claim. I am asking you to defend it. Can you, yes or no? Quit being a jackass, and answer.

I've already answered your question. Now answer mine.

No, Art, you have not answered my question. Can you list all of your rights, yes or no?

[ponderingturtle]

That's very nice. There's nothing inherently peanut-requisite about a cab, yet that profession should be denied to people who are allergic? That's less of a burden on liberties than being able to tell passengers not to bring peanuts into the cab?

How is someone having a peanut item going to cause an allergic reaction in the driver? I can not come up with a credible situation for that.

[ponderingturtle]

I sure do. We have the inalienable right to do whatever we choose to do that is not prohibited by law.

Any given taxi driver has the right to refuse me service. I have the right to take a different taxi.


But taxi more than most businesses can only refuse service for certain situations. But any business can not refuse service just because they want to, there are reasons that are illegal to refuse service, such as being disabled(ADA requires all stores to be handicapped accessible they can not simply refuse service to a handicapped people and get out of it), race, religion and so on.

[ponderingturtle]

We are not talking about rights in Denmark, but in the US. Do you know what your rights are?

No you are makeing the claim that an innumerated list of rights can exist, so please show us that list of rights in your country. You just will not support your ideas at all.

[SteveGrenard]

How is someone having a peanut item going to cause an allergic reaction in the driver? I can not come up with a credible situation for that.

Even inhaling peanut molecules or coming into skin contact with the slightest trace of peanut dust or residue could cause a life threatening reaction. While it is likely the allergic driver won't be kissing or touching their peanut chomping riders he might have an allergic response long after they left the cab, say when he is cleaning the back seat. Although not on the following list there is some evidence which indicates that skin contact could provoke a response.


Exposure to peanuts can occur in three ways:
§ Direct contact. The most common cause of peanut allergy is direct contact with peanuts. This means exposure via all routes of contact — usually through eating peanuts, but including kissing or touching someone who's been in direct contact with peanuts.
§ Cross-contact. This is the unintended introduction of peanuts into a product. It's generally the result of exposure to peanuts during processing or handling of a food product.
§ Inhalation. An allergic reaction may occur if you inhale dust or aerosols containing peanuts, such as that of peanut flour or peanut oil cooking spray.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00710.html



J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Jul;104(1):25-7.
Self-reported allergic reactions to peanut on commercial airliners.Sicherer SH, Furlong TJ, DeSimone J, Sampson HA.
Division of Pediatric Allergy/Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA.

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to food occurring on commercial airlines have not been systematically characterized. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the clinical characteristics of allergic reactions to peanuts on airplanes. METHODS: Participants in the National Registry of Peanut and Tree Nut Allergy who indicated an allergic reaction while on a commercial airliner were interviewed by telephone. RESULTS: Sixty-two of 3704 National Registry of Peanut and Tree Nut Allergy participants indicated a reaction on an airplane; 42 of 48 patients or parental surrogates contacted confirmed the reaction began on the airplane (median age of affected subject, 2 years; range, 6 months to 50 years). Of these, 35 reacted to peanuts (4 were uncertain of exposure) and 7 to tree nuts, although 3 of these 7 reacted to substances that may have also contained peanut. Exposures occurred by ingestion (20 subjects), skin contact (8 subjects), and inhalation (14 subjects). Reactions generally occurred within 10 minutes of exposure (32 of 42 subjects), and reaction severity correlated with exposure route (ingestion > inhalation > skin). The causal food was generally served by the airline (37 of 42 subjects). Medications were given in flight to 19 patients (epinephrine to 5) and to an additional 14 at landing/gate return (including epinephrine to 1 and intravenous medication to 2), totaling 79% treated. Flight crews were notified in 33% of reactions. During inhalation reactions as a result of peanut allergy, greater than 25 passengers were estimated to be eating peanuts at the time of the reaction. Initial symptoms generally involved the upper airway, with progression to the skin or further lower respiratory reactions (no gastrointestinal symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Allergic reactions to peanuts and tree nuts caused by accidental ingestion, skin contact, or inhalation occur during commercial flights, but airline personnel are usually not notified. Reactions can be severe, requiring medications, including epinephrine.

[CFLarsen]

No you are makeing the claim that an innumerated list of rights can exist, so please show us that list of rights in your country. You just will not support your ideas at all.

Try to read what I say. I am asking those who point to these rights to list them.

[ponderingturtle]

Even inhaling peanut molecules or coming into skin contact with the slightest trace of peanut dust or residue could cause a life threatening reaction. While it is likely the allergic driver won't be kissing or touching their peanut chomping riders he might have an allergic response long after they left the cab, say when he is cleaning the back seat. Although not on the following list there is some evidence which indicates that skin contact could provoke a response.

So if you are baking with peanut flour in the back of a cab it could be a problem, also cooking with peanut oil. But if you are that allergic to being around people, well mabey you shouldn't have a job that requires you to be around people.

[ponderingturtle]

Try to read what I say. I am asking those who point to these rights to list them.

Yes, and in doing so you are implying that such a list is possible, so to prove that such a list is possible why not provide one from your country?

[TragicMonkey]

So if you are baking with peanut flour in the back of a cab it could be a problem, also cooking with peanut oil. But if you are that allergic to being around people, well mabey you shouldn't have a job that requires you to be around people.

If someone's eating a bag of peanuts, that's enough to set it off.

So, because of the possibility of people eating peanuts, those who are allergic should have no jobs that involve going out in public?

I can't imagine why some disabilities are not only accommodated, but have laws to protect sufferers against discrimination, while other disabilities are dealt with so callously.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, and in doing so you are implying that such a list is possible, so to prove that such a list is possible why not provide one from your country?

No, I am asking to see the list, if it is possible.

If such a list is possible, let's see it.

If such a list is not possible, how the heck do people know what they are referring to?

[ponderingturtle]

If someone's eating a bag of peanuts, that's enough to set it off.

So, because of the possibility of people eating peanuts, those who are allergic should have no jobs that involve going out in public?

I can't imagine why some disabilities are not only accommodated, but have laws to protect sufferers against discrimination, while other disabilities are dealt with so callously.

So we need to ban all nuts and seafood from the country? If you are that allergic to it that being in the remote vicinity of it can set it off, how do you propose someone operate in society then?

[TragicMonkey]

Peanut-requisite? What does that mean?

It means there is nothing about cabs that implies the necessity of peanuts. I wouldn't argue that someone allergic to peanuts should be given a job in a peanut processing plant.

A taxicab is a public conveyance, not a private vehicle.

Who owns this cab? The city? Or a private company?

The locality/municipality issues a permit for the cab to be on the streets, available to anyone, and anyone who gets in has the absolute right by law to bring along his/her personal effects & luggage (so long as there is nothing illegal).

So it's owned by a private company, yet the government regulates how it operates by means of requiring permits, and only granting permits in exchange for obedience to various rules.

A restaurant is also subject to requiring permits, yet they can deny service to customers. Why can't a cab?

If I'm eating peanuts, that is a normal benign activity, and I have every expectation that the driver has agreed (by the terms of his license) that it doesn't bother him.

Nice to know that you're not willing to curtail your desire to eat peanuts regardless of the consequences to others. Because it's a "normal benign activity" you're going to do it, and if someone else dies, well, that's their fault?

Driving is another normal benign activity. Would you run over a toddler that ran into the street because the toddler shouldn't have been there?

If you are allergic to peanuts, (or have a religious prohibition from allowing liquor into your surroundings) you are ineligible, by definition, to be a driver of said public conveyance (same with bus drivers, or airline flight attendants or train conductors, etc). Those applying and being licensed for those jobs relinquish their "liberty" to be free from contact with peanuts (or perfume, or body odor, or liquor, or whatever).

BTW, Smoking is prohibited, by statute.
If you get a law passed to prohibit peanuts, then you have a case.

Yes, yes, everything needs a law. People refuse to consider others, regardless of the consequences, unless forced to by law. Postponing the most insignificant activity for a brief period of time because it would hurt someone else would be giving up precious liberties. Never think of the other guy, never be kind, never spend a second of your important time in sympathy unless you are made to do so by the state. Which, with sufficient power, can maintain this civilization of total jerks in unfriendly existence for as long as possible.

[TragicMonkey]

So we need to ban all nuts and seafood from the country? If you are that allergic to it that being in the remote vicinity of it can set it off, how do you propose someone operate in society then?

Snort. I never suggested that. I merely suggest that someone who is allergic to something ought to be allowed to avoid contact. In this case, a cab driver can say "I'm allergic to peanuts and I notice you're coated in peanut dust, so I can't drive you."

I thought the whole law business about not refusing passengers was to prevent racial discrimination.

[Learning Phase]

I haven't been able to come up with a reference for this, but this may be a case of a few cab drivers trying to beat the system.

Like many airports the airport forces cab drivers to line up at a pickup spot and the first cab in line is required to take the next passenger arriving at the pickup spot. If, for some reason, you choose not to take the passenger, you simply return to the back of the line and take your turn again. Everyone has the same rules, whether Muslim or Zoroastrian.

If you've waited an hour in line to pick up your next fare, and find that he's only going two miles, and your fare will be a cheap one, you're probably going to be rather upset. Congratulations, you made four bucks that hour. But that's the chance that every cabbie takes if he works the airport crowd. Next time around, you'll get the idiot who flew into the wrong airport and isn't willing to take a bus for that 50 mile trip, and you'll make a couple hundred for your time.

What I've heard is actually happening is that a very few cab drivers are attempting to use religion to bypass that system. They wish special rules for muslims who wish to refuse fares, but still wait at the front of the line. They're only refusing the fare AFTER being told where the fare is going. And "surprise, surprise" they only refuse after being told that it's a relatively short trip. Suddenly they find that you have the smell of alcohol about you, or that you have dog hair, or you're doing something equally unislamic. If your trip is a long one, I guess that you're ok even if you've got a dozen bottles of vodka and a few hams hanging over your dog's shoulders as you enter the cab. (Yes, I know that's a big dog.)

[Smike]

What if I'm allergic to peanuts? Will I get in trouble for racing away from Mr Peanut, and he gives chase, waving his cane and screaming obscenities?

Mr Peanut should clearly not be discriminated against. Perhaps the cabbie could wear some kind of gas mask?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/208445bcc14fc4662.jpg

[TragicMonkey]

I should apologize for my previous heatedness. It's mostly because I would never dream of eating in a cab without asking the cabbie if he minded me doing so. And depending on what I was eating, I might even feel obligated to offer him a piece. It outrages my sensibilities to imagine people consuming peanut-ridden food items in a cab without asking, regardless of the potential disasters that might ensue. It seems rude.

[webfusion]

Here's the deal, TragicMonkey --

In this case, a cab driver can say "I'm allergic to peanuts and I notice you're coated in peanut dust, so I can't drive you."

No, a cabbie cannot say that. It is a violation of his license.
The rules for refusal governing cabs are completey different than the licensing rules of an establishment that serves food, or brick and mortar retail businesses.

If I was to be eating a bag of peanuts, or was to be on a date with my wife who was wearing expensive (strong) perfume, and the cabbie told me he was allergic and to please get out, I would make a note of his license number and the medallion number of the cab, and report him to the TLC as being in violation of his license, and I might even call the owners of cab company and complain that they hired someone who was physically impaired and obviously unfit to be a cabbie.


(Driver) must be of sound physical condition as certified to by a physician
licensed to practice in New York State or in the state in which the
applicant resides, on forms provided by the Commission. If the
Commission has cause to believe that an applicant or driver has a
physical or mental impairment that renders him or her unfit for the
safe operation of a taxicab, it may direct the applicant or driver to
appear before a duly licensed physician designated by the
Commission, for an examination of his physical or mental
condition. Failure to appear as directed may lead to suspension or
revocation of an existing license;

I'm certainly not going to entertain the suggestion that I would even ask a cabbie if he's OK with my wife getting in the cab wearing perfume. The very concept inherent in this line of thought is absurd. (I'm substituting perfume for peanuts because they are virtually interchangeable in the "allergy" example we're discussing, and perfume is more common.)

[brodski]

Evasion noted.

I asked you a question: Do you have a right to breath in Denmark, yes or no?

Yes, under article 2 of ECHR.

[TragicMonkey]

Airlines can toss passengers for smelling bad.

Perhaps the "rules for refusal governing cabs" should be modified. Why should a cab have to put up with something an airline wouldn't?

And I sincerely hope that for the whole of your life you meet with the exact degree of courtesy and consideration that you extend to others.

[Art Vandelay]

Huh? Do you even understand what a fallacy is?Is that supposed to be a counterargument?

No, Art, you have not answered my question. Can you list all of your rights, yes or no?I am rather sure that I have. Why in the world would I trust your claim that I haven't?

Now, are you going to answer my question?

Tell you what, if you answer my question, I'll answer yours.

[webfusion]

Airlines can toss passengers for smelling bad.

A jet aircraft is not a taxicab; A cab doesn't carry a large population of closely-packed-together strangers for vast distances, confined in a closed cabin-circulation air system.

Perhaps the "rules for refusal governing cabs" should be modified. Why should a cab have to put up with something an airline wouldn't?

A jet aircraft is not a taxicab.
Cab rules, by the very nature of the conveyance, are completely different in scope and effect from those governing airflight.
The rules for refusal of taxi drivers are pretty basic, and don't appear to need alterations. This thread is about muslims refusing to carry passengers because they have liquor. That is, on its face, a violation of the regs which indicate that personal luggage (or personal effects) must be allowed along with the passengers (with notable exceptions, such as "foul smelling" or carrying illegal contraband, or weapons, etc).

However, the rules for refusal are being modified, in the Minneapolis-StPaul Metropolitan area: From an earlier posting in this thread ---
The Metropolitan Airports Commission decided Tuesday to hold a public hearing Feb. 27 before it considers a proposal designed to curb such refusals, which drivers said are based on their religious beliefs.
MAC staff members are proposing a rule that would (automatically) suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse a fare for any reason besides personal safety. Their licenses could be suspended 30 days for the first offense and two years for the second.

As for 'courtesy and consideration' --- If you are allergic to peanuts, you are not eligible by law and by regulation, to drive a cab. Your physical condition impairs you from the safe operation of a taxicab. The general public doesn't want you to be in any way involved with that job, and if I got in your cab, only to find out that you are 'allergic' to my crackerjacks, I might even call the police and have them come right then and there and investigate you as "unfit to operate a public conveyance" (as defined by law and by regulation).

[Darth Rotor]

Of course taxi drivers shouldn't be allowed to refuse fares carrying alcohol.

I'm however concerned about the xenophobic overtones of both Oppenheim, the reporter, and Tony.


A little xenophobia isn't a bad thing. Look at what it didi for Israel in about 1948, 1956, and 1967. It helped make that nation exist. Look what it did for the Russians, circa 1941. Xenophobia has kept North Korea sovereign, and independent of South Korea (for better and worse.)

DR

[CFLarsen]

Is that supposed to be a counterargument?

I am pointing out that you clearly don't understand what a fallacy is.

I am rather sure that I have. Why in the world would I trust your claim that I haven't?

You don't have to. Just show me that list.

[ponderingturtle]

Airlines can toss passengers for smelling bad.

Perhaps the "rules for refusal governing cabs" should be modified. Why should a cab have to put up with something an airline wouldn't?

And I sincerely hope that for the whole of your life you meet with the exact degree of courtesy and consideration that you extend to others.

The thing is that airlines transport multiple fares at the same time, a cab does not, and the cab can refuse if they have things that will mess up the cab.

[Art Vandelay]

I am pointing out that you clearly don't understand what a fallacy is.No, you're claiming that I don't know because you don't understand how fallacious your statement is.

You don't have to. Just show me that list.
Do you have a list? Yes or no?

[CFLarsen]

No, you're claiming that I don't know because you don't understand how fallacious your statement is.

:hb:

Art, do yourself a favor and learn the basics of rational discussion.

Do you have a list? Yes or no?

No list from you, then.

[TragicMonkey]

and if I got in your cab, only to find out that you are 'allergic' to my crackerjacks, I might even call the police and have them come right then and there and investigate you as "unfit to operate a public conveyance" (as defined by law and by regulation).

Charming! Not only do you eat in someone else's vehicle without asking, you would waste the time of the police in attempting to punish someone and attempt to destroy their livelihood for thwarting your whim! (I dare you to call the cops in NYC and complain that a cabbie told you not to eat in his cab. Go on. See how sympathetic they are. Then you'd try suing the cops, no doubt.)

I fear that I am bound by a far more stringent set of guidelines than you are. They're called manners. It's where you do things you don't have to, out of niceness. Holding doors for people, letting other cars merge, not insisting on getting my own way in every tiny thing.

Go ahead. Insist on what is due to you, under the law. Get every single drop of your rightful due, and if any should need a little consideration, stomp them flat with the full force of all the state machinery you can whine into action. That's certainly going to make the world a better place. But that's probably not a consideration, huh.

[luchog]

Try to read what I say. I am asking those who point to these rights to list them.
That is a flat-out bald-faced rabid lie. That is not even remotely what you're saying. That is simply your disingenuous evasion of the issue.

You are the only one on the entire thread who is claiming the possibility of a explicit and exhaustive list of rights; or rather, you're clearly claiming that without such a list, that said rights cannot exist, or at least be legitimately claimed.

You have consistently, persistently, and stubbornly refused to accept that rights do not need to be explicitly enumerated to exist; that the US Constitution has language explicitly acknowledging the existence of implicit rights that are not explicitly enumerated within; and that the framers of the Constitution and US Government expressed quite clearly their desire to avoid the strict enumeration of rights and the abuses that typically follow, but to protect them implicitly and thus avoided the failure of the French revolutionists who attempted such an explicit enumeration. That the only limit on rights specified is when the exercise of such rights interfere or violate the equal rights of other citizens; both enumerated and unenumerated.

And this has been pointed out to you time and time again. Your game has gotten old and stale. The fact that you continue to play just points up the sheer irrelevancy of your dubious contribution to this forum. Are you truly to thick to understand? Do you need it stated in smaller words? Why don't you try posting something of substance for a change? Seriously.

[luchog]

:hb:

Art, do yourself a favor and learn the basics of rational discussion.


Wow. A simply ajuration to "practice what you preach" simply doesn't seem anywhere close to being adequate for this situation. I think my irony meter just exploded.

[Art Vandelay]

:hb:

Art, do yourself a favor and learn the basics of rational discussion.That being to accept whatever crap comes out of your mouth? If you have an argument to defend your claim, then present it, instead of acting like a jackass.

[thaiboxerken]

I figure that such policies should be addressed by the companies, and if the company wants to let their employees refuse to carry alcohol in their taxis, then fine. I, personally, would fire any employee that refused to do their jobs based on superstition.

[Tony]

You're kidding, right? You're saying that taking a ride in a taxi is a constitutionally given right? Amazing that the forefathers planned ahead for that.....


Ok, show me where, in the constitution, is says we lack the right to hire and ride in taxis.

[SezMe]

This is an interesting discussion...except that Art and CFL are engaging in yet another thread-destroying sidebar. Guys, take it to AAH, will ya?

[SteveGrenard]

There is no list of rights. Anything is a right so long as it isn't illegal. If it were legal to rob banks, it would be a right. It isn't. Rights are a social construct, conferred by governments, or if you follow Jefferson's reasoning, by God but that's another story difficult to buy into under any circumstance. Here is part of an interesting blog that deals with this. There are 6 additional replies on this thread at the URL below. You may not agree with all or any of them. I like this one the best:



Some observations on inalienable rights:

First of all, this idea came from a political philosopher by the name of John Locke. He believed in something called “natural rights,” or rights to life, liberty and estate. This is where our Jeffersonian concept of inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence come from.

Interestingly, Locke was an empiricist. Thus, natural rights are an axiom of an empirical philosophy, not rights granted by God (as claimed by Jefferson and others). Under natural rights, these must be established by the government for the system to work. This does seem to be an idea that the non-religious Left subscribes to.

If inalienable rights are truly God-granted, as Jefferson claimed, then what, short of revelation, allows the State to remove a man’s property, his living, or his life? How do you explain the death penalty? How do you explain the declaration of war? How do you explain the wire-tap and the hundreds of liberal protesters at the RNC who were detained for days without ever being charged with any crime?

Now, James Glassman, the author of the above article, makes a very serious mistake. Apparently, he cannot distinguish between “inalienable rights” and those rights which we consider to be “alienable.” For example, your right to “free speech” is an alienable right. We regularly forego this right when we enter a private property or when we sign a contract with an employer. This is a right, much like the privelege of marriage (which is a contractual privilege), that our government “affords” to its people. In this regard, John Kerry was absolutely correct and the author is dead wrong.

http://www.untergeek.com/?p=371


Ok, show me where, in the constitution, is says we lack the right to hire and ride in taxis.

It doesn't have to be in the Constitution........
if it is not against the law to hire and ride in taxis then it is your right to do so. If it is not against the law for a cab driver to refuse a customer carrying alcoholic beverages then it is his right to do so which is why new regulations are now on the table which would make such refusals illegal.

[Tony]

Of course taxi drivers shouldn't be allowed to refuse fares carrying alcohol.

I'm however concerned about the xenophobic overtones of both Oppenheim, the reporter, and Tony.

Let's have a close look at the article:

The Muslim drivers have been refusing...

All of them? for that's what Oppenheim's grammar implies.

About three quarters of the 900 cabbies serving the airport are Muslim, and many have been regularly refusing passengers carrying beer, wine or liquor.

Okay, not all this time, merely 'many' of three quarters of 900. How many is that?

In the past five years, 5,400 would-be taxi passengers at the airport were refused service for this very reason

At first glance, that's a big number. How many taxi drivers would that represent?

If we assume an average of one fare carrying alcohol per taxi driver per day, that would make roughly 5400/(365*5), roughly three taxi drivers refusing fares.

One is called Aidan, another Khalid, the third has a name supplied by Tony: 'Mohammed'.

Unless Tony has a distinct source for this Mohammed, I can only assume he is making a metonymy, using a generic Muslim name to cover all Muslims.

And from three fundamentalist loonies, Keith Oppenheim and Tony have succesfully expanded it to all Muslim cab drivers and to all Muslims, respectively.

The thread title seems to have gone right over your head.

[NobbyNobbs]

Here's the deal, TragicMonkey --



No, a cabbie cannot say that. It is a violation of his license.
The rules for refusal governing cabs are completey different than the licensing rules of an establishment that serves food, or brick and mortar retail businesses.

If I was to be eating a bag of peanuts, or was to be on a date with my wife who was wearing expensive (strong) perfume, and the cabbie told me he was allergic and to please get out, I would make a note of his license number and the medallion number of the cab, and report him to the TLC as being in violation of his license, and I might even call the owners of cab company and complain that they hired someone who was physically impaired and obviously unfit to be a cabbie.


(Driver) must be of sound physical condition as certified to by a physician
licensed to practice in New York State or in the state in which the
applicant resides, on forms provided by the Commission. If the
Commission has cause to believe that an applicant or driver has a
physical or mental impairment that renders him or her unfit for the
safe operation of a taxicab, it may direct the applicant or driver to
appear before a duly licensed physician designated by the
Commission, for an examination of his physical or mental
condition. Failure to appear as directed may lead to suspension or
revocation of an existing license;

I'm certainly not going to entertain the suggestion that I would even ask a cabbie if he's OK with my wife getting in the cab wearing perfume. The very concept inherent in this line of thought is absurd. (I'm substituting perfume for peanuts because they are virtually interchangeable in the "allergy" example we're discussing, and perfume is more common.)

Wow. Just, wow. I've witnessed all sorts of rudeness before, but this is a brand new type. I don't even know what to call it. I'm just speechless. I've never heard of such callousness. You'd really take offense because your mundane activity threatens another's life? Holy cow. I have a friend who is deathly allergic to peanuts, and I make very sure that the house is clean of them when she comes over. And that's my own house. Here, you aren't even in your own arena, and you'd dare to be so rude? Holy cow.

A jet aircraft is not a taxicab; A cab doesn't carry a large population of closely-packed-together strangers for vast distances, confined in a closed cabin-circulation air system.



A jet aircraft is not a taxicab.
Cab rules, by the very nature of the conveyance, are completely different in scope and effect from those governing airflight.
The rules for refusal of taxi drivers are pretty basic, and don't appear to need alterations. This thread is about muslims refusing to carry passengers because they have liquor. That is, on its face, a violation of the regs which indicate that personal luggage (or personal effects) must be allowed along with the passengers (with notable exceptions, such as "foul smelling" or carrying illegal contraband, or weapons, etc).

However, the rules for refusal are being modified, in the Minneapolis-StPaul Metropolitan area: From an earlier posting in this thread ---
The Metropolitan Airports Commission decided Tuesday to hold a public hearing Feb. 27 before it considers a proposal designed to curb such refusals, which drivers said are based on their religious beliefs.
MAC staff members are proposing a rule that would (automatically) suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse a fare for any reason besides personal safety. Their licenses could be suspended 30 days for the first offense and two years for the second.

As for 'courtesy and consideration' --- If you are allergic to peanuts, you are not eligible by law and by regulation, to drive a cab. Your physical condition impairs you from the safe operation of a taxicab. The general public doesn't want you to be in any way involved with that job, and if I got in your cab, only to find out that you are 'allergic' to my crackerjacks, I might even call the police and have them come right then and there and investigate you as "unfit to operate a public conveyance" (as defined by law and by regulation).

Please note what I've bolded. In the case of a severe allergy, a bag of peanuts is as deadly as a loaded gun. The rule would seem to allow for a refusal on those grounds.

[ZirconBlue]

Personally, of all the cabs I've ridden in, there's not a one I would consider eating anything in.

[webfusion]

If it is not against the law for a cab driver to refuse a customer carrying alcoholic beverages then it is his right to do so which is why new regulations are now on the table which would make such refusals illegal.

There are already regulations in effect in Minneapolis-StPaul which decree that refusals such as these men are doing (regarding alcohol) are not legal right now. The new regulatory changes would make it easier and more streamlined a process to suspend their licenses; that's the way I am reading it.

As for the TragicMonkey scenario of me considering or asking if a cabby has any debilitating allergies --- nope, it is just not logical for me to worry about any cabdriver having such a medical problem to begin with. If he did, then, by law, he would be totally ineligible for the license. By displaying that license in full view, and offering me a ride, I have the complete confidence of the proper authorities responsible for issuing this taxi permit, that my driver is not suffering from any medical issues that would cause him to display (sudden) symptoms that would render him unfit to continue to operate the motor vehicle. If he told me, as I entered his cab, that he has certain medical problems, I would immediately, without hesitation, call the police and tell them that this cab driver is a potential hazard to the general public and insist to the officers who respond that this "unfit driver" shouldn't be allowed to drive another foot from that spot. The police, of course, understand that it is their job to prevent unfit drivers from being out on the roads.

This has nothing to do with 'courtesy' on my part -- it is a public safety issue and if any cab driver claims to be allergic (meaning he would suffer some sort of incapication and could go into a seizure. If he was an epileptic, same deal) then he clearly does not belong behind the wheel of a public conveyance. It is not his private vehicle -- a cab is in the public domain, like a bus or train.

Would you suggest that train conductors need to walk throughout the train and announce that passengers who want to go into the snack bar for some beers and salty nuts shouldn't bring their beverages and snacks back to their seats, as a 'courtesy' to him? How would this 'courtesy rule' of yours apply to an airline flight attendant who has an allergy to peanuts (which are routinely served on every flight)?

Uh, Tragic Monkey, you are trying to make this into something that public conveyance passengers should consider, and it's not. The general public at large has a clear and obvious expectation that people who are serving in those positions are free from allergic sensitivity to peanuts, perfume, or whatever (and especially cabbies who by law have to prove that they are not suffering any sort of medical problem which would make them "deathly ill").

Nobby Nobbs, if a bag of peanuts is as deadly as a "loaded gun" then for sure, a driver of a taxicab cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be allowed to get behind the wheel if he has prior knowledge that he is in violation of his license. (Medical clearance = complete physical health: He must be free from debilitating allergies or other such conditions, to get that license)

This has nothing to do with my 'rudeness' at all -- it is about common sense expectations of the general public with regards to how cabs are regulated.

(In the same way that I have a natural expectation to be allowed to get into any cab, carrying bottles of liquor which were just purchased in the Airport Duty Free Shop, and not have to deal with muslim cabbies who desire to flaunt the terms of their licenses).

[CFLarsen]

You are the only one on the entire thread who is claiming the possibility of a explicit and exhaustive list of rights; or rather, you're clearly claiming that without such a list, that said rights cannot exist, or at least be legitimately claimed.

You have consistently, persistently, and stubbornly refused to accept that rights do not need to be explicitly enumerated to exist;

Sure they do. How else do you know what you are talking about?

that the US Constitution has language explicitly acknowledging the existence of implicit rights that are not explicitly enumerated within; and that the framers of the Constitution and US Government expressed quite clearly their desire to avoid the strict enumeration of rights and the abuses that typically follow, but to protect them implicitly and thus avoided the failure of the French revolutionists who attempted such an explicit enumeration. That the only limit on rights specified is when the exercise of such rights interfere or violate the equal rights of other citizens; both enumerated and unenumerated.

There is no list of rights. Anything is a right so long as it isn't illegal. If it were legal to rob banks, it would be a right. It isn't. Rights are a social construct, conferred by governments, or if you follow Jefferson's reasoning, by God but that's another story difficult to buy into under any circumstance.
...
It doesn't have to be in the Constitution........

When you specify some rights, but leave the rest unspecified - and thus, unknown - you immediately accept that, with every new law that forbid you to do something that was previously not illegal, you constantly lose rights.

And when you also have a system where you elect legislators who constantly make new laws that forbid something, you accept that you lose rights. The system is designed to limit the rights which are not enumerated.

There is something jarring about this...

if it is not against the law to hire and ride in taxis then it is your right to do so. If it is not against the law for a cab driver to refuse a customer carrying alcoholic beverages then it is his right to do so which is why new regulations are now on the table which would make such refusals illegal.

Which means the abolition of slavery infringed on the slave owners' right to own slaves. Yet, the slaves also had a right to freedom.

What now? At some point, you will have to accept that the rights on X infringes on the rights of Y. Which, of course, is unacceptable. Right?

[SezMe]

FWIW, I've unsubscribed from this thread due to the "noise" factor. Sad, but true.

[BPSCG]

Ok, show me where, in the constitution, is says we lack the right to hire and ride in taxis.I think this whole topic makes more sense if looked at from the viewpoint of contract law rather than rights.

When you hire a cab, a contract is created - an agreement to exchange goods, services, or money for other goods, services, or money. You both agree to be bound by certain obligations under the contract. The cabbie agrees to provide you with transportation services in exchange for your money; you agree to provide money in exchange for those services. If he fails to provide those services, or if you fail to pay him, the contract has been breached.

If the cabbie evicts you in the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge when you open your bag of peanuts or pull the unopened bottle of Dom Perignon out of your travel bag, he has failed to live up to the terms of the contract. The issue then becomes whether he was entitled to void the contract because of your behavior.

I would say, "no," based on what I've read here so far. City taxi licensing bureaus impose a duty on a cabbie to transport any and all passengers, making exceptions only in extreme situations. While an obviously intoxicated person carrying an open bottle of whiskey would clearly be such an exception, someone at an airport international arrivals building carrying a package that says Veuve Cliquot on it would just as clearly not be an exception.

As regards the cabbie who complained that he couldn't work in a meat-packing plant because of the pork, and he can't drive a cab because he has to transport alcohol, I would suggest that perhaps his strict observance of his religion causes him to come into conflict with too many cultural institutions in the U.S., and perhaps he would be happier living somewhere where his religion wouldn't clash in so many ways with the prevailing culture.

[webfusion]

Yes, I like that "contract" evaluation of the circumstances we're talking about here. I'll go one step further, and return once more to this peanut/perfume case:

The cabbie has a "contract" with the Department of Motor Vehicles, whereby he agrees to undergo a physical examination as one critical element (testing of knowledge of road rules and taxi regulations, being another) and then, if he passes with flying colors, he is granted a special class (CDL) of driving permit.

Here is how a doctor approaches that exam:
Dr. Jones ---- Are you allergic to anything? Drugs, Foods, Animals?
Cab-driver-wannabe --- No, doc.

Right there, he has knowingly falsified a vital part of the process, and torn apart the 'safety net' that has been instituted by the legal authorities to protect the public.

He should have told the truth & been accordingly denied his license, end of story. Now, after his fasification of pertinent facts regarding his medical situation, he is sitting behind the wheel of an automobile, and I jump into that vehicle after attending a rodeo, happily eating my crackerjacks, not knowing this idiot has lied to the licensing authority. As a matter of him being a duly-licensed cab driver, I am naturally going to assume he is not suffering from a medical condition related to peanuts that could immobilize him, causing a hazard to the public.

I am obligated, as a citizen, to stop him from continuing to endager the public welfare.

(One note: In NobbyNobbs post #76 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2295110&postcount=76), he indicates that because I'm eating peanuts I'm endangering the personal safety of the cabbie. In reality, the cabbie is endangering the personal safety of everyone else. Any passenger who gets into that cab has a reasonable expectation that their cab driver is not a sufferer of deathly-allergies, according to the terms of the licensing contract with the State Motor Vehicle Administration).

How is my believing in the law being followed somehow "rude"?

[brodski]

The real question is, do Muslim cabbies have more or less of a right to refuse to carry alcohol than Catholic adoption agencies have to deny their services to gay couples?

[BPSCG]

The real question is, do Muslim cabbies have more or less of a right to refuse to carry alcohol than Catholic adoption agencies have to deny their services to gay couples?Where do Catholic adoption agencies have the right to deny their services to gay couples?

[brodski]

Where do Catholic adoption agencies have the right to deny their services to gay couples?

In the UK, until the transitional period runs out.
I don't know about the USA, I assume it will vary from state to sate, I am unaware of any federal laws guaranteeing gay rights.
I just think that many of the issues are similar. People engaged in regulated activities wish to be exempted from those the spirit (if not the letter) of those regulations because of their preferred mythology.

[ponderingturtle]

In the UK, until the transitional period runs out.
I don't know about the USA, I assume it will vary from state to sate, I am unaware of any federal laws guaranteeing gay rights.
I just think that many of the issues are similar. People engaged in regulated activities wish to be exempted from those the spirit (if not the letter) of those regulations because of their preferred mythology.

Well I believe there are states that have banned gay adoption, so it would seem to be a state issue.

[SteveGrenard]

Sure they do. How else do you know what you are talking about?

When you specify some rights, but leave the rest unspecified - and thus, unknown - you immediately accept that, with every new law that forbid you to do something that was previously not illegal, you constantly lose rights.

And when you also have a system where you elect legislators who constantly make new laws that forbid something, you accept that you lose rights. The system is designed to limit the rights which are not enumerated.

There is something jarring about this...

Not really. You get used to it. "God" grants humans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (per TJ), government takes them away and then grants or forbids all other rights.

Which means the abolition of slavery infringed on the slave owners' right to own slaves. Yet, the slaves also had a right to freedom.

Wrong. If slavery were legal it is the right of some to own others. When it was made illegal, that right no longer exists. The right to freedom by the slaves trumps the right for one person to own another.


What now? At some point, you will have to accept that the rights on X infringes on the rights of Y. Which, of course, is unacceptable. Right?

When laws are passed, usally based on some sensible notion they are for the greater and comon good, yeah, sure, not always as in Sharia for example, then some part of the affected populace is bound to be inconvenienced by them ... e.g. slave owners in your example.

It is not unacceptable, it is the way it is.

[CFLarsen]

Wrong. If slavery were legal it is the right of some to own others. When it was made illegal, that right no longer exists. The right to freedom by the slaves trumps the right for one person to own another.

That means that some rights supersedes other rights. Please rank the rights you have.

When laws are passed, usally based on some sensible notion they are for the greater and comon good, yeah, sure, not always as in Sharia for example, then some part of the affected populace is bound to be inconvenienced by them ... e.g. slave owners in your example.

It is not unacceptable, it is the way it is.

No, no: Not "inconvenienced". Their rights have been suppressed. Pure and simple.

[Mycroft]

In the past five years, 5,400 would-be taxi passengers at the airport were refused service for this very reason

That's how many were recorded, anyway.

[Mycroft]

"Debunked"? What is "debunked"? I am asking for a full list of your rights. Do you have it, yes or no?

Why would one need a full comprehensive list of rights just to assert one specific right? That doesn't make any sense.

[Grammatron]

That means that some rights supersedes other rights. Please rank the rights you have.


I want you to think long and hard about what you just wrote.

[CFLarsen]

Why would one need a full comprehensive list of rights just to assert one specific right? That doesn't make any sense.

It may make more sense when you realize that I didn't say anything about just asserting one specific right.

What specific rights can you assert?

I want you to think long and hard about what you just wrote.

If you have a problem with it, do let me know.

[Mycroft]

It may make more sense when you realize that I didn't say anything about just asserting one specific right.


You don't need to, it's the topic of the thread.

You don't need to discuss all rights to assert one right. True or false?

[BPSCG]

Why would one need a full comprehensive list of rights just to assert one specific right? That doesn't make any sense.DFTT.

[Katana]

DFTT.

Translation?

[BPSCG]

I want you to think long and hard about what you just wrote.DFTT.

[BPSCG]

Translation?"Don't Feed The Troll."

[brodski]

Translation?

If believe it is a plea for posters to cease providing mythical bridge dwelling beasts with nutrients.

Don't Feed The Troll

[Katana]

"Don't Feed The Troll."

If believe it is a plea for posters to cease providing mythical bridge dwelling beasts with nutrients.

Don't Feed The Troll

:thanks

[ZirconBlue]

Translation?

I'm guessing Don't Feed The Trolls?

[BPSCG]

I'm guessing Don't Feed The Trolls?Troll, singular. I only see one here. :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

You don't need to, it's the topic of the thread.

So, don't complain that I did. It's a straw man.

You don't need to discuss all rights to assert one right. True or false?

Of course you don't need to discuss all of them. Have I said anything about needing to discuss all rights?

What specific rights can you assert?

[SezMe]

The real question is, do Muslim cabbies have more or less of a right to refuse to carry alcohol than Catholic adoption agencies have to deny their services to gay couples?
No, that is not the "real" question at all. It is simply a non sequitur. It makes as much sense as raising the question of Muslim cabbies in a thread about Catholic adoption.

FWIW, I think BPSCG has posted a clear, conscise analysis of the issue. I would especially emphasize the final paragraph. If the Muslim was raised in this country, then he should know of the concept of separation of church and state and should be aware that our laws do not provide religious "set asides". If he is an immigrant, then, as BPSCG says, he should seriously consider options other than the USA.

[webfusion]

If he is an immigrant, then, as BPSCG says, he should seriously consider options other than the USA.

No.
He should probably just consider other employment options. He is certainly welcome here, AFAIK, and has virtually limitless career opportunities open to him that wouldn't involve violating his religious sensibilities.

[brodski]

No, that is not the "real" question at all. It is simply a non sequitur. It makes as much sense as raising the question of Muslim cabbies in a thread about Catholic adoption.
No it is not a non sequiter, it is exactly the same issue, do religious beliefs trump obligation under secular laws?


FWIW, I think BPSCG has posted a clear, conscise analysis of the issue. I would especially emphasize the final paragraph. If the Muslim was raised in this country, then he should know of the concept of separation of church and state and should be aware that our laws do not provide religious "set asides". If he is an immigrant, then, as BPSCG says, he should seriously consider options other than the USA.

But the separation of Church and state does provide "religious set aside" which is why members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal can trip their hearts out, where an atheist would be charged with drugs crimes.

Thank you Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[BPSCG]

No.
He should probably just consider other employment options. He is certainly welcome here, AFAIK, and has virtually limitless career opportunities open to him that wouldn't involve violating his religious sensibilities.Yes, he is certainly welcome here, but read again what I wrote:
As regards the cabbie who complained that he couldn't work in a meat-packing plant because of the pork, and he can't drive a cab because he has to transport alcohol, I would suggest that perhaps his strict observance of his religion causes him to come into conflict with too many cultural institutions in the U.S., and perhaps he would be happier living somewhere where his religion wouldn't clash in so many ways with the prevailing culture.He claims he can't work in a meat-packing plant any more because of the pork. He can't work as a cabbie because he's not supposed to transport alcohol. Evidently, he takes his Islam very seriously.
What does Islam say he should do if on his next job, he finds his boss is a woman? Should he submit to her will?
What does Islam say he should do if on his next job after quitting job #1, his next job requires him to work alongside a homosexual?
What does Islam say he should do if on his next job, after quitting job #2, he finds himself working with several women who have never been married but have children and live with men who are not their husbands?I think he's going to find conflicts with his religion wherever he goes. If he's not prepared to ease up on his religion, he's going to find staying employed pretty tough. So I'm serious when I say perhaps he'd be happier living somewhere where his religion didn't clash in so many ways with the prevailing culture.

He's actually helping prove the point I made in a couple of threads last year: Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with life as a citizen in a liberal democracy.

[webfusion]

Maybe just open a falafel stand?

Sorry, that's no good either...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2I3MzAxZjY5ODcxZTU3YWEyYzcwZWI3NzJhOTI4MzQ=

[SezMe]

But the separation of Church and state does provide "religious set aside" which is why members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal can trip their hearts out, where an atheist would be charged with drugs crimes.

Thank you Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
You're right. I should have said, "should not provide for religious set-asides"

[Mycroft]

DFTT.

Oooh, right. Sorry. :o

[CFLarsen]

Oooh, right. Sorry. :o

Have I said anything about needing to discuss all rights?

What specific rights can you assert?

[brodski]

I should have said, "should not provide for religious set-asides"

Now that I can agree with.

[The Fool]

He's actually helping prove the point I made in a couple of threads last year: Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with life as a citizen in a liberal democracy.

Maybe the point is that you can't think past your problem with Islam. I Imagine you don't have the same issues with Orthodox Jews? Are thier particular kooky religious practices judged on a different "compatability" level that the kooky religious practices of fundie muslims? What about the kooky religious practices of the Amish...will you tell them they are incompatable with american citizenship?

[BPSCG]

Maybe the point is that you can't think past your problem with Islam. I Imagine you don't have the same issues with Orthodox Jews? Show me where Orthodox Jews are complaining that they can't get work in America because of their devout religious beliefs, or where holding to their devout religious beliefs would bring them into conflict with the law (see stoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm#Javed_Ahmad_Ghamidi)), and we can talk.

What about the kooky religious practices of the Amish...will you tell them they are incompatable with american citizenship?Nope. Because they aren't. For starts, the Amish's religious practices aren't particularly "kooky," any more so than any mainstream religion. Technically, they're Anabaptists, a small Christian denomination, but hardly "kooky." The "kookiest" thing about them is that they choose to live largely apart from the rest of society and foreswear the use of many modern conveniences, not out of religious fervor, as is commonly believed, but because those conveniences would tend to disrupt their insular, self-sufficient society.

But they are good citizens. They pay their taxes, the only exception being Social Security taxes, for which they have a religious exemption. They carry on commerce with non-Amish, and treat non-Amish the way Jesus said you should treat others - as they themselves would wish to be treated (contrast with how Muhammad says a Muslim should treat non-Muslims - don't have them for friends, don't enter into business agreements with them, try to convert them if you can, kill them if you can't). When a maniac broke into an Amish school this past autumn and murdered several girls there before killing himself, the Amish community responded with forgiveness, reaching out to his family and setting up a charitable fund for them.

[brodski]

But they are good citizens. They pay their taxes, the only exception being Social Security taxes, for which they have a religious exemption.
So they're good citizens because they obey all the laws which are not in conflict with their religious beliefs, but have managed to become exempt from those laws which are (post 14 education is another good example).
How is that different from a more recent immigrant group seeking religious exemptions from secular laws? So different, in fact, that one is considered perfectly acceptable, but the other is deemed to be totally incompatible with western liberal democracy.

[CFLarsen]

Nope. Because they aren't. For starts, the Amish's religious practices aren't particularly "kooky," any more so than any mainstream religion. Technically, they're Anabaptists, a small Christian denomination, but hardly "kooky." The "kookiest" thing about them is that they choose to live largely apart from the rest of society and foreswear the use of many modern conveniences, not out of religious fervor, as is commonly believed, but because those conveniences would tend to disrupt their insular, self-sufficient society.

But they are good citizens. They pay their taxes, the only exception being Social Security taxes, for which they have a religious exemption. They carry on commerce with non-Amish, and treat non-Amish the way Jesus said you should treat others - as they themselves would wish to be treated (contrast with how Muhammad says a Muslim should treat non-Muslims - don't have them for friends, don't enter into business agreements with them, try to convert them if you can, kill them if you can't). When a maniac broke into an Amish school this past autumn and murdered several girls there before killing himself, the Amish community responded with forgiveness, reaching out to his family and setting up a charitable fund for them.

And yet, they make a point out of not educating their children beyond 8th grade.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Education)

Is that what we call "good citizens"? Do NOT educate your children because your religion tells you to?

[BPSCG]

So they're good citizens because they obey all the laws which are not in conflict with their religious beliefs, but have managed to become exempt from those laws which are (post 14 education is another good example).
Explanation here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Relations_with_the_outside_world).
In 1961, the United States Internal Revenue Service announced that since the Amish refuse United States Social Security benefits and have a religious objection to insurance, they need not pay these taxes. In 1965, this policy was codified into law.[13] Self-employed individuals in certain sects do not pay into, nor receive benefits from, United States Social Security, nor do their similarly-exempt employees. Amish employees of non-exempt employers are taxed, but they do not apply for benefits. A provision of this law mandates that the sect provide for their elderly and disabled; one visible sign of the care Amish provide for the elderly are the smaller Grossdaadi Heiser or Daadiheiser ("grandfather house") often built near the main dwelling. The Amish are not the only ones exempt from Social Security in the United States. Ministers, certain church employees and Christian Science practitioners may qualify for exemption under a similar clause. Otherwise, the Amish pay the same taxes as other American citizens.
How is that different from a more recent immigrant group seeking religious exemptions from secular laws? So different, in fact, that one is considered perfectly acceptable, but the other is deemed to be totally incompatible with western liberal democracy.To my knowledge, the Amish don't preach the murder of non-Amish, of homosexuals, and of adulterers.

The Amish also don't claim exemption from Social Security taxes when they work for non-Amish employers (and a significant number do). An Amish man driving a taxi for the Sunshine Cab Company (okay, just assume it exists, for the sake of the argument, okay?) would not claim that his religion should exempt him from paying Social Security taxes. But the Muslim in the OP here claims his religion should exempt him from transporting passengers carrying alcohol.

[Tony]

But they are good citizens. They pay their taxes, the only exception being Social Security taxes, for which they have a religious exemption. They carry on commerce with non-Amish, and treat non-Amish the way Jesus said you should treat others - as they themselves would wish to be treated (contrast with how Muhammad says a Muslim should treat non-Muslims - don't have them for friends, don't enter into business agreements with them, try to convert them if you can, kill them if you can't). When a maniac broke into an Amish school this past autumn and murdered several girls there before killing himself, the Amish community responded with forgiveness, reaching out to his family and setting up a charitable fund for them.

Not to mention the fact that the Amish are pacifiists and apolitical 99% of the time. All the Amish want is to be left alone to live in their quaint, old fashion ways. They are perhaps the farthest from islamic fundamentalists that you could get. My only problem with the Amish is that they keep their children in a state of relative ignorance.

[Tony]

How is that different from a more recent immigrant group seeking religious exemptions from secular laws?

You're kidding right? You don't know the difference between opting out of a government run retirement fund and using your religion to deny others a civil right?

[Art Vandelay]

This is an interesting discussion...except that Art and CFL are engaging in yet another thread-destroying sidebar. Guys, take it to AAH, will ya?I already started another thread in which Claus can take up this issue, yet he continues to post his fallacies (yet, claiming, while refusing to support the claim, that he is not engaging in fallacies) here, while refusing to make any contribution to the other thread.

[steverino]

They make nice furniture. Pricy, but nice.

[CFLarsen]

I already started another thread in which Claus can take up this issue, yet he continues to post his fallacies (yet, claiming, while refusing to support the claim, that he is not engaging in fallacies) here, while refusing to make any contribution to the other thread.

You are more than welcome to stop ignoring my posts in the other thread. Or any other thread.

[SteveGrenard]

So should muslim visitors be allowed into hospitals to visit their sick relatives if their notion of a religious belief (no alcohol) puts all patients at risk of infection? And what of muslim patients themselves? Do they have the right to refuse any sort of treatment that involves alcohol including its presence in injectibles? Pipes refers to radical Islam, I am not so sure this problem doesn't occur in all religious muslims given the taxi drivers unwillingness to even carry passengers in posession of alcohol. These cabbies are not terrorists and not radicals but they are professing to follow their religious beliefs.



A number of incidents are showing the deep incompatibility of radical Islam with modern medicine. Here are a trio to get this blog going, with more examples to be listed, in reverse chronological order, as they occur:

Muslim visitors refuse anti-bacterial gel: British hospitals offer dispensers with anti-bacterial gel outside wards so that visitors can be sure not to bring in such infections as MRSA and PVL. But the gel contains alcohol, prompting some Muslims to refuse to use the hand cleansers on religious grounds. A National Health Service employee, Theresa Poupa told in December 2006 of her experience visiting a sick relative at the London Chest Hospital:.....(snipped)

more at:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/720

[E.J.Armstrong]

There are groups in Israel stopping people from being opressed by religious nutters. See http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=41. The law is there to be used if anyone is being denied their rights in law.