October 03, 2006

MN Muslim Cabbies

I imagine my friend έχω ζωη would know more about this situation since he lives near there. Apparently Muslims who drive cabs are now refusing to drive anyone who carries alcohol with them.

As usual, the Muslims claim, "I cannot force anybody to change their belief." While actually trying to do that very same thing. Meanwhile, "Airport officials have begun working with taxi drivers to install colour-coded lights on taxi roofs to indicate which are alcohol friendly and which are not."

Now I'm not sure about MN, but everywhere else I've been, all people who drive cabs have to have licenses and permissions from the city. So, since these cabbies are working with the permission of the city, they are imposing their religious beliefs on anyone else who wants to use the cab. So where is the ACLU? Why isn't the ACLU trying to get these cabbies to stop because this is just as clearly a government endorsement of religion, isn't it?

I wish I had the time and money to really create test cases for these things. How far do you think I'd get if I drove a cab at the airport, but before I'd let anyone ride, I'd ask them if they had accepted Jesus as their savior -- and then refused to let them in if they didn't? Oh, I wouldn't be forcing my beliefs on anyone, just not letting anyone in who didn't completely and totally accept my beliefs.

My suggestions for everyone who goes through the MN airport: carry six-packs of beer when you need a cab.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:08 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Do you think this is any differen then the Pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control?

Posted by: Sam at October 04, 2006 08:43 PM (Gm/LU)

2 Yes

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2006 11:20 AM (oifEm)

3 Do you?

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2006 01:22 PM (oifEm)

4 No I don't. If you are going to allow one person to excercise or impose their fatih at work then you have to let the other. You can't pick and choose. It's both or neither. Or is it ok as long as the person is Christian. Personally, both upset me.

Posted by: Sam at October 05, 2006 02:40 PM (Gm/LU)

5 I think there's a big difference in that the cabs are government-approved. In other words, if the government is going to regulate every single move the cabbies make, then government is approving forcing the religion on someone else. In the case of pharmacists, the government may regulate the actual pills, but they don't regulate the actual people. In that case, it's the people not wanting to perform a job for their employer, in which case the employer can simply fire them. With the cabbies, it's, in effect, a government employee that the government cannot fire.

Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2006 10:58 AM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.092, elapsed 0.156 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.1486 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.