Taxi drivers turn down gay fares for religious reasons

[Asclepias]

There is a whole thread of you saying it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-natural-rights-exist-without-government.html

I love how you lie when cornered. Posting a thread is not posting the quote you claimed I made. You should be able to post a quote where I said it but you cant because you were lying to keep from being busted. While you are at it please post where it says a business can discriminate. The board will never get to see those 2 things because they dont exist.

Remember when I told you to read the decision, and you didn't, you just claimed, without evidence, that it doesn't say what it says? Does that remind you of your tactics in the thread where you claim you haven't been saying that people have no rights unless someone hands them out?

Remember when I asked you to provide my quote before and you couldn't? History is repeating itself. You like to make up lies then attempt to weasel your way out of them when called on the carpet like a towheaded 1rst grader. Next time I ask you to provide a quote do just that kid.

 

[Esmeralda]

But there is no uproar from the left.

I wonder why.

Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com

And so they are not driving: their right not to.

If they choose not to drive taxis, not to work, during that period of time, it is their choice and okay. If they are driving but refusing to transport gays, then what they are doing is illegal.

Anyway, it's all nonsense. There is nothing in any religion that says you cannot drive a cab with a homosexual person in it. It's not their religious beliefs at all; it is their personal beliefs that are the issue for them.

Please, someone cite the biblical scripture or scripture in the Koran that states you are not allowed to have contact with homosexuals, not drive them in a cab or bake a cake for them,etc.

 

[Noomi]

^people will sometimes use their religion to justify their hatred for others.

 

[Pennywise]

They have turned down no fares. They turned down advertising. There is no civil right to advertise so these drivers were within their rights. Muslim cab drivers cause a lot of problems with what they will or will not accept as a fare. This just isn't one of them.

There's a guy in the UK who will take blow jobs as fare

That's sweet. Where did he take you?

 

[Noomi]

I don't give a shit what your religious beliefs are. You choose to drive a taxi, you take gay people and straight people where they wish to go. And you also take blind people and guide dogs, too. If you don't like it, suck it up and find another job.

The issue here isn't about driving faggots around town.

It's about refusing to advertize their perverted lifestyle. ...

Let me break out my violin and play them a tune.

 

[jon_berzerk]

But there is no uproar from the left.

I wonder why.

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com

Probably because they are not illegally discriminating. They actually exercised their rights you retard. Why would anyone have a problem with this?

They have no rights, they have a contract that requires them to drive to the airport.

and part of that contract requires them

to tote around whatever the airports sells for advertising on those cabs

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Of course the moment they refuse to transport a gay couple to a wedding, all hell will break loose.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Remember the case a couple years ago of a Muslim barber who refused to cut a woman's hair ?

Go read the story here: Faith McGregor Sues Omar Mahrouk, Muslim Barber, For Refusing To Cut Her Hair

Then take a look at the readers comments. It's the Huffington Post, so you can figure the vast majority of the readers are libs.

Notice they almost all support the Muslim, and some even goes as far as demanding the woman apologize.

I guarantee you, had the barber been a Christian these same libs would be going nuts. Especially if the woman were gay. Hypocrisy on parade.

 

[editec]

But there is no uproar from the left.

I wonder why.

Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com

Taxi drivers turn down gay fares for religious reasons

Not according to the article you linked to, Quant.


Reading comprehension isn't your strong suite, I guess, eh?

 

[Papageorgio]

But there is no uproar from the left.

I wonder why.

Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com

I don't give a shit what your religious beliefs are. You choose to drive a taxi, you take gay people and straight people where they wish to go. And you also take blind people and guide dogs, too. If you don't like it, suck it up and find another job.

It says they are refusing to work.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Esmeralda]

Remember the case a couple years ago of a Muslim barber who refused to cut a woman's hair ?

Go read the story here: Faith McGregor Sues Omar Mahrouk, Muslim Barber, For Refusing To Cut Her Hair

Then take a look at the readers comments. It's the Huffington Post, so you can figure the vast majority of the readers are libs.

Notice they almost all support the Muslim, and some even goes as far as demanding the woman apologize.

I guarantee you, had the barber been a Christian these same libs would be going nuts. Especially if the woman were gay. Hypocrisy on parade.

I find it hard to believe that any woman anywhere would want to force someone to cut her hair. What we all try to do is find someone to cut our hair who is a great hairstylist and someone who shares our vision of what we want. It's possibly very different for a man, but a woman wants someone cutting her hair who is on the same page as herself. So, if there is/was a situation where a woman made a big deal out of a man who refused to cut her hair for religious reasons, I imagine it was set up for the media: not a real situation at all. Something Muslim haters set up it appears.

 

[DGS49]

The only rational definition of "homosexual" is based on a person's sexual preference, which is not physically identifiable unless the individual displays garments or affectations INTENDED TO BROADCAST that sexual preference.

Without such a display, there is simply no way that a service provider would know enough to be able to deny service to a homosexual. And given the broad spectrum of dress and behavior that one sees today - especially among people who use cabs - a particularly sensitive cab driver could easily make a mistake in assessing someone as "gay."

NOBODY hates another person because of their sexual preference. Nobody. NOBODY knows what anybody else does in their own private lives unless the person voluntarily makes it public.

So as a general proposition, EVEN IF I WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, I cannot do so unless some person voluntarily, publicly expresses their homosexuality in an unambiguous way. If Richard Gere wants to get into my cab, why and how could I refuse him service? He might be gay but who the hell knows?

Imagine I'm asked to pick up two men from a wedding service that I know to have been a homosexual marriage. How would I know that these two men are gay? It would be pure speculation on my part. Gay people have heterosexual friends and acquaintances, and those friends and acquantances might well be attending their wedding. Two guys together sharing a cab? So what? They are sharing a ride to save money. How or why could I refuse them service?

But the issue here is different. Here we have a vehicle with signage that invites and welcomes the general public to celebrate an event that is exclusively for people who are habitual sodomites. (Believe me, celibate homosexuals need not apply). This is not about peoples' sexual preferences, which are private and not morally relevant. It is about the celebration of morally repugnant behavior (if you believe in the moral rectitude of either the Koran or the Christian Bible, or the Torah, or the Book of Mormon).

The drivers are saying, "I will not participate in the celebration of behavior that I consider morally repugnant."

And by the way, they are only saying they will not drive the cabs that are dedicated to the airport runs. They will drive the other cabs that go all over Cleveland land, as long as they don't carry the ads for the gay games. I doubt that any of them are not working because of this dustup.

 

[Katzndogz]

Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.

Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.

I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?

If you refer to the decision in New Mexico, it not only says the photographer CAN discriminate, but gives specific instructions on how to do it.

 

[Esmeralda]

The drivers are saying, "I will not participate in the celebration of behavior that I consider morally repugnant."

That's the thing, it is their own personal attitude, what they find morally repugnant. It is not part of their religious doctrine. Again, show me where it says in the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious document that lays out tenets, where does it say you cannot give people who are homosexual or are supporting a homosexual lifestyle a ride in your cab? It's the drivers' personal feelings, not something required by their religion.

 

[Asclepias]

Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.

I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?

If you refer to the decision in New Mexico, it not only says the photographer CAN discriminate, but gives specific instructions on how to do it.

Then you should be able to quote the words "you can discriminate" or "you are allowed to discriminate" and link to the document they appear in. I dont see them anywhere.

 

[Swagger]

And so they are not driving: their right not to.

Just like it is the right of Christians not to go to gay weddings?

you seem confused as to what the ruling was. it is not that anyone has to GO to a particular wedding. it's that you can't discriminate in your business and refuse to provide the service your business offers.

you know... like in the jim crow days.

If the taxi drivers - or the firm they work for - carried a sign in their vehicles informing customers that a percentage of the fare would be donated to an organisation that opposes gay rights, would that be classed as discrimination?

 

[jillian]

But there is no uproar from the left.

I wonder why.

Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com

that is working for me.... fire them for refusing to work and get new drivers.

so you think companies should hire scabs like in the old days?

funny... i thought the world was supposed to get better.... not deteriorate just to satisfy today's version of the robber barons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?

Let me guess, you making an unsupported claim is proof you are right.

Let me show you how to refute an argument.

From the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court.



Wow, look at that, the law only prohibits discrimination under some conditions, not all.

Then we have this.

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography
business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination
based on certain specified protected classifications.

What was that? It would be perfectly legal for a black photographer to discriminate against a KKK rally?

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

Next time I suggest you read something, read it, you might end up looking halfway intelligent.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

Where do the words appear that you can discriminate? I only see the words "prohibit or prohibiting discrimination". Next time I ask for a quote you better provide it or place your stupidity on display like you are now doing.

I keep forgetting that you don't read posts that are longer than you can put on Twitter.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love how you lie when cornered. Posting a thread is not posting the quote you claimed I made. You should be able to post a quote where I said it but you cant because you were lying to keep from being busted. While you are at it please post where it says a business can discriminate. The board will never get to see those 2 things because they dont exist.

Remember when I told you to read the decision, and you didn't, you just claimed, without evidence, that it doesn't say what it says? Does that remind you of your tactics in the thread where you claim you haven't been saying that people have no rights unless someone hands them out?

Remember when I asked you to provide my quote before and you couldn't? History is repeating itself. You like to make up lies then attempt to weasel your way out of them when called on the carpet like a towheaded 1rst grader. Next time I ask you to provide a quote do just that kid.

In other words, you didn't read even the little bit of the decision I posted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^people will sometimes use their religion to justify their hatred for others.

People will sometimes use their hatred of others to justify laws that restrict freedom.