Muslim Cab Drivers Who Don’t Pick Up Passengers Toting Alcohol Should Be Fired
From the Associated Press:
“Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties, including suspension of an airport taxi license, for Muslim cab drivers who refuse service on religious grounds to passengers toting alcohol or with service dogs.”
We must nip this religious foolishness in the bud, before Sharia law is implemented in cities with large Muslim populations like Dearbon, Michigan.
If it offends a Muslim taxi driver’s tender religious sensibilities to pick up a passenger toting alcohol or a blind person with a seeing eye dog, he should find another job.
And by the way, anyone who refuses service to a blind person with a guide dog, should be prosecuted under the Persons With Disabilities Law.
If we cave in to Muslims, who are renowned for their religious intolerance, where will this madness end? Should a born again cab driver be allowed to refuse service to a homosexual? A person wearing a towel on his head offends my aesthetic sensibilities. If I were a cabbie would I be allowed to refuse service to such couture-challenged individuals?
I might understand a hack refusing service to an inebriated individual who is being a nuisance, but he has no right to turn down a person carrying a bottle of alcohol. It would be the height of insanity and contrary to everything that this country stands for, to allow a Muslim to impose his religious views on anyone else. Minneapolis-St Paul is not Tehran, Iran, and praise Allah the Moon God for that.
I’m hoping that the Airport Commission will do the right thing an enact penalties that will strip the taxi license of any Muslim cab driver who discriminates against the blind or persons toting alcohol.
When the Airport Commission does the right thing, I will burn a towel in celebration and drink a glass of champagne.
I write a weekly column for a small town newspaper in Virginia, and I also write for several Web sites. Please leave a comment or send me an email at: rreyes4966@aol.com | More from Robert Paul Reyes
Stumble It!
January 6th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Hey Robert — we actually agree on something. Way to go!
January 6th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Thanks, I have a long history of speaking out against Muslim intolerance
January 6th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Pull their license or better yet form a PAC with an acronym such as Pets Under Sharia Socialistic Yamikas(PUSSY) or Dogs Respond Under Never-ending Kindness (DRUNK). This way we can petition the TSA for sensitivity training to be held during happy hour and all service animals must be present to get their handlers to the taxi terminals safely for pickup…friends don’t let friends walk their service dogs while drink…
January 6th, 2007 at 2:38 am
A hack has the right to refuse service to an inebriated individual….
REALLY?
How does THAT “law” read?
January 6th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Captain, you are right, I am wrong. I edited my essay.
January 6th, 2007 at 5:26 am
I hope the Airport Commission does the right thing. Religion should not entitle one to discriminate against certain types of people. If you have a job, you should do what you are supposed to do or else get a different job!
January 6th, 2007 at 7:38 am
I can agree with the general sentiment here. But isn’t it hypocritical of these mini-authorities to forbid an individual from making a few rules of his/her own whilst they themselves make the most arbitrary and often stupid demands and by-laws and regulations and whatnot and back them up with punitive fines. Calling upon these same bureaucratic little Kommisars to act against these taxi drivers is a bit rich.
Why not let the market decide. A taxi driver who is too choosy will go out of business PDQ, shirley?
January 6th, 2007 at 7:44 am
By the way, in Feminazi Van Dieman’s Land, where I am an unfortunate POW, no one is allowed to carry alcohol in a taxi and if you try to carry it internally you can be refused service at the cabbie’s discretion.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Amfortas wrote:
“Why not let the market decide. A taxi driver who is too choosy will go out of business PDQ, shirley?”
Maybe so, but before the Muslim taxi driver goes out of business, how many blind persons with guide dogs and discerning gentlemen clutching a bottle of Dom Perignon or a fine blended whisky will be inconvenienced?
January 6th, 2007 at 8:17 am
If the Mooselimb owns his own cab, is self employed, and so on – what of it? What if he owns a whole fleet of them – in which case, so what? I wager Hassan’s Hack Company won’t last long unless he changes his tune damn skippy – not that I’d ride with a Muslim Driver, myself.
Now if he works for someone, he should do what they say – and If I send him on a run to pick up a Blind Jewish Lesbian he better say “Yassuh” and get to it toot sweet – and he better damn well like it, smile, and call her ma’am or I will give him his walking papers.
It is called “The Market,” Paul, a subject you nanny-statists should become aware of. See, someone behaves in a reprehensible manner, they go out of business. Why? Because, contrary to the paranoid, masturbatory fantasies of liberals and other such regressives, not enough real racists exist anymore to support such companies. These are Straw-Bubbas. And if Straw-bubba opens a coffee shop that says “Whites Only” you can guarantee the someone will open one across the street that says “Everyone Welcome” and will rake the money in hand over fist, no matter how bad the coffee is there.
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport – a public facility – has opened itself to private cabs, with all that goes with it, including their right to refuse service to anyone. Okay – so the Islamicists don’t want to tote me around – fine with me, I wouldn’t ride in their brothels on wheels anyway; probably smells like the goat they had sex with anyway – though I might be tempted to try to get one while eating a pork bbq sandwich and drinking a beer just in the hopes they die of a stroke.
M-StP doesn’t like it? Close to private cabs. Use public ones. And do it without raising taxes.
January 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
A hack license makes the public transportation whether or not they actually work for the city. If it is against the law to state that you won’t give taxi rides to gays, or orientals, or blacks, then this ought to be ag’in the law as well.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Here in Texas we know how to handle this Muslim problem. A guy in Katy is holding pig races on his farm because the Muslims who bought the property nextdoor (knowing full well that he raised pigs) told him that he ought to move or at least get rid of his pigs.
They want to build a Masjid (Mosque) on the property. There are already over 50 mosques in the Houston area.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Muslims are trying to use this as a starting point. If they can get us to make this exception for them because of their religion they will then use that principle to force Sharia law all over the country.
Religous police watching you and your loved ones as you walk across town will not be far behind.
Not only should they be fired, if they are here on a visa and they cause any other problems they should be premanently deported.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Oh, I don’t agree.
First, I don’t agree they are public unless they get public funds. Even a “license” (which is a “Mother may I,” and an egregious trepass of Liberty) isn’t public funds, especially since you have to pay your brib – I mean, fee – to get it.
Second, making certain other rules in place would be justified – cabs get in a line – first up, first option, unless the client wants another. Turn down a fare, and you could make them have to drive off the lot, down the expressway, and come back to go to the back of the cab line.
I would have no problem with that.
Let the market work.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Gonzman:
I understand your thinking, but they are part of the transportation system of our country. They are a public service and they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on religion or any other fact.
What would happen if most of the taxi drivers were Muslims? It would hard if not impossible to get a ride.
Finally, see my previous post. This is just the beginning. If they get this exception they will move on to other bigger things. The purpose of their religion is to infiltrate and subjugate.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Patriot, my friend, by that reasoning, McDonalds is part of the food system.
I always default to liberty. Of course, if I operated a Cab company, any Islamicist would be fired on the spot for declining a fare, even if he was screwing a pig in the back seat. I’d even support our resident Christianaphobe, RPR, with his right to make Christians work on the Sabbath and fire them if they refused.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I think wether or not it’s “public” can also apply to no smoking laws and restaurants. However if I own a business and I’m required to abide by the ADA then these clowns should too…
January 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Gonzman:
I know it’s a tough call and I definitely hate resticting people, but I have always thought that transportation is different. It makes everything else in our country happen. That is why government is so involved in all aspects of it.
I do wonder why the taxi company hasn’t fired these guys. They are probably afraid of being sued by the ACLU and the terrorist organization known as CAIR.
Regardless of this particular incident my main concern is setting a precedent for the Islamists to begin forcing their beliefs in our country and demanding that we do what they want.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I agree with you RPR, first I thought of boycotting them and let the companies who hired these pinheads go out of business. Let their cabs sit idle at the airport cab stands while customers hop in the cabs that will carry their property including alcohol. I think what were seeing is a test by muslims to see how much they can get away with. If this kind of stuff flys how long will it be before you see them refuse to pick up women who aren’t wearing a burqa? And of course they (muslims) want to bring up any excuse to yelp about “Islamophobia” if you dare go against their demands. I say not only fire them but encourage (or deport) them to find other countries more suitable to their religious beliefs like Iran or Syria.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Amfortas wrote:
“Why not let the market decide. A taxi driver who is too choosy will go out of business PDQ, shirley?”
Amfortas, one more thing, most of the hacks at the airport are Muslim, a passenger with alcohol would find it almost impossible to get a ride if the Muslims get their way.
“Pat Hogan, an airport spokesman, said a handful of drivers began refusing to carry alcohol 10 years ago. Now he estimates that three-quarters of the 900 airport cabdrivers are Somali, most of them Muslim.”
http://behavioralhealth.typepad.com/markhams_behavioral_healt/2006/10/muslim_cab_driv.html
January 6th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
The thing is, this is a transparent attempt by our resident Christophobe to restrict freedom, in specific religious freedom. You can believe, though, if one of his secularist buddies wants to restrict praying in “his” cab, on the grounds of private property, it will be a different song being sung.
Fact is, any transaction is voluntary – on both sides. You don’t have to buy from me.
But .. I don’t have to sell to you, either.
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” used to be posted everywhere. Sure, ol’ RPR will claim it was “racist” (The typical response for his ilk)but this was to keep out the undesireables – bad customers who cost you more than you made, and drove away other customers. It is an ancient right to be able to say, in the words of the old New Englander, “Them groceries ain’t fer sale.”
That is liberty, man, liberty. With it comes consequence, too. Be too heavy handed with it – piss enough people off – and your liberty will cost you your living if you abuse it. And that is the way it should be.
What is being missed here is that this is a typical trick that is used by would-be tyrants. Pick an unpopular group. And make no mistake, Islam is an unpopular group – it is a reprehensible religion. Make sure it is a minority, and easily pushed around.
Again, same thing.
And now that you have established your “right” to restrict freedoms, commence on everyone else – especially your real targets.
Read RPR, guys. He has a hard on for Christians. And once he can put the boot of left wing, fascist, tyranny on the neck of a religion – under the guise of law – guess who is next?
Let the Islamofascists “discriminate.” It is their right, anyway. And soon enough, they will be out of business, and then it won’t be “75%” of the cab drivers being Muslim.
Let the market work. Some stupidity is self correcting without ceding more power to the State.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Gonzman speak true. “Let the market work. Some stupidity is self correcting without ceding more power to the State.” He shows the alternative.
We all have to live with various forms of that bloody alternative. Every whinging, interfering, busy-body, school-yard bossy-boots, passing regulations, by-laws, legislations trying to ‘correct’ this or that human freedom which irks them. And you like it?? Tell ‘em to bugger off, I say.
Are there no alternatives to the 75% muslim taxi drivers at that airport? Buses, hire cars, trains? Again, where there’s a demand, a supply will find it. Roll in the suppliers who put up their sign saying, “Pissed outta yer brains on airline booze? Use Frankie’s Booze ‘n Party Bus. $10 per mile and free beer. Complementary hose down when we get you home”. I’ll bet Frankie does a roaring trade.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
The Gonzman wrote:
“The thing is, this is a transparent attempt by our resident Christophobe to restrict freedom, in specific religious freedom.”
I am against all organized monotheistic religions — they are a blight on humankind. Some religions are worse than others, Islam is at the bottom of the barrel.
I’m for freedom – freedom from the followers of the Moon God pushing their vile religion on us.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
And we thank you for admitting your bigotry. It’s very big of you, and a bold move too, considering that it makes it that much easier to dismiss your rantings on the subject as a product of your festering hatred.
Of course, unlike your god buddies on the left, we here on the right believe in giving you a big soapbox to preach on. If for no other reason than we know where you are, what you are up to, and can use you as a terrible warning.
Thanks for being such a good sport about it, eh wot?
January 7th, 2007 at 12:20 am
I am indeed grateful that the editor gives me a platform to express my views, however controversial they may be.
January 7th, 2007 at 2:23 am
From the AP:
“Last year, the airports commission received a fatwa, or religious edict, from the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society saying “Islamic jurisprudence” prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, “because it involves cooperating in sin according to Islam.”
And I guess it’s not a sin to leave a blind person stranded at the airport because he has a guide dog?
We should let the Muslims know what we think of their fatwas!
January 7th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Agreed RPR. Busy-body by-laws may be irksome but fatwas are an affront of the first water. Those who think they have a right to order the death of another particularly over such a trivial issue, deserve to get what they give.
January 7th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Mr. Reyes:
After that last comment I will pray for your soul. God help you.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Another case of RPR omitting important facts. The cabbies already have the “right” to refuse service to anybody and everybody just by not working at all. What these cabbies are doing is getting in line at the busiest cabstand in the twin cities and demanding the right to pick and choose fares without penalty. The regular rule is that when you get to the head of the line, you take the next customer or go to the end of the line. depending on circumstances, a cabbie might actually do better to go to the end of the line and hold out for what he thinks will be a more lucrative fare (a fat cat on an expense acct. vs. grandma who will need her luggage carried up three flights and no tip.)
These cabbies are welcome to refuse a customer for any reason at all as long as they go to the end of the line. How they made news is by demanding a pass on the standing rule due to their religious preferences.
The simple solution is to just enforce the existing rule.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:56 am
I always carry a package of oscar mayer bacon with me. If I am not treated with the respect I deserve from a mulame cabby, I leave him a strip of bacon for a tip.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Here in Minneapolis, I’ve been aware of this issue for a while. My wife works in an insurance company, and one of the sister companies handles cab auto insurrance. It seems that overwhelmingly the the drivers are Muslim. Yes, they do have laws against alchohol in the Koran, but as reported by other Muslims, these laws are not being broken by them in the process of feeding their families.
the other part of the issue is the dogs. That is not Koranic. That is an locality based phobia. In the MidEast, dogs are considered vermin. At this point, it becomes a “prejudice”. They are not sinning by carrying dogs.
So, this is a government regulated industry. The people being picked up at the airport are obliged to take the first cab in the line. They are not allowed to choose the second cab. The cabbi is allowed to reject the fare (currently) and is then forced to move to the end of the line (going around and getting back in). What happens when you arrive and go out to take a cab and find that they are all Muslim cab drivers and are rejected by all of them? Can the insurrance program reject the cabbis simply because they are Muslim? Can the Airlines? All are gov’t regulated, so why do the cabbi’s get the option and not the rest? It’s against my religion to be flown into a skyscraper in the name of someone else’s god.
Truth is, the number of Muslim cab drivers in Mpls-St. Paul is well over 75%. They are licensed for use by the public by the state, therefor all of the public has a right to use them. Where safety issues are concerned, I would expect that they would be allowed to reject a fare, but on their own prejudice I would expect that their license would be revoked just as it should when they refuse to pick up a person because of their race, religion, sex or ethnic origin.
Oh, one more realistic option. Unescorted women. What happens when the Muslim drivers decide that the Wahabbism version is correct and they refuse to accept fares from unescorted women… late at night? Do they leave them to hail another 20 cabs hoping for a fare? And as long as we are on the religious freedom issue, they kill unescorted women in Saudi Arabia in the name of religion. Do we or don’t we need a bit of restriction when one’s religion affects others detrimentally?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Mmmmmm, bacon.
Here’s a tip for all muslims: have your dollar bills tested for pork products.
I’m willing to bet that not everyone that eats pork washes their hands.
Matter of fact, I’m gonna make myself a bacon sandwich right now, then run my fingers through all of my cash. That cash will sit in a cash register infecting all of the other cash, getting on the clerks hands and infecting everything they touch.
Still willing to handle money? I will pray for your soul. Kin I have your virgins?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I have one question as a “devil’s advocate”: How many of those in favor of firing these muslims are in favor of firing pharmacists that will not fill scripts for birth control or Day After pills?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I am.
But, this is still a little different. When I step out of the airport terminal, I have to take the first cab in the line. I don’t have to take the first pharmacist that walks up to the window, not the first drugstore on the block.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Bottom Line: We are at war with Islamists. Are we going to let them get away with imposing their religon on us in our homeland?