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.

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?

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?

After that last comment I will pray for your soul. God help you.

“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!

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?

“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.

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.

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.

“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

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.

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.