Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Well, well, well.... I wonder if the courts will force them to work.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Well, well, well.... I wonder if the courts will force them to work.




    CLEVELAND, Ohio -- 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.
    Soooo....

    Will the court step in and force these drivers to engage in an activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs?


    Lemme guess: that's different, somehow. It just is.
    It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
    In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
    Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
    Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

  • #2
    Back in 2007, the people running the Minneapolis airport faced a similar dilemma, as 75% of the cabbies there are Muslims from Somalia. They were refusing to transport alcohol or dogs. Transporting alcohol is a sin in their religion and dogs' saliva is considered unclean. The airport authority wound up cracking down on this, revoking licenses for two years for anyone who refused a service dog or someone with liquor on their possession.

    I don't know if that is still in effect or it was sued out of existence. I can't find stories saying one thing or another. If it's still in effect, then it would appear that the cab drivers don't really have the religious right to opt-out of driving for reasons they find offensive.

    Personally, I feel that if they own the cab in question and are independent agents, then they should be allowed great leeway into who or what they will do with that, since it's their business. If this is a company owned cab, shut up and drive, or quit and start your own halal cab company. The vast majority of Christians in the workforce have to work on their holidays at some point in their lives, or deal with sinners in some capacity, or do things that they might not otherwise do, but "for the company". So why should it be any different for Muslims?

    On the one hand, I want them to feel comfortable in their jobs as much as possible, but at the same time, I don't want to be waiting for an hour at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because there's a cab shortage because all the jumpin' jihadists are on Gay-strike. Whose comfort wins in capitalism?
    “Any sufficiently advanced capitalism is indistinguishable from rent seeking.” ~ =j

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe the cab company should just put a sticker inside the cab saying that the driver does not endorse whatever the rooftop placards are advertising (as if anyone doesn't already understand that).
      Enjoy.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

        But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Lanie View Post
          I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

          But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.
          Burger King is not the government.
          It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
          In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
          Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
          Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Lanie View Post
            I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

            But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.
            The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. Generally "religious practice" is understood to mean the normal practice of an established religion. Given that Islam has no scriptures relating to ads on taxis, then this shouldn't be covered.
            The year's at the spring
            And day's at the morn;
            Morning's at seven;
            The hill-side's dew-pearled;
            The lark's on the wing;
            The snail's on the thorn:
            God's in his heaven—
            All's right with the world!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
              The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. Generally "religious practice" is understood to mean the normal practice of an established religion. Given that Islam has no scriptures relating to ads on taxis, then this shouldn't be covered.
              So then we'll put you down as a "yes" vote on the courts forcing these drivers to drive cars with these ads on them.
              It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
              In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
              Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
              Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lanie View Post
                I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

                But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.
                I worked with a girl at McDonald's whose parents would not allow her to work on Sundays, then they'd come in after Church and have breakfast. Used to annoy me.
                Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                Robert Southwell, S.J.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                  Maybe the cab company should just put a sticker inside the cab saying that the driver does not endorse whatever the rooftop placards are advertising (as if anyone doesn't already understand that).
                  Would that disclaimer work for a religious monument on government land?
                  "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                  -John Locke

                  "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                  -Newman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Adam View Post
                    Soooo....

                    Will the court step in and force these drivers to engage in an activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs?


                    Lemme guess: that's different, somehow. It just is.
                    The cab drivers aren't refusing to drive gay people, they are refusing to drive cabs with an ad for the gay games. Big difference. Their beef is with their company at this point and of no interest to regulatory agencies.
                    The year's at the spring
                    And day's at the morn;
                    Morning's at seven;
                    The hill-side's dew-pearled;
                    The lark's on the wing;
                    The snail's on the thorn:
                    God's in his heaven—
                    All's right with the world!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
                      The cab drivers aren't refusing to drive gay people, they are refusing to drive cabs with an ad for the gay games. Big difference. Their beef is with their company at this point and of no interest to regulatory agencies.
                      Just as I predicted.
                      It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
                      In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
                      Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
                      Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by scott View Post
                        Would that disclaimer work for a religious monument on government land?
                        If there were employees driving government land around, sure. The driver does not endorse any monuments on the land. He's just a driver. But the management would likely be assumed to approve of any permanent decoration. Like if a cab were painted with a green and orange plaid pattern, I wouldn't blame the driver but I would certainly hold the cab company management responsible.
                        Enjoy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Adam View Post
                          Burger King is not the government.
                          Because that would be a monarchy.
                          Enjoy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                            Because that would be a monarchy.
                            BOOOOOOOOOO!!!
                            It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
                            In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
                            Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
                            Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The company is within its rights to fire anyone who refuses to do their job, generally speaking. The government can enforce non-discrimination in public accommodations. The government can't force a cab company to accept ads, but if they accept ads, they can probably be compelled to accept any ad that doesn't break the law. Or if they accept only ads for events, for example, and not products, they can be compelled to accept ads for the Gay Games and the Islamic Olympics along with the Highland Games and the Special Olympics, but not Victoria's Secret ads.

                              The drivers are either contractors or employees. Either way, the terms of their arrangment with the company undoubtedly require them to drive any legal vehicle the company provides. If they refuse, they can be fired. The government has no interest in it.

                              What's so difficult?

                              BTW, of course I think the employer should fire them.
                              "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X