Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, March 30, 2007
Linda Chavez :: Townhall.com Columnist
Intolerance in the Twin Cities
by Linda Chavez
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Tolerance is a two-way street, as a group of Somali taxi drivers in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., are about to find out. In May, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in the Twin Cities is set to adopt new rules that will punish cabbies who refuse to haul passengers carrying liquor, even though the drivers claim their Muslim faith forbids them to do so.

The issue has come to a head in the Twin Cities because a popular local imam issued a fatwa last June forbidding Muslim drivers from transporting liquor in their taxis. The prohibition is not widely shared among Muslims elsewhere in the United States, but it has caused quite a stir in Minneapolis and St. Paul, home to the nation's largest Somali community. More than 600 airport taxi drivers in the cities are Somali, most of them Muslim.

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, about 100 passengers each month are denied transportation for carrying alcohol. But that will change if the MAC goes forward with a plan to suspend for 30 days the license of any driver who refuses customers for reasons other than safety; a second offense could lead the driver to lose his license for two years.

Some Muslim drivers claim the rules single them out for religious persecution -- and they vow to fight the penalties as an infringement of religious liberty. What the drivers seem to be saying is, we expect non-Muslims to respect our beliefs and practices, but we aren't required to tolerate theirs.

The Somali intolerance doesn't just extend to alcohol. Some drivers have also refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs, on grounds that the Koran says dog saliva is unclean. And some Muslim store cashiers in the Twin Cities have refused to scan pork products, alleging this also violates their faith.

There is a strong tradition in the United States of granting great deference to religious practices and beliefs, but there is also a tradition of not forcing those beliefs on others who do not share them -- which is where the Somalis have run afoul.

Today, these drivers are objecting to contact with customers who have alcohol, pork or dogs with them; tomorrow it may be refusing to allow women with bare heads in their cabs.

How would the Somalis feel if the shoe were on the other foot? For example, what if most Twin Cities taxi drivers belonged to a religious sect that abhorred Islamic practices, insisting that women's heads never be covered? Would the Somalis think it was perfectly fine to allow cab drivers to pass up Muslim couples if the woman was wearing traditional dress with her head covered? I doubt it.

No one has forced the Somalis to become taxi drivers. If their religious views prohibit them from having any contact with people who do not share those views, they shouldn't choose jobs in the public service sector.

Some strict religious sects remain in their own enclaves to avoid what they see as the corrupting influence of non-believers. Others venture out into the world but pick professions that offer the least conflict. You don't expect to see an Orthodox Jew becoming a pig farmer or a devout Mormon becoming a wine taster.

Of course the Somali drivers could have sought a reasonable accommodation for their scruples. They could have courteously explained to passengers that they can't touch alcohol and asked if the passengers would carry the bags containing alcohol themselves. If they did so with genuine civility, I expect most passengers would oblige without resentment.

Instead, they've tried to force the issue and caused a confrontation that can only make adjustment to their adopted country more difficult.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics .

Be the first to read Linda Chavez's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
pork
Here's the answer to the war on terror. Instead of bullets, we threatened to drop tons of pork oil and fat on cities in Iraq where the insurgents attack. I know this is too easy for our politically correct culture, but these cabbies have given us the answer. Keep the insurgents out by spraying pork oil along the border with Iran.

Remember
A embroyo was once a blob but is now a baby.

Abortion was to be performed only for incest and rape but now its birth control.

Likewise, prohibiting liquor, will become prohibiting Non Muslim's.

Mister Buck
Objection to morning after is not a religious belief its about murder, by destroying a baby at infancy. Sex does create babies!

Objection to Gays "Lifestyle of Promiscuous wanton sex" is not about religion its about trying to save these kids (our kids i.e. not kids of Gays)from killing themselves with HIV/AIDS in their 20's and 30's as well as literally murdering others by deliberately having sex with the unknowing when they already have HIV. There are laws against passing on communicable diseases also and it has nothing to do with religion.

Good try but its not the Bible or religious on trial its just plain common sense and the laws of our land already in place.


Comments
The pharmacists who refused to fill the morning after RX got plenty of grief, but did not run afoul of the law. Bad business, bad PR.

These Muslims in this case are in a service occupation. You don't get to choose your customers. They are in violation of Federal law (American Disability Act) when they refused to let the dogs in the cab. Their employer could find themselves on the receiving end of an ADA complaint to the Federal Transportation Administration. The City of Albuquerque lost one for their transit system because they said all wheelchairs had to have brakes. WRONG! says Uncle Sam, we'll fix it says ABQ.
Non compliance with the Feds cost $$$$ and this is where the pressure will occur.

Alternate suggestion is to have a system of lining up the cabs to pick up fares, and if you do not take the fare, you go to the back of the line. A few times of that instead of taking a fare, and most people get less picky about their fares.

Mister Butt
Act like a christian? Where the heck did you grow up? I'm not one, but some of the finest people I've ever known are. Get your head out of your arse, every segment of society has it's a**holes, but I'd have to say that christians have the lowest percentage.

What laws? Please state.

Anyone (and I mean anyone) who refuses to perform the duties of their job should be canned. That means pharmacists who won't fill legal prescriptions and cab drivers who won't take a passenger for religious reasons. Period.

paul writes to mr buck ....
... but might as well write to a wall or to a pile of protoplasm.

For endeavoring to reason with a sufferer of the Socialist Psychopathology is akin to broadcasting in UHF to a person with only a short-wave set.

Or to engaging in a battle of wits with a half-armed "adversary!"

my 2 cents
ANYONE should have the right to refuse service to ANYONE.

Invasion
This isn't about the right of service. The Islamists are injecting their faith into our society with the long term goal of imposing Sharia law on us all. As far as they are concerned if it takes a hundred years then so be it. The message that is being sent to them is that we aren't serious about defending western civilization and that if they work at it long enough they will be successful.

The Real Issue is Property Rights
If one believes, as I do, in the fundamental importance of property rights to securing all our freedoms, then one would have to stand with the cab drivers and support their right to serve anybody they want. Landlords, merchants, pharmacists, and anybody who has contact with the public should have the same rights and freedom. Yes, many of our current laws stipulate penalties and enforcement actions for those who might prefer to discriminate, but I hold these laws to be misguided and bad policy in the long run. Once one accepts that property rights are flexible, one is inexorably led to worse ideas like the graduated income tax and Kelo.

You have to give them credit
By injecting their religious principles into a purely commercial situation, the Islamic advocates in this case have efficiently capitalized on a weak point in our legal structure. Which, however it goes, will give them a precedent for further action;

1. If they are ordered to accomodate passengers who offend the religious sensibilities, they can claim their religious freedom is being denied.

2. If the cab company fires them and/or refuses to employ Muslims in the future, they can claim discrimination.

3. If the city or state attempts to pass a law requiring constructive ignorance of the companies or individuals in question (i.e., requiring either party to "turn a blind eye" to passengers' baggage or assistance animals), they can claim that their property rights are being usurped. (Previous poster's point is well taken, here.)

All in all, a most effective piece of "guerrilla theatre'" within the legal system.

I'm not sure if this is mentioned in the Qu'ran. However, I am willing to bet that whoever thought this up has read either "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky or at least "100 Questions For A Guerrilla" by General Alberto Bayo'.


cheers

eon

Lydia
You may want to re-think your post. Maybe some Muslims and some Mexicans. Maybe some Chinese and some Irish, etc. But to bundle them up as all M & M is just not right. Was going to say just stupid, but having read some of your posts, I know that you are not stupid.

Oil on the fire...
Excuse me, maybe I'm rrong here, but aren't there some 'dry' counties that forbid drivers crossing their county lines with alcohol in their cars?

But an olive branch...
The next step will be to:
not pick up couples unless they have proof-of-marriage,
not pick up gays because homosexuality is forbidden (though commenter Paul - "Objection to Gays "Lifestyle of Promiscuous wanton sex" is not about religion its about trying to save these kids..." probably believes that you can get Aids from taxi seats),
not to pick up Jews because they are, well...Jews,
and finally...not to pick up Christians as they are infidels.
By the way, if an Immam issued such a Fatwah in immoral, liberal, decadent Europe he would probably be deported as dangerous to society.

One other question... are drivers allowed to refuse pick-ups if the person has a weapon?

Just to check...
Excuse me, maybe I'm rrong here, but aren't there some 'dry' counties that forbid drivers crossing their county lines with alcohol in their cars?

But an olive branch...
The next step will be to:
not pick up couples unless they have proof-of-marriage,
not pick up gays because homosexuality is forbidden (though commenter Paul - "Objection to Gays "Lifestyle of Promiscuous wanton sex" is not about religion its about trying to save these kids..." probably believes that you can get Aids from taxi seats),
not to pick up Jews because they are, well...Jews,
and finally...not to pick up Christians as they are infidels.
By the way, if an Immam issued such a Fatwah in immoral, liberal, decadent Europe he would probably be deported as dangerous to society.

One other question... are drivers allowed to refuse pick-ups if the person has a weapon?

Muslim whiners go home
If you want to live under Sharia law, go live somewhere where it's the law of the land.

Again to 'paul'
I'm sure the Imam mentioned in the article sounds just as intollerant as you when he gives his talk (rant) at Friday prayers in the mosque.

I remember as a child seing signs on property-to-rent ads saying, "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish". I'm Irish, by the way.

Oops
Sorry about the double post. The server here in North Africa screwed up again...

Property Rights
Mike writes: Friday, March, 30, 2007 8:41 AM

"The Real Issue is Property Rights
If one believes, as I do, in the fundamental importance of property rights to securing all our freedoms, then one would have to stand with the cab drivers and support their right to serve anybody they want."

Only if you go all the way and remove the exorbitant government taxi licensing scheme restricting trade. Anyone should be allowed to give anyone a ride in his personal vehicle for money or free as long as he meets the operator's license, insurance, and inspection requirements. Why should the local cab and bus companies have government-enforced monopolies? Do you have any idea how much a medallion costs in NYC?

Quotes below from:

http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm

"The number of taxicabs [in NYC] is set by law at 11,787. No new taxi licenses have been issued for over half a century. [T]he number of cabs, which had peaked at 21,000 in 1931, fell from 13,500 in 1937 to the present number of 11,787 because the licenses of taxi owners leaving the industry were not reissued. After four decades of often-explosive increases, individually-owned licenses now trade at $155,000 and fleet licenses at $220,000 each."

Does that sound like restraint of trade to you? With free and full competition, drives would have recognizable flags on their cars telling who they would pick up. If there is a market for "no-pork", "no smoking", or "no alcohol" cabs, it will be filled. Same as for restaurants, bars, and pharmacies.

Erratum
drives would have -> drivers would have. Sorry.


Uncle Max
I might agree with you about "pickup anyone" but.... these guys are part of a monopoly. The customer has little or no choice.

In this case, I still have the viewpoint of if you take the job, you follow the rules. nYou don't like the rules, get a new job if the boss won't change them.

What if the school bus started deciding which kids to pickup. Or controllers started decide which airplanes they wanted to talk to or not. ( I'll talk to AA but not United?


Americans are too polite....
Cabbies and cashiers are setting precedent in the Twin Cities by refusing service to those who "offend" their religious sensibilities by carying liquor or buying bacon....

Immigrant women from Mali are complaining to New York officials because their husbands are bringing home second and third wives....

The Flying Imams want to sue not only the airline that correctly yanked them from a plan, but the citizens who reported the extremely suspicious behavior....

Do we sense a pattern here?

It's not even particularly subtle....and since Americans are so afraid of being labeled "racist" or "Islamophic" many people won't even mention such things in polite conversation...

I think it's time for Americans to stop being so darn polite....

I am John Doe.


Muslim agenda
Our federal government has time and again slaughtered Christian and white seperatist groups who had ideologies far less radical than what Islam intends to impose. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc... the feds also destroy through lawsuits, confiscation of property and deliberate set-ups. While I may not agree with racists and religious cults, the fact is that they were far less dangerous than the Sharia fanatics.

Islam intends to destroy America, they make no bones about it. Would any Christian or Jewish group be allowed to spew venom like the Muslims do??? History shows that the full force and fury of the Feds was unleashed, even to the point of killing women,babies and children...

The mosques need to be razed and Muslims expelled. I hope I am wrong, but I predict a future blood bath if we do any less.

Sam Harris
Readers, please get acquainted with Sam Harris. He's done a pretty good job of documenting what a mess religion has made of our world. It's time we all get over religion.

garryg24
And replace it with what? Gaia as the new God and ALGORE as her prophet? Really, Sam Harris?

Surprised
As always I am surprised by many of the postings here. I simply cannot fathom how anyone could support the taxi drivers. What if this were a cab driver with former ties to the KKK who refused to pick up a black passenger?

In my opinion, the problem here is that we have no room in this country for the interference of religion in our governance of society. People are free to worship as they please but they are not free to introduce their religion into the rules of society as a whole. Drivers are licensed to provide a service. If they refuse that service on the basis of religious belief then at best they should be required as another indicated to go back to the end of the wait line. At worst their license should be revoked and they should be required to find some other occupation.

I will readily admit to the fact that I no longer regard Islam as a real religion. I feel no more kindly to the Musim faith than I do to the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi's. It would be my hope that our government would treat all things Muslim as it did all things Nazi during and after World War II. Remove recognition as a church. Close all things Muslim in our society. Deport all non-citizens who are openly Islamic. This religion is not only an inconvenient nuisance, it is a direct threat to our safety, our culture and our liberty.

We Are Giving up our own country
Tolerance and diversity as means and ends of themselves will be the destruction of America. We lack the spine to stand up for ourselves, enforce our immigration laws, secure our borders, or expect foreign nationals to adapt to their host country. The cab drivers and imams are trying to get the camels nose under the tent. Sharia for all is the goal.
Illegal aliens from south of the border demand exemption from our immigration laws and it appears many are willing to accomodate them. If we continue to bend over backwards we will wake up one day to discover we have given away our country.

Paul
I guess ignorance really is bliss after all. I seem to recall that the pharmacists in question really did say that religion was their reason for refusing service to the patient. You have the strangely ethnocentric view that EVERYBODY has to observe your religious-based notions of "common sense". Wrong.

Also, since when is it any business of a landlord to act as a nanny to a gay person and force his own views on that person??!! Are you some liberal troll in disguise? Oh, that's right...Goldberg wrote in the NYT yesterday that conservatism has to discard the Goldwater/Reagan model of "mind your own business" consevatism and embrace "big government/get all in your life and tell you how to live" conservatism.

It's nothing but radical liberalism under a new name, and you have bought into it.

Sorry, but the Muslims are in the right.
Sorry, but these are private citizens operating their private business. If they wish to hurt their trade, then that is their right.

Government should not mandate that any person has to do business with anyone that they do not wish to, regardless of the reason. If the demand for tolerant cabbies is high enough, then new cabbies will enter the marketplace, and the intolerant ones will go out of business.

Tolerance includes tolerating people that are intolerant.

A good tactic

would be to send these Imams and Muslim cabbies to sensitivity training.

Rhonda

The disturbing thing...
... in this incident is that the airport commission, as I understand it, decided to solve the problem by asking Muslim groups what they should do. Asking the average Minnesotan or traveler at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport seemed to be something that never crossed their minds.

And in the other case at this airport, where the imams were thrown off a plane, the fears of ordinary people were taken into account, and now they are facing a lawsuit. There is no way to win here.

For those defending the drivers, if you are not yourself Muslim, how exactly do we prevent our society from becoming Muslim? This is the question I have yet to see answered by anyone who thinks there is no problem.

And since those who demand tolerance are not answering this question, radical solutions are being proposed, like expelling all Muslims. I don't want it to come to that, but I don't want my society to become Muslim, either. So, liberals and leftists, what is your solution?

Sawgunner
Check out the
ADA,
I believe you will find that if you have a business, your business has to adhere to the ADA which has already been mandated, like handicap access for rent houses.

As I said before they have gotten involved if a complaint is filed. Seeing eye dogs are permitted in restaurants and other places pets can't go.

If these "persons" refuse to pickup a blind person because he/she has a dog, I think that can be pursued regardless if it's Yellow Cab or Joe'sJunk Cab. There is also the subject of requirements to operate a business (License)

Virginia Patriot
My fear is not that we are bending over backwards but that we have begun to bend over forwards. Have you ever heard the expression, "Grab your ankles?"

Sawgunner
Please answer the question I posed in an earlier post. What if this were a white separatist who refused to transport a black person? In your mind, would this be okay?


Packrat & Ron
Packrat, I concede on that point. If there is an ADA ruling to that effect, then they must comply.

Conservative Ron: Such a scenario should absolutely be okay. Let the marketplace decide if bigots remain in business. Freedom of association is a powerful right. If a business opts to exclude smokers, then they lose that business. If a separatist wishes to harm his business by excluding certain minorities, then that is his right. One has to take the bad with the good, and people should have the right to limit their association with others as they desire. That is what a free society is all about.

Hmm this is interesting.....
You know I really don't have any new or enlightening things to say here other than I've had the argument about the pharmacists that refuse to give out the morning after pill and doctors being forced to perform abortions at hospitals (I defended their right to do so) and now I'm faced with this. I have two options here and neither are too palatable to me. Option A) Continue my defense of the pharmacists and doctors and be considered hypocritical or option B) retract my beliefs about said doctors and pharmacists and say that the cabbies should get over it. That being said the truth of the matter is one of life and death. Said pharmacists and doctors feel that what they would be doing is ending a life or the potential of life, the cabbies however are going on what is just offensive and in all actuality harms no one just their feelings. Hypocrisy be d@mned when in Rome do as the romans do I believe the saying says so I'm sorry 'bout the offense but I'm sure that in one of those 5 times a day you can ask for forgiveness for doggy slobber.

Sawgunner
If their belief interferes with the job they are doing, then it's a problem. I have zero problem with a Muslim empoloyee. If he refused to ring up customers, however, I would fire him in a heartbeat. Same thing for anybody else.

It has started.
Now everyone out their remember this is Minnesota, you know the state that elected congressman Keith Edelson, the man with his hand on the Quaran. Enough said.

Somali "adjustment"
What makes anyone think these Somali cabbies want to, as you say, adjust "to their adopted country?" I think their actions express very clearly that they do not intend to adjust at all...rather it is WE who should adjust to them. There's the rub.

How about starting...
...a "Judeo-Christian Cab Company"? It think their sign on top of their cabs would help them OWN any business traffic. People could see and then choose which cab to catch.

So you're saying
I don't know what everyone is complaining about. To me this Muslim doctrine just tells me that when im at a grocery store, make sure to go up to the Muslim cashier because cases of Beer and Pork products are free! hah.

Cabbies
There are two main issues here.

1. Religious beliefs: The Muslim American Society issued a fatwa directing Muslim cab drivers to not carry alcohol in their cabs, as doing so contributes to sin. Some drivers intend to comply with that edict. Cab companies and owner-operated cabs have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as that refusal does not violate applicable laws and regulations.

2. Airport management: Taxis must have an Airport Commission permit to operate at the airport. They are responsible for issuing and regulating those permits.

Unwillingness or inability to comply with the Airport Commission's many regulations should result in permit revocation.

And let's not forget why these increasingly restrictive regulations are in place at our nation's airports in the first place: Muslims, themselves.

we may have overlooked a bigger point
The fatwa was very recently issued. Were these muslim cabbies refusing the "unclean" fares prior to that? I will always be suspicious of any group that keeps changing up in order to keep the rest of the country apologizing and accomodating. It is all about control and we have proven to be an easy target, in more ways than one. I am grateful for any city leader with the stones to say "enough already".

Tolerance?
Would everyone be as tolerant of me if I refused to pick up anyone with a towel on their head? I would justify this by saying that my religion does not allow me to help people who are part of a religion that believes that you either convert or you must die. To give them a ride would be contrary to my reigious belief of tolerance.
See how well that would go over. Double standard?

This is a religiously neutral law
and so to challenge it, they'll have to go to state court.

A simple solution
They should just admit that Islam does not permit them to be cabbies and look for other jobs.

Sawgunner
"Government should not mandate that any person has to do business with anyone that they do not wish to, regardless of the reason."

That's nice, but they're on government property, and so the government can make them obey rules that the government itself would have to follow if it were running the cab.

I don't believe that protecting people's right to discriminate against other people in business is a liberty that the founding fathers, largely Christians, would have died to defend. And I mean on irrelevant racial, sexual orientation, and sexual categories. The only thing that should matter in business is money.

Celtic-Dragon
If an employee refuses to do what an employer directs (so long as it is legal!), then of course that employer has the right to terminate the employee. I am only making reference to what an independently employed person may do. If your employer requires you to pick up people that are offensive to your religion, then you need to get another job. If the taxi drivers are private owners of their cabs, then they should be free to decide who they pick up. If the airport requires any cabbie that does business on their grounds to pick up all customers, then the cabbie must do so if they want business from that locale. That coincides with the employers right to decide who they associate with. In such a case, the employer has the right not to associate with employees that have religious principles that prevent them from doing the job the employer needs done.

P. Gene
Or they could stop being whabbi/salfists.

The Airport
Should contract with the taxi drivers that want to go there: pick up everyone no matter what, and you can work the airport.

jerubaal
I cannot speak for George, Patrick, Ben, et al, but I certainly will defend my right to freely associate with who I want, or avoid associating with those that I do not wish to.

But I do think you are dead wrong regarding the framers' position on having the government mandate who one must do business with. You must have them confused with modern politicians. Our original batch were pretty much on the side of liberty, not government mandated correctness.

And you are right, the only thing that really matters in business is money, but nobody should be willing to sell their principles either. If I ran a day care, I would not employ a child molester just because he would work cheap. But if I had a customer base that preferred child molesters as caretakers, I would either have to hire one or suffer the financial loss. I would take the loss, because the money isn't always the driving force.

jerubaal
One question though regarding your following statement:

"That's nice, but they're on government property, and so the government can make them obey rules that the government itself would have to follow if it were running the cab."

What about protesters that march in the streets or assemble in the parks? That is government owned property, so should the government have the right to ban free assembly or the expression of thoughts that are critical of the government simply because they own the land? Government owned property is a sticky issue.

If the airport in our example is publicly owned, then I would have to admit that I take exception to their attempts to mandate that all cabbies adopt complete tolerance of others. Otherwise, this same mandate could extend to any activity that takes place on public grounds. What if the government said that you cannot operate a vehicle on the public roadways unless you display tolerance by openly accepting gay marriage? People that do not like that policy are going to have a problem. Or, to bring it to the level of the privately owned Muslim cabbie who cannot do business at the public airport without first setting aside his personal preferences, what if you could not use the airport unless you were pro-abortion?

Public operations should not enjoy the same rights of exclusion as a privately owned enterprise. And a private business should be free to discriminate for any reason, no matter how it might negatively affect the bottom line.

Tolerance
These people are trying to have Islamic law over ride ours a little at a time. That is what they are taught to do. It has worked very well in Europe so far. In Germany, they have built a school with two entrances. One for Muslims, and Turks. Another for Jews and Christians. Like I said little by little, our political correctness will be our undoing.

Alcohol Repellent
So in other words, if you land in Minneapolis and have a liquor bottle box under your arm, you might get a cabbie who actually speaks English as a first language, and doesn't try to convert you to Islam? Where is the downside?

This is All Crap!
I live in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia - a quick 25 kilometers across the Causeway to Bahrain* where, except during Ramadan, you can drink ALL you want at the 5-star hotels that have restaurants [bars] and a few other "local watering holes." Go to Trader Vic's during "happy hour" and the seats are full of men AND women wearing the “local,” traditional-style of attire [the men in thobes and gutras and some of the women in their abayas – and only on the rare occasion have I seen a veil!]. They are NOT drinking soda!

There are a couple of liquor stores in Bahrain and although the Muslims are not allowed in to buy booze, there are little "runners" standing, waiting, outside in the parking lot for Muslims to drive up in their cars and then for a few extra fils or a dinar or two [currency] the runners go in, get whatever beverage has been requested, pay for it and deliver it to the parked cars. I have, on several occasions taken a cab from Saudi to Bahrain and stopped at the liquor store to get wine before joining friends at their home for dinner. Not a single driver has ever refused me as a fare if I tell them to take me to the liquor store or refused to let me transport alcohol in the vehicle he was driving.

There are grocery stores that sell pork. Oscar Mayer bacon, baby back ribs, pork chops and tenderloins. Never ONCE, not ONCE has a "local" that is manning the cash register refused to touch my pork purchases.

The fanatics practicing the religion that prevents them from touching alcohol or pork, in the States, are carrying things way too far. And they are doing it because they are being allowed to get away with it. If, here in the Middle East, the home of that religion, some of the Muslims CAN and DO drink alcohol and touch packages of pork, there cannot possibly be any legitimate reason whatsoever they can't do these things in the States.

It's been said in previous columns and blogs: Sharia. Get ready for it because if things in the U.S. continue the way they are going, it won’t just be the Middle East that is ruled under Sharia laws!

*The 25 kilometer trip takes three or four hours on the weekend due to the amount of traffic exiting Saudi Arabia going into Bahrain. Why? Freedom. They can feel free to socialize without segregating by sex; they can go to dinner and order a beer or a bottle of wine; they can go to a movie [there are no movie theaters in Saudi Arabia]; and the women can wear their abaya’s if they choose – or not. [Women are also free to drive in Bahrain.]

Solve it
Why dither about this problem? The very first day these drivers refused to perform the public function they signed on to accomplish, they should have been fired. Instead, we let the problem fester.

Immigrant Muslim Population enclaves
Small groups of Muslims are compliant with local customs. Large groups are not.

Muslims are faith oriented - their faith dictates,'comply or die'. Their faith is intolerant of dissent.

The United States of America is just beginning to see the tip of this political/religious iceberg.

Many of our politicians are encouraging this disaster.

Check them out for yourself.

Sawgunner and jerubaal
I am totally amazed.

Jerubaal, the only exception I have with your statement is that I believe it matters very little whether they are on government property or not.

Sawgunner, take this to a different extreme. Are you telling me then that it was all right for southern whites to refuse service at the lunch counter to negroes in the 1950's? It was after all their business but unfortunately the action of that cafe, let's remember one in particular, Lester Maddox, chased people he didn't want to do business with from his establishment with an axe handle. Was his biggotry rewarded by his being forced to close his business? I actually don't recall what happened to his business when he was elected governor of Georgia.


somali taxi cab drivers
garryg24--just keep stockpiling ammo.

Muslims & their traditions
Muslims also believe that drugs are unclean but where does most of the world's herion come from? Muslim countries that is where. They are apparently attempting to see how far they can go with their demands. There was one incident wherein a Muslim owned business fired one of their employees for eating a ham sandwich at lunch.

If I were a prospective passenger...
I'd be tempted to hold up a sign saying "No Muslim drivers, please."

The repercussions would be interesting, to say the least!

Conservative Ron
That is exactly what I am saying. Rather than repeat the rationale behind my point, simply reread my previous posts.

The bottom line is, in a truly free society, a person should have the right to associate or disassociate with whomever they wish. Otherwise, one has to define freedom as the obligation to interact with people one might resent just because it is the socially acceptable thing to do. Bigots, racists, homophobes, radical gays, black radicals, and others like them have the right to be as isolationist and obnoxious as they desire, so long as they do not deprive another person of their life, liberty, or property as a result. And no, liberty is not denied because somebody refuses to associate with you.


Ron
Lester Maddox made quite a great deal of money in the BBQ business AFTER he was gov, selling autographed ax handles, and quite frankly I dont see any difference between the govt telling Me who I have to let into My place of business, and who I must allow into My home. The law of the land however, says differently, and therefore service must be provided. This is not an isolated case in mn, but is occuring all over, in fla a blind man was thrown bodily from a store because he brought his guide dog in, same excuse given, in mn the cabbies are ALREADY refusing service to people who "appear gay" or that ask to be taken to places where alcohol is served.
Its all a matter of tolerance for the muslims ( tolerate anything we do, while we take offence at everything "kaffirs" do).

Remember the arab proverb about the camel with his nose in the tent, this is only the beginning, best to stop it here.


CBP

...the will of the masses is divided by far-reaching distortions and the mass mind is corrupted by a knowledge worse than ignorance because it is false.
Ely Culbertson

Sawgunner
I know this is precisely what you are saying and it repels me. If you are open for business to the public then you should be open to all the public. There are many areas where I do draw the line but service to the community should mean just that. I don't see an iota of difference between Lester Maddox keeping black citizens out of his restaurant and some cabbie refusing to carry someone in his taxi. I consider both to be unacceptable in a free society.

sawgunner
Some very intersting arguments, but the issue here is commerce not association or private property rights.

It was the private property rights argument in Plessy vs. Fergueson(?) that resulted in half a century of American apartheid.

by the way
LOTS of really thoughtfull and intellectually sound arguements here! You go guys!!!

Once again ...
I'm a little late to the party.

First, let me state that I do not want anarchy or the complete removal of government. I do, however, wish to see its size a scope drastically curtailed. If an individual wishes to conduct business in the public arena, certain safeguards must be put in place for the protection of the public and that business' potential customers. But for the government to have built in protection FOR the business, such as setting limits on the number of such business', that is completely WRONG.

Since we are talking taxi's here, lets extrapolate that out. ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, who wants to have a business shuttling people about for money should be able to do so. With certain requirements, of course. Those requirements could include things like bonding or insurance, regular vehicle inspections, regular testing of the drivers knowledge of rules and their ability to handle their vehicle, criminal background checks, etc. Once that is established, I have no problem with that person choosing whom they wish to contract with.

If I invest my time, talent, and treasure in a business venture, I should be able to run that business as I see fit. The includes not only when and where I choose to conduct my business, but who I choose to conduct it with. If I limit who I will allow to become a customer based on some belief I have, sure, the potential customer may be inconvenienced, but I would also lose out on the income. If there are lowered requirements that allow more people to conduct business' of that type, the customer can always take his duckets and go to the next business.

Alas, such will never be the case because there will always be busy-body-politicians who tell you that you have a right to someone elses posessions, and by Gaia, they'll enact the proper law to make sure that happens. Just make sure you vote for them.

In the immortal words of Earl Pitts, American: "WAKE UP AMERICA!"

All Muslims are not identical
1. All Christians & Jews are not identical & interchangeable; the same is true of Muslims. All Christians don't believe in snake-handling. Nor do they all believe that the victory of the State of Israel over the Islamic world is one pre-condition for the Kingdom of God to manifest here on earth. All Jews do not observe kashrut; nor do all Israelis believe that God gave them 'Judaea & Samaria' -- i.e., all the land beyond the Jordan.

The Somalis come not just from a Muslim but a tribal society. They have an uneducated, tribal view of Islam. Ask any well-educated, trained Muslim professional from Iran, Turkey, or India to comment on the Somalis' ideas.

2. Govt limits the number of taxis in the Twin Cities. So the Somalis have no competitors. The taxi companies or taxi owners certainly don't want competitors either. So -- in effect --customers are stuck with the tribal notions of Somali taxi-drivers, because govt limits taxi competition.

To Conservative Ron ...
You wrote to Sawgunner: "Are you telling me then that it was all right for southern whites to refuse service at the lunch counter to negroes in the 1950's?"

My answer: No, it is not all right to discriminate, but it should be legal. There are lots of things that aren't right but are legal. We HAVE to learn to distinguish between what is permissable by law, our Constitution, and what we FEEL is not right. Things aren't always fair, you don't always get what you want, the good guy doesn't always win, unethical doesn't always equate to being illegal, but your liberties should always be upheld by the law. As stated earlier, freedom TO associate also means freedom to NOT associate.

I just don't understand how people so easily fall into the "I feel this way so it must be so" trap. God gave us brains. Let's not insult Him by turning them off.

The "Haves" Ban The "Have Nots"
My Norwegian immigrant ancestors wanted to stop Irish immigration. Fortunately, my Irish ancestors were permitted entry in to the USA, anyway. Selfishness, self-interest and hypocrisy are what should be banned.

Bryce
A business that one owns is private property. Commerce definitely involves association, and a privately owned business involves the same property rights as your automobile. Should you be obliged to let anyone borrow it that wants to? After all, are you not operating it on government owned streets?

As FROG points out, there has to be a distinction between feelings and the rule of law. I may feel it is not right that a criminal is let loose because of a technicality, but that does not give me the right to circumvent the rules of a free society by going out and lynching him. Likewise, I may feel somebody should be willing to serve all customers, but a free society by definition would not mandate such complicity.

Because you deal with the public does not mean you are owned by the public. No member of the public should have the ability to demand that another citizen serve them.

An inside joke among muslims
Muslims find playing westerners against each other as very amusing. "I won't carry a passenger with a bottle of Jack BUT I will condone pedophilia and your right to beat and kill your wife." Such two faced realities that the muzzies hold.

Just some FYI

I read in WND a few days ago that legislation was being introduced that would prevent anyone from suing people who report suspicious behaviour, and that would be backdated to before the Flying Imams incident so that the John Does will be protected from legal obligation (and also would not stop people from reporting suspicious behaviour in the future).

It's funny how CAIR is circling their way around the issue by saying they are not blaming the people who reported the incident, just the ones who were prejudiced against Muslims. How in the world can one prove what someone is thinking and use that as the basis of a lawsuit? That's just not going to fly (so to speak).

As for the cabbies and clerks who are refusing fares or customers because of the fatwas, then they should be fired and then brought up on hate crimes. This would definitely put a bee in the bonnet of those who want Sharia law here. It ain't gonna happen, anyway. We're too much of an independent lot.

Sorry Frog
No one can be free when all are not free. Your argument certainly supports the position of the cabbies but under another name. No, if you serve the public, you serve all the public. I have no desire to return to the days of segregated lunch counters and open, government sanctioned discrimination.

"Conservative" (?) Ron
So, your definition of freedom is to allow the government to force people to associate with those they dislike? I guess that to you, freedom means ones private business is controlled by the public and their desires. After all, if you "serve the public", then the public gets to mandate your personal preferences, at least acording to you.

You state that you do not wish to "return to government sanctioned discrimination"? You should amend that sentence to read that you do not wish to "return to the days when individuals had the right to discriminate", ie: make their own choices.

You obviously favor having a government that tells citizens how they should think, who they should interact with, and so forth. The concept of freedom has obviously eluded you, so you are right at home in the new , politically correct America where the government mandates individual actions. Don't fret though, many Americans are appalled at the concept of freedom. To them, it is okay for people to be free, so long as they act in a manner that is approved by the majority. Once they have unpopular opinions, then it is time that they cease being free.

In a few years you will be the one writing about how you have no desire to return to the days when people disputed the will of the government by insisting on having elections. After all, government policy is better than the rights of the individual to make their own choices, eh?

"Conservative" Ron, what a misnomer!

Sawgunner
I sincerely hope this doesn't post twice but I am not going to let the fact that I received an error message when responding to your posting the first time stop me from posting. I'll have to do my best to remember what I said and answer you again.

First, no one is required to "associate" with the people they do business with. I am not suggesting that you link arms, sit in a circle and swap stories. I am suggesting that if you are licensed to do business in your state, as businesses are, and you open your doors to the public then you are required to do business with all the public. I also said nothing about mandating your personal preferences. If you prefer to only associate with bigots then certainly you may keep your preference, but you must still serve the black man at your lunch counter. This is not politically correct thought. It is the law.

You are certainly entitled to discriminate in the choices you make as a consumer, but not as a business owner when it comes to who you will and will not serve at least as it relates to race, creed, ethnicity, etc. Again, this is the law and again, as stated in my original posting it is a law that those cabbies are disobeying and for which they need to be held to account.

I don't obviously favor any of the things you suggest. You have run off on a tangent and have described positions that I must hold on a whole host of matters that have no relationship to a thing that I have stated here. Please tell me how you draw your conclusions. The only thing that is more disagreeable to me as a "conservative" than a radical leftist is a radical right wing person who gives the rest of us a bad name. To be conservative is not to be a bigot or a racist.

If you were to think lucidly for a moment about your statement in which government mandates politically correct thought it would become obvious that you don't understand the concept of political correctness. I also despise the notion of political correctness but it isn't government that mandates thought, it is people with no room in their minds except their own biased points of view. Witness Columbia, Berkeley and other higher education institutions that allow mob violence against those whom they disagree with. You my friend are closer in your vitriol to them then you are a true conservative.

As I mentioned before, you cannot yourself be free if those around you aren't free to enjoy the same opportunities you enjoy. Not the same outcome, but the same opportunities. If you are comfortable refusing service to classes of people as Lester Maddox was in the restaurant then I would challenge you as to whose freedom it is you are worried about. If it is only your own and those who are like you then you don't want a free society at all. You are promoting a privileged society in which you are one of the privileged. What if for a moment you were to be one of the non-privileged. Would your tone be the same?

I stand by the handle I have chosen. It is obviously folks like you that George Bush was concerned about when he penned the name "compassionate conservative." I disliked that name because I felt conservatives were already compassionate by promoting personal responsibility and accountability for one's own life, for promoting equal opportunity but not insisting on equal outcome, etc. I continue to believe this but the kind of discrimination you promote is bad for the country and certainly bad for the Republican Party.

Sorry Ron, but....
But you assume that because I defend the right of people to control who they choose to associate with, then I must be a bigot or a racist, and that I must obviously "promote" such positions. In reality, I simply defend the right of people to be bigots or racists, and that does not obligate me to be one. If I defend the right of someone to be gay, that doesn't mean I have to be gay as well. As such, your attempt to paint me as a racist or a bigot was a poor attempt to discredit my positions, a tactic popular with non-conservatives.

If defending freedom in areas that are unpopular makes me a bad person in the minds of conservatives, then it appears that the left has scored a victory in their campaign of political correctness and mandated acceptance of others. I prefer the concept of free association, and because government has taken to licensing businesses does not mean business owners must sacrifice their rights of association in order to be properly sanctioned by government. That would be akin to having the issuance of a business license hinge on one giving up their right to free speech. These are rights that are fully protected by the Bill of Rights, and our government cannot extort our ability to conduct trade by requiring us to give up such protections.

There is no sense in rehashing the arguments, for it is obvious that you feel business owners are servants of potential customers and must agree to do business with everyone. However, just because it is the "law" that business owners are prohibited from discriminating based on race, sex, etc. doesn't absolve the fact that such mandates erode personal freedoms. I stand by my earlier statement that you need work on the concept of freedom, as do most contemporary Americans. Freedom doesn't mean that one is free to force others to do business / associate with them. Freedom is the right to choose who you want to do business / associate with. If a business owner does not want to sell to me because I am black, then that is no different than having a girl who refuses to date me for the same reason. I do have the right to patronize an establishment that will serve me, and the bigoted business owner will lose income from the loss of my patronage. This may lead to the closure of his business, and his exercise of an unfair practice will be handled by the marketplace.

We can agree to disagree, but kindly refrain from assuming that anyone that defends an unpopular position must automatically subscribe to that position. Such attacks result in a society whereby defenders will eschew supporting unpopular positions, and the will of the majority ends up running roughshod over the minority, ie: democracy. And that is an evil to be avoided.

But I did enjoy the debate. Hope to tangle with you in the future, you are a good opponent.

Sawgunner
Where in my posting did you see me accuse you of being a bigot? I was purposely very careful to avoid such a statement. My two references to racism and bigotry were as follows.

"If you prefer to only associate with bigots ..."

"To be conservative is not to be a bigot or a racist."

Neither of these references actually accuse you personally of either.

Your metaphor that compares selecting your customer to a woman's approval of a suitor has no relevance. The metaphor fails miserably because the woman is not "open to the public for business." At least let's hope not.

I recognize that we have many laws requiring many things of business owners, most of which I would likely end up agreeing with you about, but this is certainly not one of them.

As for your paragraph requesting that I refrain from assuming that that one that defends an unpopular position must subscribe to that position I can only say that I assumed nothing. It was your prior posting that assumed many things about me including that I wanted government to be able to tell people how to think and mandate individual actions. You also opined that because I did not agree with you that I was then not a conservative.

I do thank you for your last comment and I do believe that we will likely share comments in the future and more than likely we will find ourselves to be on the same side on most.



Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.