skh.pcola – Not picking up a person with a handicap is a civil rights violation. Pretty clear cut.

And what about the “civil rights violation” of making someone with the handicap of allergies pick up someone with a dog?

It’s not so clear cut after all.

Are you positing that taxi drivers can refuse to carry black folks because they have an allergic reaction to Jerri Curl?

Well yeah. “Civil rights”, remember? The argument works both ways.

Like it or not, we try to function within the convoluted and labyrinthian legal system that we have *now*, not the legal system that you (or I) *wish* we had.

I didn’t realize that cabbie service was a guaranteed “civil right”.

That’s the problem with “civil rights”. A violation of them occurs whenever the offended deems there to be a violation.

Further, total deregulation is unsafe. There has to be a system in place to protect the public from faulty equipment, criminal drivers, and scams. You won’t find anybody who believes more than I in the power of the free market, but I temper that with a dose of pragmatism and reality. You, OTOH, sound like an anarchist.

Where did I say “total deregulation”? I mentioned making the medallions “easier to get”. That’s not anarchy.

Taxi cabs are not “private property.” When a person or business holds their product or service out to the public, their rights and responsibilities change.

It is still private property. Such things can come with limitations. It’s not an all or nothing proposition.

If you think about it, you never truly own anything in life, including your own life. There are always things that have to be done and rights and responsibilities.

They have a loegal obligation to reasonably accommodate the public.

Define “obligation”, “reasonably” and “accommodate”.

Wouldn’t freedom be a bit easier than deciding what a “reasonable accommodation” is?

Your continued argument using the “allergy to dogs” is disingenuous.

How?

But all of the Islamic taxi drivers on this continent seem to have that same allergy to dogs. Coincidence, or blatant dumbassedness? I contend it is the latter.

Be careful here. Nobody is claiming that these Muslims are allergic. The point, which has remained unaddressed even as you say that it is disingenuous, was that claims of “Civil Rights” can break down on the side of those who are allergic. This is an impasse.

We are [not] talking about the right or responsibility to pick up hitchhikers here. That would entail personal property rights. This issue doesn’t concern those rights at all.

Assuming that was a typo there.

Why doesn’t it concern those rights at all? It’s a product or service out to the public. Okay, and?…

this should make any thinking person’s blood boil.

If I had anything to do with licensing cabbies at the airport, anyone who refused to pick up a passenger with a service dog would lose their license on the spot! (Or Spot, as the case might be!)
If you are in an industry that provides public service, you service all the public! Or get a different job…

Let’s see a white guy get away with discriminating against a disabled person.

I think a better word would be ANY person

If you are hired to do a job you do it.

The job allows one to pass up fares.

Is that freedom a bad idea?

Let it be said that the point was understood Anna, it’s just that given my view, the point of the post is a bit pointless.

The question comes down to one of ownership. Who owns these taxis and where is the line drawn? Do you endorse yanking the cab medallions if they don’t pick up these fares, or are you willing to loosen up the cost (medallions are expensive) in order to free up competition?

I say competition. Free up the process.

Free up the process and allow competition and this problem would vanish overnight.

That probably makes more sense than anything else.

They were and are engaging in blatant prejudice against people who, through no fault of their own, have seeing-eye dogs.

That’s an assumption. More than likely they were engaging in blatant prejudice against the dogs.

Unless you are going to suggest that Islam somehow conveys allergies to dogs to all of its ululating, perpetually pissed-off adherents, I really don’t see your point.

The point was that the “civil rights violation” argument breaks down along the same lines at that point.

And, for those Muslim assclowns who have an “allergy” to pork, I’m just guessing here that you think that it is sterling that those people can be hired to be cashiers at groceries, then resolutely refuse to ring up and sack the bacon, sausage, and pork chops that the store’s customers wish to buy?

Not when the store can’t fire them. Personal property rights, remember? Now, please don’t go off and call this consistency irrational as another has done above.

And why can’t the store owners fire them without worry? Because of that nebulous “civil rights” concept. To fire a Muslim guy for not doing the job he is paid to do is, if I may quote you here, “quite literally and properly, a violation of civil rights laws”.

Congratulations at this point. You’re butting up against those who use the same exact arguments.

Which side wins? They’re both “a violation of civil rights laws”. You can’t discriminate with religion for some reason (insane when considered that religion can be boiled down to a collection of ideas) and you can’t discriminate against the handicapped. Although it must be clarified that “discriminated against” often means “did not accommodate”. So which side wins?

Great. Makes a bucketload of sense to me.

It makes no sense to me either, but that’s what you’ve been arguing in favor of.

What if the DMV people didn’t want to serve you after your 2-hour wait in line because they were allergic to people who want to be the hypothetical Grand Poobah of the Universe? You’d be SOL at that time, but have a valid complaint for your mistreatment.

Damn straight, because the DMV is government. These taxi cab companies aren’t and consequently have a level of freedom that isn’t granted to government. Now here’s where you say that these companies provide a licensed service to the public which goes back to my above question – Who owns these taxis and where is the line drawn?

The law is what matters here, not feelings or some normative barometer of multi-culti BS.

The law itself is multi-culti BS.

As far as “free[ing] up the process,” how do you propose that will transpire? Ethiopian Muslims and others of that cult have a lock on hack service in most major metropolises. Make the medallions less expensive, and they will buy more medallions and import or find more Muslims to drive the taxis.

And other people looking to make a buck will specialize in certain services. This is the same argument often made around these parts when we talk in favor of school vouchers.

Licensing taxi cabs is providing a regulated (albeit to a high degree…maybe too high), generally safe public service. As such, taxi drivers should execute their duties without regard to race, creed, religion, or handicap. To claim otherwise is propounding a form of anarchy–mild, if you want to look at it that way–that is antithetical to our society.

Not sure how private property equals “a form of anarchy”. Anarchists generally don’t spend time expounding upon such notions.

Consequently skh.pcola, we hear the same arguments against school vouchers. Anytime school specialization is brought up, someone complains that it isn’t all inclusive and regales us with how such notions are “antithetical to our society”.

If this isn’t happening, the market is rigged, and that needs to be addressed.

When it comes to these taxi cab companies, that’s what I’m thinking. Many cities artificially limit the supply, even when they need more. Medallions are notoriously expensive and hard to get. These two things are huge barriers to the market. The entry into the market is rigged in favor of the established parties. Established taxi cab companies often lobby politicians to keep these favored conditions.

If we dig, we’d find that government is creating this problem. Free up the process and allow competition and this problem would vanish overnight.

Or,..we could claim “civil rights” and lump in big government on top of more big government and then wonder why the market is screwed up.

Lik, obviously, I was being facetious with my “Jerri Curl” analogue. The point was that 10-15 taxi cab drivers weren’t allergic to dog dander, dog saliva, or fairy dust. They were and are engaging in blatant prejudice against people who, through no fault of their own, have seeing-eye dogs. This very same thing has happened at the Minneapolis airport. Unless you are going to suggest that Islam somehow conveys allergies to dogs to all of its ululating, perpetually pissed-off adherents, I really don’t see your point.

And, for those Muslim assclowns who have an “allergy” to pork, I’m just guessing here that you think that it is sterling that those people can be hired to be cashiers at groceries, then resolutely refuse to ring up and sack the bacon, sausage, and pork chops that the store’s customers wish to buy? Great. Makes a bucketload of sense to me.

I didn’t realize that cabbie service was a guaranteed “civil right”.

It’s not, if you are a hazard to the public, a criminal, or threatening to the driver. Otherwise, discrimination on the basis of numerous classes of people (handicapped people with guide dogs are among them) is illegal. It is, quite literally and properly, a violation of civil rights laws. What if the DMV people didn’t want to serve you after your 2-hour wait in line because they were allergic to people who want to be the hypothetical Grand Poobah of the Universe? You’d be SOL at that time, but have a valid complaint for your mistreatment.

That’s the problem with “civil rights”. A violation of them occurs whenever the offended deems there to be a violation.

Not true. An alleged violation occurs when a person feels offended enough to bring suit. The law is what matters here, not feelings or some normative barometer of multi-culti BS.

As far as “free[ing] up the process,” how do you propose that will transpire? Ethiopian Muslims and others of that cult have a lock on hack service in most major metropolises. Make the medallions less expensive, and they will buy more medallions and import or find more Muslims to drive the taxis.

Licensing taxi cabs is providing a regulated (albeit to a high degree…maybe too high), generally safe public service. As such, taxi drivers should execute their duties without regard to race, creed, religion, or handicap. To claim otherwise is propounding a form of anarchy–mild, if you want to look at it that way–that is antithetical to our society.

or who aren’t allergic to dogs (like me)

Hey Lik…. I don’t think you have a dog in this race!!! You basically told me if I’m allergic to smoke, don’t go where there is smoking. If you’re allergic to dogs in cabs…. get another ride.

likwidshoe, although you do make a good point… you seemed to have missed the actually point of the post. The cabbies were out right asses to this woman and there was no excuse for them to not to assist her in getting to her destination whether it be taking her or finding an alternative way.
If you are hired to do a job you do it. If your religion or health conflicts with your performance to fulfill your duties you still have an obligation to your employer to make sure that particular issue doesn’t cause a conflict.
Their religion doesn’t give them special privileges to shuck their responsibilities and be asses about it.

Lik.. what would you say if I said dirt tastes awful? Would you argue that, no.. it really tastes good??? I think you’ve appointed yourself the world’s “Devil’s Advocate.”

Don’t just revoke their licenses, prosecute them for civil rights violations, then deport them if they aren’t legal citizens. They’d be excoriated and charged if they had done this to a black person or a gay. These Mooselimbs are really testing Western civilization’s patience. Or mine, at least.

Politician huh… I’d say then let’s dig some dirt up on him but as you’ve already pointed out… he’d probably like it!
Wuhahaha…

I think you’ve appointed yourself the world’s “Devil’s Advocate.”

Very strong personal property rights are something that I’ve held to ever since I really got into politics about twelve years ago. It’s one of my pillars.

Lawd have mercy Pilgrim, I swear you seek out articles just to get my blood boiling!
Were these cabbies so worthless they couldn’t call her a cab that would accommodate her “HEPA challenged dog”?
>:-(