Posted on 11/04/2009 10:15:39 AM PST by La Lydia
A few years ago when the Muslim cabdrivers at the Minneapolis airport were refusing to carry passengers who had alcohol, several people pointed out that it would set a dangerous precedent to allow cabbies to select passengers according to Sharia rules. If a cabdriver could reject a passenger who was holding a bottle of whiskey, he could reject a passenger who was eating a ham sandwich, or an unmarried couple, or, as here, a gay couple. And the American principle of equality of access would be overthrown in favor of a religious discrimination that would enshrine Islamic law as a higher law than the law of the land.
And that's why Medhat Mohamed needs to lose his job. As long as the law of the U.S. disallows religious discrimination, his action ought to be seen as such and authorities should act accordingly.
"Crabby cabby boots same-sex lovebirds," in the New York Post, November 4:
An overzealous cabby allegedly booted a gay couple when he spotted the duo sharing a warm embrace in the back of his cold car. Paul Bruno and his partner hailed the yellow cab Monday night at 13th Street and First Avenue and sat close...But the driver, identified by Bruno and city records as Medhat Mohamed, was apparently appalled by their shows of affection -- and pulled the cab over two blocks into the trip.
"You guys have to get out of the taxi! Hugging is not allowed in here!" the driver said, according to Bruno.
"I was shocked," said Bruno, 27, who called the act "discrimination against homosexuals."
"He needs to exercise the rules in which he was employed a little more closely."
Both men said they hoped other cabbies didn't share the same views on an innocent act.
"I don't know if it was a personal or religious thing. But it's never OK to deny anyone a ride, especially when it's such blatant and direct discrimination," added Bruno, a lifelong city resident....
WHEN LIBERAL CAUSES COLLIDE
Geez...muzzies are trained at their Insane Academies, I guess...no PDA’s!
Maybe he didn’t let heterosexuals hug in his cab either.
We’re gonna need a bigger bowl of popcorn (while these two protected classes duke it out)...
I wonder what his views on same-sex marriage is?
I’d support the gays on this one - wouldn’t we all? Have to ask your self what is worse? Islamo fascists who want to kill or guys who want to open a bed and breakfast.
The guy’s name is really Bruno?
These leftard homos are just now starting to get a taste of what "tolerance" brings to bear...
Let them battle it out...maybe someday libtards will become offended enough by muzzies that they will wake up to the ignorance of "tolerance of all people and cultures."
The provider of services (lunch counter owner/cabbie) wants to exclude some people from his business. It's his property, right?
The customer (diner/passenger) insists on getting service from someone who does not wish to provide it.
Frankly, as much as I dislike discrimination, and as much as I think it's a dumb business decision, I have always thought that the country made a bad choice when the lunch counter owners had their property rights ignored and were forced to serve anyone who walked in the door.
I'm actually siding with the cabbie on this.
MUST.....be.....diverse....but....homophobia....is...a....killing offense.....!!!!!!!! ARRRRGH...POP! (sound of head exploding)
It's ok when it's one adult and one young boy.
Ah yes, the fundamental human right to a cab ride in NYC.
As the onslaught to beat down whites in general, and white males in particular continues with success, liberals will eventually learn that white men are not the source of all the worlds problems.
And eventually, when it’s too late, they’ll learn that white men did more good than harm.
It’s in the Constitution, doncha know?
Finally. Now let noone from this day forward ever say the Muslims never did anything for this country.
LOL
Gay, Black, White, Asian, male, female, old, young, hetero, homo or asexual. This is America; and we all have equal rights, and equal access to services for which we pay.
I’d suggest a double whammy. Medhat Mohamed needs to find anohter job; and the company should get a ‘fine’; as Medhat Mohamed was paid to represent this company. If you put an anti-social person in your public relations position; you should share a little pain. If I, as a spokeman for my company, make an illegal action - my job is forfeit; but my company will also take a huge hit. Therefore, it is the company’s best interests to make certain that the people they employ not only know the rules, but abide by them as well. Natually, the Cab Company would re-coup the fines accessed against them from Medhat Mohamed’s last paycheck.
*** These leftard homos are just now starting to get a taste of what “tolerance” brings to bear... ***
When we replaced the melting pot with celebrate multiculturalism and diversity, that’s when we greased the rails for our descent as a nation.
Hahhaa how do you like that, gays???
Ready to come out from under the bed and SPEAK UP against dirty moslems now??
It’s about time the biggest WHINERS (gays) start whining ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS. Namely, the dirty moslem pigs trying to take over Western civilization.
I can’t wait to watch moslems poop all over gays until they wake up and realize the SOCIALIST LEFT wants moslems in charge. They want moslems telling gays when they can smooch, what they can eat, what they can wear, what taxis they can ride in.
WELCOME TO ISLAM, HOMOSEXUALS! Come right in! This is what you’ve delivered to the USA by your SUPPORT OF COMMUNISTS/MOSLEMS like B. Hussein Omoslem, Barney Fwank, and Nazi Pelosi.
So what happens when this Jihadist wannabe throws your ass out for carrying a bottle of wine to a dinner date at your sweetie’s house? You gonna sing the same tune?
Yeah. I’m pretty consistent in my application of principles. How about you?
Yes, it is indeed his property. No question. If he wants to run a gay beauty contest on his property, parade up and down the hall in high heels - that is his right.
However, when you run a business; you forfeit the 'personal property' protection for the chance to make a profit. By applying for your business license, you are making your property 'Public' and must abide by those rules; as the 'Public' is paying for the administration of inspection (food inspectors, health inspectors, building inspectors, ADA Inspectors and the assorted safety inspectors) that constantly monitor public businesses to ensure compliance with state and federal laws.
So, while your 'Private Property' stance is correct; you are no longer considered 'Private Property' when you open a business. Whether that business is a resturant, Dental office, shipping company or a taxi cab.
Let’s see, Sharia law doesn’t permit a muslim to convey alcohol, animals, or gay people in his cab, but it’s ok for a muslim to use a car to mow down their daughter if she’s too Westernized?
Bruno: “I’ve seen a lot more go on in taxis than hugging.”
I’ll bet you have......
That would be the rule, yes.
I merely suggest that when we began to identify private businesses as "public accommodations" we may have made a mistake. It opened the door to a whole lot of government oversight and intervention.
Weird. I mean, If I owned all the roads in town, I'd stay home and have wenches feeding me peeled grapes, not go out and keep working a blue-collar job, but that's just me....
But, the law is intended for the 'Greater Good'. If a person insisted that the Food Inspector may not enter the pantry, and see rats crawling over the food - his personal property rights are placed above the health of the public.
When the Cab Driver says you may not inspect his vehicle, poor brakes endanger the public at large. The 'Greater Good' is typically designed (with exceptions, of course) for how to best service and protect the public. Any other option, places an individual in a position to inflict harm upon the public who are financing (through taxes. utilities, roads, transportation, inspectors and various agencies) the very business he intends to begin. Then we also wind up with cases where discrimination, sexual harassment and general disorder come into play. For example, if you are a local - you pay one price, but if you are not from the neighborhood - you pay double.
The intent is to provide fairness to everyone, including the property-owner. If you want to exclude specific people from your service industry - then the public business license is not for you. At that point, you would need to apply for a 'Private' business licence.
For example, in Dallas/Ft. Worth there are several counties that are 'dry'; no alcohol is allowed to be served in 'Public' resturants. So, you drop $5 to join a "Private" club at Chili's and then you can buy from the bar. Stupid, inane and pointless - but this is how you work within the framework of the law.
At least as consistent as yours...
The cab and/or business is not his. It belongs to the cab company. His Hack License is issued by NYC. Cabbies are prohibited from this kind of discrimination. If he wants to exercise his beliefs under Sharia Law, then he can damned well go back to where he came from and do it. Not here.
I’m in no way defending the behavior of these two “alternate lifestylers.” Most of us find it distasteful. It’s just not the cabbie’s right to refuse service on the grounds it offends his religion.
They’re lucky he didn’t behead them. Of course to the queers, Christians are the enemy.
“Wonder if someone should post this over at the DUmp and see how many heads explode?”
From your keyboard to God’s Ears....
Sucks to be a muslim, doesn’t it?
Horseshit! It’s Sharia law pure and simple. We are not governed by it (yet).
“But it’s his right to refuse to allow depraved acts to be performed in the back seat of his cab.”
___________________________
Depraved act? Corzine hugged Christie last night on national TV right after his concession speech. Did that offend you too?
I must have missed it from the article ... what depraved acts were the guys performing that led to the expulsion?
If it’s a private property right, can he refuse to pick up black people?
Actually I think it’s gonna be great, pitting these two over-zealous special interest groups against one another...need popcorn...
Morality-based Law? Surely you jest.
Would that be the way they treat their women? The way they behead Americans? The way they justify killing “all” non-believers? Boy, that’s some morality.
Indeed. Two of America’s enemies are facing off to duke it out. I encourage them to destroy one another.
i doubt it. if anything, they’ll use it as an excuse to exclude others from their own, protected class. there are plenty of stories about what the afghanis did to homosexuals in that country, and all of it involved painful and public death.
i went around and around with a bunch of gays on message boards when we invaded afghanistan. i linked news stories to show them that the taliban would bury them up to their necks and knock stone walls over to crush their heads. this seems to be the ‘proper’ way to execute a homo according to the imams.
the only answer i ever got back was, “george bush blah blah blah.”
Despite my feeling that all Muslims should be thrown out of the country, I’m with the cabbie on this. The main reason is that I believe that people should be free to do business or not do business with whomever they want. Forcing someone to provide a service to someone else is slavery. If the cab company doesn’t like it, they can fire the muzzie. If the cabbie is independent, he should have the right to refuse service to anyone. And it damn sure is a guarantee that I don’t want to see homos or anyone else claiming some Constitutional right to make out in other people’s cars or places of business.
Cabbies in New York City have a government-granted monopoly-- only licensed yellow cabs with a New York City Taxi Commission medallion may cruise the streets and pick up fares. (There are private limo sevices, but you have to call them-- they can't cruise the streets for passengers.) As a beneficiary of a government-granted monopoly, a taxi driver has to follow the laws, including the laws against discrimination.
“Maybe he didn’t let heterosexuals hug in his cab either.”
NO ‘public displays of affection’ should be posted inside his cab. I suspect Medhat could post such a message and throw out anyone who violates his rule. If he did that then no one could accuse him of discrimination.
Fact is, I agree with him. I’m fed-up with having to tolerate other people’s flagrant sexual behavior in public places. Decorum used to be the norm, but no more.
“You guys have to get out of the taxi! Hugging is not allowed in here!”
Did the cab driver used to run a soup kitchen, by chance?
One side wants a Monarchy/Oligarchy the other wants a Theocracy. I assume you mean you would rather have a Monarchy/Oligarchy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.