[MarkL]

I'd love to see what happened if this sort of thing were to happen in the US... First off, you'd have ADA lawyers lined up around the block to sue the cab company. And of course, the ACLU would be suing, but frankly, I have no idea who they'd sue. My guess is that the ACLU would represent both sides, the blind person, whos civil rights had been violated, and the driver, whos religious rights - the ACLU only protects non-Christian religious rights - had been violated, and somehow figure out how to get the government to pay their legal fees.

Mark

[bk1000]

"I'd love to see what happened if this sort of thing were to happen in the US... First off, you'd have ADA lawyers lined up around the block to sue the cab company. And of course, the ACLU would be suing, but frankly, I have no idea who they'd sue."

They'd probably sue the blind woman for offending the muslim with her dog.

[weegee]

I suspect that the ACLU would aid the cab driver, saying that requiring him to harbor the dog would (A) be an offense to his freedom of religion, and (B) an undue burden to possibly clean up after the animal.

The blind person could catch another cab (or specifically request one that will accomadate "pets").

Note: this does not match my view, I believe that public transportation (like a city bus) permits animals that provide assistance (typically seeing eye dogs) and even have seen busineses that permit seeing eye dogs. A cab may be privately owned, but its service is publicly regulated.

Still waiting for the ACLU to voice in about the airport travellers in the US who were denied cab service because they had wine in their bags.