|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: simple.language.yahoosimple.language.yahoo Date: Sep 9, 2008 13:28
source: http://www.startribune.com/local/28053724.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc...
Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers
who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies'
latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse
to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.
An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year
revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a
passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.
A large share of the cabbies who serve the airport are Somali Muslims,
and many of them believe that Islamic law prohibits them from giving
rides to people carrying alcohol. Since the commission began keeping
track in 2002, there have been over 5,200 recorded instances of
cabbies refusing service to passengers at the airport, including a
"significant percentage" of passengers carrying alcohol, the appeals
court noted.
|
| Show full article (2.15Kb) |
|
| | 35 Comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2008 13:30
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT),
simple.language.yahoo@ gmail.com wrote:
Good! As it ought to be.
No One ought to let their religious preferences interfere with their
carrying out any public service, when they are licensed and required
to do so.
It ought to cover More than carrying alcohol.
If they don't care to do that, let them find another line of work.
|
| |
|
| | 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rich AhrensRich Ahrens Date: Sep 9, 2008 15:09
on 9/9/2008 3:30 PM Don Homuth said the following:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT),
> simple.language.yahoo@ gmail.com wrote:
> >
> Good! As it ought to be.
>
> No One ought to let their religious preferences interfere with their
> carrying out any public service, when they are licensed and required
> to do so.
Including pharmacists, of course.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: osmiumosmium Date: Sep 9, 2008 15:25
"Rich Ahrens" writes:
>> No One ought to let their religious preferences interfere with their
>> carrying out any public service, when they are licensed and required
>> to do so.
>
> Including pharmacists, of course.
That's an interesting point. I know essentially zero about religion, but I
would think that one of the basic tenets of any religion worth its salt
would be that the laws of God overrule the laws of man. I sense a problem
here.
|
| |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2008 16:46
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:09:23 -0500, Rich Ahrens iphouse.com>
wrote:
>on 9/9/2008 3:30 PM Don Homuth said the following:
>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT),
>> simple.language.yahoo@ gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> Good! As it ought to be.
>>
>> No One ought to let their religious preferences interfere with their
>> carrying out any public service, when they are licensed and required
>> to do so.
>
>Including pharmacists, of course.
No one.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2008 16:46
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:25:52 -0700, "osmium" comcast.net>
wrote:
>
>"Rich Ahrens" writes:
>
>
>>> No One ought to let their religious preferences interfere with their
>>> carrying out any public service, when they are licensed and required
>>> to do so.
>>
>> Including pharmacists, of course.
>
>That's an interesting point. I know essentially zero about religion, but I
>would think that one of the basic tenets of any religion worth its salt
>would be that the laws of God overrule the laws of man. I sense a problem
>here.
If it doesn't work for All religions, then it works for none at all.
If the Muslims can be forced to do things that are counter to their
religion, then Equal Protection demands the same of everyone.
|
| Show full article (0.77Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2008 17:47
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:25:52 -0700, "osmium" comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>>
>>"Rich Ahrens" writes:
>>
>>
>>>> No One ought to let their religious preferences interfere with their
>>>> carrying out any public service, when they are licensed and required
>>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> Including pharmacists, of course.
>>
>>That's an interesting point. I know essentially zero about religion, but
>>I
>>would think that one of the basic tenets of any religion worth its salt
>>would be that the laws of God overrule the laws of man. I sense a problem
>>here. ...
|
| Show full article (1.07Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2008 17:56
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:47:54 -0700, "ßDoüg±Ç" now.com> wrote:
>> If the Muslims can be forced to do things that are counter to their
>> religion, then Equal Protection demands the same of everyone.
>>
>> No exceptions.
>
>Well good luck with that. Just look at ANY islamic theocracy on the
>face of this earth to discover how muslims subscribe to your fantastically
>liberal concepts.
We do not run Our constitutional republic on the basis of other
nation's approaches to whatever form of gubmint They may choose.
If indeed ours is superior to theirs, it must hew to its own
principles and demonstrate it.
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2008 18:51
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:47:54 -0700, "
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
