Seeing-eye dogs present a problem to many Muslim taxi drivers.
41 comments
I marked this one moderately low. While there's really no reason to disallow dogs in your car, the cab driver is really just shooting himself in the foot for business. He's not telling anyone they're going to Hell for doing something that has nothing to do with him.
His car, his stupid rules.
@The Watcher: If it's his car, then you're correct. But, what if his car is part of a company? Then, wouldn't he (and therefore, the company) be discriminating against blind people?
@The Watcher
The rules of his car are in disagreement with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires all business that are open to the public to accept service animals. Taxicabs are specifically included.
http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm
@Timothy and Anonymoose:
By Anonymoose's link, it is, in fact, a violation of the ADA to deny service animals access, regardless whether you are a part of a company or it's your own cab. I therefore stand corrected.
EXCEPT: The law requires a "company" to make those accommodations. What if another cab from the same company was right behind the driver who refused the dog? Wouldn't the company then be in compliance?
I'm afraid of heights, therefore I didn't apply for the job of highrise window washer. Maybe people should consider whats involved in a job before they take it.
Also, Muslim law allows for working dogs. These dogs are the ultimate in working dogs. The cab driver is not expected to touch it, it wont be jumping up on the seats. The dog usually curls up on the floor on the opposite side of the owner.
Edit:
And what if the person had to wait another 20 minutes for that cab. What's the problem with that?
And yes I used to own a Taxi, and I have had seeing eye dogs in the car. Your allowed to refuse pets, but not service animals.
This is ridiculous in a way only fundies can be ridiculous.
In any other context, this would be considered a mental disorder.
"His car, his stupid rules."
"@ The Watcher
Well, assuming the Civil Rights Act says the exact same thing as the Americans with Disabilities Act, I'd give you the same answer. If there's a car right behind you, from the same company, and will pick up a nonwhite person, you're probably not discriminating. Although I'm sure we can quibble over what level of inconveniencing someone constitutes "discrimination," and there's probably a ruling somewhere that says that so much as muttering about black people at your business constitutes "discrimination."
"There isn't a city in North America that allows discrimination against assistance dogs.
And what if the person had to wait another 20 minutes for that cab. What's the problem with that?"
Then he's in violation of the ADA and should be legally sanctioned (and probably fired, but that's not my business).
But like I said before, there's probably a ruling somewhere that says under the ADA, even a momentary inconvenience is disability discrimination, and is actionable. If there is, then he's in violation of the ADA the second he refuses to let a dog in the car and he deserves to be punished.
My God we're a bunch of stupid fucking primitive animals on this planet, we really are. We should really have outgrown this kind of voodoo curse bullshit by now, it's the 20TH CENTURY for Chrissakes, get with the program.
P.S. Yes, I realise it's the 21st century. 1) I'm paraphrasing a funny comment that appeared on this site and 2) I'd actually settle for them getting with the 20th century, even that would be an improvement.
@The Watcher
The point is not whether the victim is inconvenienced, but whether they are treated as a second-class citizen.
Legally, Brown v. Board of Ed would be the precedent that kills the separate cab idea. It struck down the "Separate but equal" facilities that were allowed under Plessy. The ADA essentially extended this to those with disabilities. If you're open for business, you must not discriminate.
Logistically, it would be impossible to have a non-discriminating cab follow a discriminating cab all over the city.
It all comes down to rights, I guess.
Whose rights are more important? The rights of the woman who needs a dog to be able to see, to use a taxi?
Think it's rather obvious, really.
America, I hardly know you anymore. Next you're going to tell me that cops can't beat hippies anymore.
Even if it's his car, the woman could still sue him and probably win the case.
Personally, if a raghead told me I couldn't bring a service dog into his car, I'd drop my pants and take a leak on the car door. Then I'd tell him to kiss my freedom-loving white American ass. How's that for ritual impurity?
Discrimination against physical limitations (such as blindness, until we can fix it) should always have higher resolution priority than discrimination against made-up limitations (such as ritual purity).
Thus, the driver is an asshat.
well...If I had a service dog of some kind and there were other cabs available, I would be fine with some cab driver telling me he would prefer if I took another cab because the dog is a problem for his religion. I would make the same accommodation for someone who was seriously afraid of dogs. however...that would be my personal thing. being unwilling to drive someone who has a service dog is both illegal and uncharitable, and BREAKING SOMEONE'S WRIST!!!! is waaaaay beyond out of line. That is assault, and I would like to see him charged for it.
I think the CAIR response is more "fundy" than anything, as it gives a completely irrational and unacceptable response. But any driver acting like that has to be charged with assault, I mean, that is not a civil way to act.
Allegory for Jesus : I think it has something to do with animal husbandry at the time of Mohammed. Camels were useful, and therefore good. Dog were not, and therefore bad.
Also, on one of the skeptics boards I frequent, someone once mentioned that when the British ruled Muslim areas, they would use dogs to control crowds/go after people, so that might be part of it as well. Though admittedly, I don't have a legitimate source to back up that statement.
NO accomodation for this belief should be allowed. Guide dogs are essential for blind people; the Muslims have no right to refuse simply because of their beliefs. CAIR is a fundy-Muslim backing organization that has stated it wants to see Islamization of the world, including all of North America. They are not to be trusted.
"the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer"
Poor Allah, he just can't stand that icky dog drool.
"He harmed her broken wrist."
Beating up a blind person? How macho!
Not all Muslims hate dogs, usually it is the poorly educated ones who listen to illiterate mullahs that tend to do so. A lot of people in my family are Muslims and not one has ever objected against my dog or the fact that he sleeps in my room, especially never on religious grounds.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
