Taxi drivers turn down gay fares for religious reasons

[Luddly Neddite]

next it will be the Jews they will refuse to transport...

And we know how they would check to see if a guy is Jewish.


===


These jackasses just get more and more stupid. Now they'd rather sit idle, pass up paying customers just because they hate.

Stupid.

 

[Jughead]

It seems they are refusing to drive the cabs because of the adverts on top of the cab...they are refusing to work, not specifically refusing service to gay people. But I do wonder if something will be said?

Absolutely. They are exercising their first amendment rights. Due to their religious beliefs, they cannot drive the cabs with the gay themed advertising. Nowhere does it say that they refuse to provide service to gays. There is no discrimination here.

Like that guy at Mozilla who exercised his rights?

He (Eich) was denied his rights there.

Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla after it was revealed that he made a $1,000 contribution for an anti-gay ballot initiative in 2008. OkCupid pressured Mozilla, which ultimately resulted in the resignation of Mr. Eich. Yet it was ok for the CEO of Match Group (which controls OkCupid), Yagan to vote in favor of a marriage protection amendment and still keep his job. As a result, Match Group and OkCupid were deemed hypocrites. I am surprised Eich didn't sue for violation of his civil rights, as he was denied his livelihood because of a donation he made. He would have won given the hypocrisy involved. I'll bet a payout was involved.

 

[jillian]

Just like it is the right of Christians not to go to gay weddings?

you seem confused as to what the ruling was. it is not that anyone has to GO to a particular wedding. it's that you can't discriminate in your business and refuse to provide the service your business offers.

you know... like in the jim crow days.

I am in no way confused because the suit was over the refusal to photograph a wedding. Unless you can figure out how to take pictures of a wedding without attending it, the decision forces people to go to weddings.

You know, like the slavery days.

no. not like the slavery days. that analogy fails.

you run a business, then you don't get to deny services in a discriminatory fashion.

 

[Asclepias]

Did you change your position that rights only exist if they are granted to others? Who granted them the right to ignore the contracts and leave people stranded at the airport?

No I didnt change my position. No one can force you to honor a contract. You have an option of going to jail in the most extreme of cases. Of course that has nothing to do with your false OP does it? They are protesting the advertising or did you forget to read your own link?

Where does the option of breaking the law come from if I have no rights?

Who said you didn't have rights? Are you trying to change the subject again?

 

[syrenn]

But there is no uproar from the left.

I wonder why.

Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com

that is working for me.... fire them for refusing to work and get new drivers.

 

[bodecea]

But there is no uproar from the left.

I wonder why.

Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com

Maybe because this is the first I've heard of it. But yes, I would definitely protest and not use that company....

 

[Asclepias]

I am in no way confused because the suit was over the refusal to photograph a wedding. Unless you can figure out how to take pictures of a wedding without attending it, the decision forces people to go to weddings.

You know, like the slavery days.

No it doesn't stupid. It forces you to render the same services to everyone if you have a business. Were you deprived of oxygen in your youth?

Except it actually doesn't. If you don't believe me, read the actual decision where it laid out all the legal ways to refuse to attend weddings even if photographing weddings is the service you offer.

Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.

 

[Zander]

I'd fire any cabbie that refused to drive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you seem confused as to what the ruling was. it is not that anyone has to GO to a particular wedding. it's that you can't discriminate in your business and refuse to provide the service your business offers.

you know... like in the jim crow days.

I am in no way confused because the suit was over the refusal to photograph a wedding. Unless you can figure out how to take pictures of a wedding without attending it, the decision forces people to go to weddings.

You know, like the slavery days.

no. not like the slavery days. that analogy fails.

you run a business, then you don't get to deny services in a discriminatory fashion.

Except you actually do, even if your business actually falls into the category of public accommodation laws. Unless, that is, you think refusing to serve someone based on income is not discriminatory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No I didnt change my position. No one can force you to honor a contract. You have an option of going to jail in the most extreme of cases. Of course that has nothing to do with your false OP does it? They are protesting the advertising or did you forget to read your own link?

Where does the option of breaking the law come from if I have no rights?

Who said you didn't have rights? Are you trying to change the subject again?

You did, multiple times.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it doesn't stupid. It forces you to render the same services to everyone if you have a business. Were you deprived of oxygen in your youth?

Except it actually doesn't. If you don't believe me, read the actual decision where it laid out all the legal ways to refuse to attend weddings even if photographing weddings is the service you offer.

Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.

Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

Where does the option of breaking the law come from if I have no rights?

Who said you didn't have rights? Are you trying to change the subject again?

You did, multiple times.

Please post where I said it even once. Dont try to lie your way out of your embarrassment now.

 

[Asclepias]

Except it actually doesn't. If you don't believe me, read the actual decision where it laid out all the legal ways to refuse to attend weddings even if photographing weddings is the service you offer.

Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.

Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.

I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who said you didn't have rights? Are you trying to change the subject again?

You did, multiple times.

Please post where I said it even once. Dont try to lie your way out of your embarrassment now.

There is a whole thread of you saying it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-natural-rights-exist-without-government.html

 

[Asclepias]

You did, multiple times.

Please post where I said it even once. Dont try to lie your way out of your embarrassment now.

There is a whole thread of you saying it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-natural-rights-exist-without-government.html

I love how you lie when cornered. Posting a thread is not posting the quote you claimed I made. You should be able to post a quote where I said it but you cant because you were lying to keep from being busted. While you are at it please post where it says a business can discriminate. The board will never get to see those 2 things because they dont exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.

Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.

I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?

Let me guess, you making an unsupported claim is proof you are right.

Let me show you how to refute an argument.

From the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain defined classes of people. See § 28-1-7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add “sexual orientation” as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws,
ch. 383, § 2. “Sexual orientation” is defined in the NMHRA as “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived.” Section 28-1-2(P). In this case, we are concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because
of that person’s real or perceived homosexuality—that person’s propensity to experience feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex.

Wow, look at that, the law only prohibits discrimination under some conditions, not all.

Then we have this.

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography
business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination
based on certain specified protected classifications.

What was that? It would be perfectly legal for a black photographer to discriminate against a KKK rally?

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

Next time I suggest you read something, read it, you might end up looking halfway intelligent.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please post where I said it even once. Dont try to lie your way out of your embarrassment now.

There is a whole thread of you saying it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-natural-rights-exist-without-government.html

I love how you lie when cornered. Posting a thread is not posting the quote you claimed I made. You should be able to post a quote where I said it but you cant because you were lying to keep from being busted. While you are at it please post where it says a business can discriminate. The board will never get to see those 2 things because they dont exist.

Remember when I told you to read the decision, and you didn't, you just claimed, without evidence, that it doesn't say what it says? Does that remind you of your tactics in the thread where you claim you haven't been saying that people have no rights unless someone hands them out?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At Americab, Keenan explained that the airport sells the space on the taxis' roof-mounted placards and gets any revenue generated from the advertising.

"We don't have any objections to the signage," he said. "We're fully supportive of the games. We're not in concert with (the protesting drivers) on that. We don't share those views."

Good for them.

Otherwise this is another non-issue, as there will always be those of ignorance and hate hostile to gay Americans, where fortunately the Constitution prohibits seeking to codify such ignorance and hate.

 

[Asclepias]

Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.

I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?

Let me guess, you making an unsupported claim is proof you are right.

Let me show you how to refute an argument.

From the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain defined classes of people. See § 28-1-7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add “sexual orientation” as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws,
ch. 383, § 2. “Sexual orientation” is defined in the NMHRA as “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived.” Section 28-1-2(P). In this case, we are concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because
of that person’s real or perceived homosexuality—that person’s propensity to experience feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex.

Wow, look at that, the law only prohibits discrimination under some conditions, not all.

Then we have this.

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221. Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography
business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination
based on certain specified protected classifications.

What was that? It would be perfectly legal for a black photographer to discriminate against a KKK rally?

I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

Next time I suggest you read something, read it, you might end up looking halfway intelligent.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

Where do the words appear that you can discriminate? I only see the words "prohibit or prohibiting discrimination". Next time I ask for a quote you better provide it or place your stupidity on display like you are now doing.

 

[Crystalclear]

I do totally not agree, but think the drivers should decide for themselves whether or not they want to drive gay people. The companies who will not drive have a big problem, because their concurrents are gonna make a lot of money during the Gay Games.