Laphraoig Akbar!

The Airport Commission is debating the Moslem cabbies’ “right” to refuse service to people with alcohol.

I’ve had about enough of these idiots:

Many cabbies disagreed, saying that the proposal denies them the right to freely practice their religion.

“This is discrimination,” proclaimed Ahmed Shine, a taxi driver for seven years.

No, it’s a “job condition”. If my religion forbade me from watching people use software, my employer would be well within its rights to toss me. Ditto the MAC.

And the MAC isn’t saying you can’t drive a cab. Merely that you can’t drive one on its turf, the airport.

Beyond that, Ahmed? Stand on principle! Refuse the booze! Eke out a living hauling welfare fares home from the grocery store (no booze there!).

Abdifatah Abdi, who said he was speaking for an association of cabdrivers, said the commissioners “will be judged on your decision.”You are deciding the livelihood of 600 drivers and their families,” Abdi said. “Say no to discrimination. Say yes to justice for the weak.”

Then go out and get a job where you don’t have to deal with infidels!

Seriously, what’s next? Refusing to serve women who aren’t wearing chador?

Go drive your cab in Mogadishu.

Posted

February 28, 2007

Culture War

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

104 responses to “Laphraoig Akbar!”

angryclown

February 28, 2007

Service to “people with alcohol?” What the heck do you mean? Drunks? People with open containers?
angryclown

February 28, 2007

Ah, should have read the good old, trusty Star-Tribune. That makes it clear.

First, this is a problem? People are openly carrying alcohol on line at the MSP taxi stand?

Whatever. Angryclown’s with the drunken wingnuts on this one.
Mitch

February 28, 2007

The cabbiesa are refusing to carry people with ANY alcohol – bottles from duty-free, cases of wine from France, whatever.

The deal is this – a Somali cleric here in the Twins issued a Fatwa saying that the Quran REALLY says moslems shouldn’t allow alcohol around them at all. Most clerics say the Quran refers only to drinking. The fatwa has gotten a lot of the Somali cabbies in his…parish? Whatever, they’re all knotted up about it, and so we have a controversy.

So the next time I take a cab, I’m bringing a pitcher of Porkatinis.
angryclown

February 28, 2007

Sounds like a non-issue designed to rile up all you Real AmurcansTM. Who carries open bottles of liquor while waiting for a taxi stand? But assuming some guy does, and he’s not so shitfaced that any right-minded cabbie would pass him up, he should get service, if that’s the rule.

Just keep in mind, wingnuts, that the same rule applies when some Jesus-loving cabbie objects to transporting Wiccans or teens who fly to town for a special Twins-Game-and-Abortion weekend package.
Mitch

February 28, 2007

Who carries open bottles of liquor while waiting for a taxi stand?

Nobody. We’re talking sealed bottles, boxes, cases, whatever. You can’t walk around ANYWHERE with an open bottle in this town.

when some Jesus-loving cabbie objects to transporting Wiccans or teens who fly to town for a special Twins-Game-and-Abortion weekend package.

Interesting hypothesis, which comes from the same root as “hypothetical”, which is what you’re talking about. It’s never happened.
angryclown

February 28, 2007

Sounds like the whole thing is a non-issue. Which of course makes it perfect fodder for wingnut commentators. Any word on whether O’Reilly will host a 2-hour special from MSP, backed by a “War on Zima” graphic?
bovious

February 28, 2007

Mitch – check your headline – “sharp” response? All I’m seeing is the usual dull Angryclown snark.
angryclown

February 28, 2007

bovious carped: “All I’m seeing is the usual dull Angryclown snark.”

Sorry, “bovious.” I know how much you wingnuts hate it when somebody spoils a chance for you to shout “Go back to your own country if ya don’t likes it!” But Angryclown thinks the civil rights of airport taxi customers openly carrying liquor at MSP is a little too narrow and hypothetical even for a SITD shout-out. “Whatever,” as the young people like to say.

Angryclown agrees with Mitch. This grave injustice can be tolerated not a minute longer!
The Lady Logician

February 28, 2007

Hey AC – did you consider it to be a non-issue when certain evangelical pharmacists refused to fill birth control or Plan B prescriptions?

LL
angryclown

February 28, 2007

That might affect just a couple more people, Log Lady. In any case, the same rule applies. If you can’t get with the program, quit your job and let Jesus or Allah provide.
The Lady Logician

February 28, 2007

Not really AC – but you are right…the same principle SHOULD apply but for some reason (in this case) it isn’t….

LL
Troy

February 28, 2007

I think angryclown should fix his reading comprehension problem. Nowhere in the article is “open bottle” or “open container” mentioned, but angryclown mentions his assumption of this in four separate comments, three after supposedly reading the article.

Either that, or angryclown is just pretending not to “get it” to take the comment section off topic. If so, well done! *claps*
Yossarian

February 28, 2007

Angryclown is the Chain-Yanker-In-Chief here.
angryclown

February 28, 2007

Troy, you dumb, wingnut meathead. Angryclown refers twice to open bottles, twice to “openly carrying liquor.” These are differnt things. The point is that a cabbie wouldn’t have the opportunity to object unless a passenger had a visible container of alcohol. A cabbie wouldn’t notice if you have one of those little bottles of airplane vodka in your pocket. Or model airplane glue, for that matter, which appears to be your recreational drug of choice.

Try to keep up.
Kermit

February 28, 2007

The next step is for Somalis to insist that the Minneapolis Institute of Arts remove all paintings and sculpture representing people and animals, so that they will be free to enjoy this PUBLIC facility without violating their religion.
The statewide pork ban can wait until next year.
angryclown

February 28, 2007

Right Kerm. Museums should only be forced to remove stuff that offends *Christians.*
Troy

February 28, 2007

Ouch, angryclown. Your words sting me. *golf clap*

You almost get it, and you still want to drag the discussion off topic (excellent work, btw).

Your “point” seems to miss the point: why should I have to hide my legally purchased alcohol in order to take a cab at MSP? I don’t think I should, and I don’t think you think so either. But I admit I could be wrong on that. It is possible that, in some respects, you could be really stupid.
angryclown

February 28, 2007

No indeed, Trojan Man. Once the vacuum tubes warm up, your head is apparently capable of some rudimentary functioning.

What you continue to miss, though, is that while Angryclown agrees with Mitch, he is also noting that the issue must come up only very rarely, if ever. This is yet another of those culture clashes that give you wingnuts the opportunity to harrumph about those evil furriners and their un-American ways.
Yossarian

February 28, 2007

And as LL points out, when a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs (no matter how infrequently it may happen), it’s fodder for endless alarmist leftist yodeling.
Kermit

February 28, 2007

You can fill as many jars full of urine and crucfixery you want, Clown. The only complaint was the use of public funding.
I personally have a painting of Emmet Kelly daubed with elephant dung. It’s very moving.
The Lady Logician

February 28, 2007

“You can fill as many jars full of urine and crucfixery you want, Clown. The only complaint was the use of public funding.”

And cartoons that may (or may not) depict the diety of Islam (cartoons that were produced without taxpayer dollars) draw condemnation from the left…along with the admonition that us non-Islamists need to be “more understanding” of their religion.

Maybe when they become a little more understanding of everyone else’s religion (or lack thereof)…

LL
phaedrus

February 28, 2007

“did you consider it to be a non-issue when certain evangelical pharmacists refused to fill birth control or Plan B prescriptions?”

This is a slightly different situation – I think a pharmacy should be able to require the pharmacists that work there to abide by its policies. Similarly, I think an airport should be able to require the cabs it gives access to its facilities to abide by its policies.

The most reasonable compromise in my view is this:

Based on my understanding, the cabs queue up for customers and the customers queue up for cabs. If either the customer or cab in question is unwilling to utilized their paired option, they can decline and go back to the end of the queue. The customer or cab who was just rejected is given the next option in the queue.

The declining can be for any reason as the person paying the penalty for declining is the person who just rejected a legally accepted pairing.
phaedrus

February 28, 2007

did you consider it to be a non-issue when certain evangelical pharmacists refused to fill birth control or Plan B prescriptions?

This is a slightly different situation – I think a pharmacy should be able to require the pharmacists that work there to abide by its policies. Similarly, I think an airport should be able to require the cabs it gives access to its facilities to abide by its policies.

That said, as a publicly supported facility, they should attempt to be as accomodating as possible to differing views as long as those accomodations do not significantly infringe on the choices of others.

The most reasonable compromise in my view is this:

Based on my understanding, the cabs queue up for customers and the customers queue up for cabs. If either the customer or cab in question is unwilling to utilized their paired option, they can decline and go back to the end of the queue. The customer or cab who was just rejected is given the next option in the queue.

The declining can be for any reason as the person paying the penalty for declining is the person who just rejected a legally accepted pairing.

As an aside, if no pharmacies in a reasonable distance will fill a prescription for a legal substance, the state should either allow non-licensed pharmacists to provide that prescription or be required to provide some sort of official means to fill that prescription. This onus is created because by making it illegal to fill prescriptions without being a licensed pharmacist, they have handed licensed pharmacists a form of monopoly. If they use that pseudo-monopoly to prevent access to legal (and even prescribed) substances, there must be another means available.

The liberal side of me is just fine with decrying, demonizing and raising a stink about a pharmacist that refuses to fill a prescription. They should be allowed to do it and I should be allowed to tell everyone that they are busybody jerks and don’t spend your money there. Yodell all you want – just keep the state out of it.
phaedrus

February 28, 2007

did you consider it to be a non-issue when certain evangelical pharmacists refused to fill birth control or Plan B prescriptions?

This is a slightly different situation – I think a pharmacy should be able to require the pharmacists that work there to abide by its policies. Similarly, I think an airport should be able to require the cabs it gives access to its facilities to abide by its policies.

That said, as a publicly supported facility, they should attempt to be as accomodating as possible to differing views as long as those accomodations do not significantly infringe on the choices of others.

The most reasonable compromise in my view is this:

Based on my understanding, the cabs queue up for customers and the customers queue up for cabs. If either the customer or cab in question is unwilling to utilized their paired option, they can decline and go back to the end of the queue. The customer or cab who was just rejected is given the next option in the queue.

The declining can be for any reason as the person paying the penalty for declining is the person who just rejected a legally accepted pairing.

As an aside, if no pharmacies in a reasonable distance will fill a prescription for a legal substance, the state should either allow non-licensed pharmacists to provide that prescription or be required to provide some sort of official means to fill that prescription. This onus is created because by making it illegal to fill prescriptions without being a licensed pharmacist, they have handed licensed pharmacists a form of monopoly. If they use that pseudo-monopoly to prevent access to legal (and even prescribed) substances, there must be another means available.

The liberal side of me is just fine with decrying, demonizing and raising a stink about a pharmacist that refuses to fill a prescription. They should be allowed to do it and I should be allowed to tell everyone that they are busybody jerks and don’t spend your money there. Yodel all you want – just keep the state out of it.
Master of None

February 28, 2007

Could a Muslim pilot refuse to fly a plane if it served alcohol and not get fired?

Could a Muslim bartender refuse to serve alcohol and not get fired?

Could a Muslim doctor refuse to treat an emergency room patient if they had alcohol in their blood and not get fired?

Muslim cabbies have refused passengers over 5000 times since 2002 at the Minneapolis Airport. They have refused to carry blind passengers with dogs because they feel that dogs are un-clean.
J. Ewing

February 28, 2007

I like the “free enterprise” solution. That is, if the cabbie doesn’t want the passenger, or vice versa, they are both free to to seek another provider or customer. But the airport rules say you have to take the next one in line if you want to work at the airport, so that is the rule. If you can’t work under that rule, take your cab someplace else.
angryclown

February 28, 2007

Master of Bation claimed: “Muslim cabbies have refused passengers over 5000 times since 2002 at the Minneapolis Airport. They have refused to carry blind passengers with dogs because they feel that dogs are un-clean.”

Gee, Master, got a link or citation for that remarkable statistic? Cause it has all the hallmarks of having recently been pulled from your ass.
Master of None

February 28, 2007

Sure ass-clown

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/16797665.htm

I’ll cut out the critical parts so you won’t have to strain yourself

“Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Director Steve Wareham told commissioners his staff has documented 5,222 instances of drivers refusing customers since January 2002.”
Yossarian

February 28, 2007

In today’s hip online parlance, AC, Master of None just “PWN’D” you.
Master of None

February 28, 2007

Or from our other paper

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1029753.html

“A group of blind Minnesotans was on hand, too, testifying about taxi drivers who refused to transport their guide dogs because Muslims consider the saliva of dogs unclean.”

Out here in the mid-west, we’ve got these things called “newspapers”.
Kermit

February 28, 2007

Unlike New York which has the Jayson Blair, Pinch Sulzberger Comedy hour/half hour.
Oh, to be blissfully liberal.
Paul

March 1, 2007

C’mon, don’t be so hard on AC…he must have missed the story.

After all, the New York Times runs every story that is fit to print.

/snark/
angryclown

March 1, 2007

Master of Bation noted: “Out here in the mid-west, we’ve got these things called “newspapers”. ”

True enough, Master. They’re the things you wingnuts look at so you can trash ’em on kooky right-wing blogs. I’m glad to see you’ve decided to place your trust in the Pioneer Press and Star-Tribune – two excellent papers, I’m sure you’ll agree.

When attempting to make a point in the future, please be kind enough to include a link to one of these (or other unbiased, mainstream source) in your original post. This will help Angryclown distinguish actual fact from your own mad ravings.
mike

March 1, 2007

“When attempting to make a point in the future…”

Alternately, you could take about 30 seconds to educate yourself on a subject so that you would have a tiny idea of what the hell you’re talking about before you start chiming in with your idiocy.

Then again, why start now, I guess.
angryclown

March 1, 2007

I don’t see the problem, mike. Angryclown politely asked Master for more information on his point. Master was gracious enough to comply.

So why don’t you go sit on a fire hydrant?
Master of None

March 1, 2007

“This will help Angryclown distinguish actual fact from your own mad ravings.”

Before posting on a topic you know nothing about, please attempt to educate yourself by reading the link provided in the original post, you stupid stupid clown.
Kermit

March 1, 2007

Angryclown quipped “Pioneer Press and Star-Tribune – two excellent papers, I’m sure you’ll agree.”

Sure. The DFL has to have an official publication, and the STrib is it. They are as unbiased as I am. The difference being, I don’t pretend to be, they do.
angryclown

March 1, 2007

Master, you foolish, sad little man: “the link provided in the original post” is to the Star-Tribune story, not the Pioneer press story that contains the 5000+ statistic.

Angryclown reiterates his earlier request. Please provide documentation for any points you wish to make. Angryclown wishes to give you the benefit of the doubt -rather than dismissing you as perpetually stupid, Angryclown would like to give you credit for on those occasions you stumble across an actual fact.
mike

March 1, 2007

“Please provide documentation for any points you wish to make.”

And you’ll begin adhering to this policy exactly….when?
angryclown

March 1, 2007

Never, mike. No such policy is necessary in Angryclown’s case. In contrast to Maseter, Angryclown is intelligent and completely reliable.
mike

March 1, 2007

““the link provided in the original post” is to the Star-Tribune story…” which clearly stated that “About 100 people are denied cab service each month at the airport”.

So when Master of None stated that 5000 have been denied service since 2002, why did you demand documentation and accuse him of having pulled the number out of his ass?

Were you unable to do the math, or have you still not bothered to read the original story?
angryclown

March 1, 2007

You are incredibly tiresome, mike. But I’ll do you the favor of walking you through it.

Here’s the whole paragraph: “About 100 people are denied cab service each month at the airport, many by drivers who refuse to transport alcohol in their cabs. Roughly three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslims.”

According to the Strib “many” of the 100 people denied service each month are transporting alcohol. No source for the information, no indication of how many is “many.” 20? 98? No indication of how “many” of the Somali cab drivers are Muslims. No information on how long cabbies have been turning down fares at the airport. So yeah, you could do the math and figure that 1,200 are turned away every year (12,000 since 1907!) But that would be stupid.

The Pioneer Press story had better numbers. Angryclown is willing to believe the Pioneer Press. Angryclown is not willing to take the word of Master of Bation.

Is this something your clouded mind can understand?
angryclown

March 1, 2007

Oh dear, Angryclown dropped a zero. Somali cabdrivers have turned down 120,000 fares at MSP since 1907 – nearly 2 1/2 million since the birth of Christ!

Oh the humanity!
mike

March 1, 2007

No need to walk me through anything, clown. Since I, along with everyone else who’s posted on this subject (save one) were already well versed on the subject.

Please try to keep up next time. You end up looking like less of a clown that way.
angryclown

March 1, 2007

You’re right, mike. Angryclown needs to better educate himself on the minutiae of Minnesota life. Anyone know if there’s a Little House on the Prarie rerun on right now?
Mitch

March 1, 2007

In contrast to Maseter, Angryclown is intelligent and completely reliable.

Yeah. Y’know. That “hereditary credibility” thing the MSM is always pleading.

It’s simple!
Mitch

March 1, 2007

Angryclown needs to better educate himself on the minutiae of Minnesota life.

Most likely!

I wonder – if you polled 100 New Yorkers about life outside of their roach-infested, over-priced city, and 100 ~~average people~~ real americans from between the Hudson and the Sierra Madre about life in New York – who’d score better?

(And “who cares about life outside Noo Yok” is the new “my dog ate my homework”).
Master of None

March 1, 2007

“You end up looking like less of a clown that way.”

Don’t get his hopes up Mike.
J. Ewing

March 1, 2007

Anybody care to discuss the issue at hand, like maybe an actual statement of informed opinion based on consistent principle?
Lassie

March 1, 2007

This Muslim cab driver kerfluffle reminds me of a classic scene from Monty Python [updated]: “Come see the discrimination inherent in the system! Help! I’m being oppressed!”

Interesting updates at Daniel Pipes’ weblog on the airport cabbie/MAC meeting:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/679#meeting

And locally: http://crosswordbebop.blogspot.com/2007/02/metropolitan-airport-commission-public.html