Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

USA; Is This Yet Another Version Of Islamic Law?
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9358		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:  USA; Is This Yet Another Version Of Islamic Law?
Muslim Cabbies Lose Round In Court

9th September 2008

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (AP) — Muslim cab drivers whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in court.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cab drivers' attempt to block penalties for refusing service.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cab driver's license for 30 days for refusing a fare 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, which is sometimes visible through bags or in wine boxes, the appeals court noted.

The issue had simmered for several years before the commission decided the penalties were needed to ensure that customers would get reliable taxi service at the airport, and that compromises proposed by the drivers were impractical.

The drivers, who say the airport rules infringe on their religious freedom, appealed a lower court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction blocking those penalties from taking effect.


Source; usatoday.com
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dunno about that...This months Casey Column

Refusing to be hired

That 150 year old legislation seems to still be relevant in some areas, I remind people, particularly on certain ranks in the Great Border City;

53. Penalty on driver for refusing to drive.

A driver of a hackney carriage standing at any of the stands for hackney carriages appointed by the commissioners, or in any street, who refuses or neglects, without reasonable excuse, to drive such carriage to any place within the prescribed distance, or the distance to be appointed by any byelaw of the commissioners, not exceeding the prescribed distance to which he is directed to drive by the person hiring or wishing to hire such carriage, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding [ level 2 on the standard scale].

The following do not appear to be reasonable excuses;

1.Finding out where the customer is going before deciding the items carried will not fit in your cab (but will fit in the cab behind).

2.Refusing the fare because a certain taxi rank only goes to the racecourse on that specific day.

3.Refusing to be hired because you are only doing long fares today.

In deference to the above, the 1936 Public Health act provides the driver with a pretty decent refusal. For example, if the passenger is suffering from the ‘Ebola’ virus, it would seem to be a suitable ground for you to refuse the fare. Indeed, the local government act of 1982 makes it illegal for a person with ‘Ebola’ of a similar communicable disease from using public vehicles, the term used is ‘infectious diseases’, and supposing you and the passenger don’t actually die before reaching the destination, you could presumably claim the disinfection costs.

If you survive and the passenger dies you better check your byelaws, because somewhere in there could be a section regarding knowingly carrying the body of a dead person and you having to have the vehicle inspected by the sanitary department of your local council. Presumably if you unknowingly carried a dead body, you may well be guilty of infringing a byelaw that states you must check the back of your cab after each fare for lost property.

That’s right, not only will the passenger find that they not only have a deadly disease, they cannot use a public vehicle, and if they do they must inform you at which point you can tell them it is not only against the law for you to carry them, its against the law for them to try to hire you.

I wonder how many drivers have actually suggested to a court ‘Sorry your honour, I thought the person who tried to hire my cab, at the aforementioned time and at the aforementioned place had the pox ’.

Obviously this is all now fresh in your minds, I hope the BTEC people are taking notes, we soon will see a taxi driving course that includes us all being able to recognise the differences and symptoms of all these communicable diseases.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes Captain!!

But I did title the story;

USA; ...........
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Yes Captain!!

But I did title the story;

USA; ...........


I noticed...thank you for adhere'ing' to my wishes :wink:

CC
Author:  gusmac [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Strangely, most muslim shopkeepers have no problems selling alchohol :?
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:26 am ]
Post subject: 
I wonder if those drivers know how much damage they are doing to themselves and/or folks perception of their religion.

Just do the job, or leave and find another one.
Author:  toots [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
gusmac wrote:
Strangely, most muslim shopkeepers have no problems selling alchohol :?


That's what I was thinking...... it's a shame it's not a crime against their religion to rip off the punters!!!!!
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/