[Rhodes22-list] Politics - The Camel's Nose Is Well Inside The Tent

[Hank]

Dave,

I understand your viewpoint and pretty much agree with it, however, I still
have this nagging thought in the back of my mind.  Isn't one of the tenets
of a free enterprise, capatalist society the right to choose how to run your
business?  In the matter of the cab drivers, if they choose to not accept
anyone with alcohol, then they are shrinking their pool of potential
customers and may suffer economically from it.  I'm sure their are plenty of
cabbies, muslim or otherwise, who would gladly jump the line to get the fare
they turn down.  What is our (or the governments) right to force them to
conduct their business in a certain manner?  To be honest, I would suspect
that the media is really making a mountain out of a molehill on this one.
Is their really such a shortage of alcohol carrying cabbies in Minn/St. P?
If you are going to regulate this then where does it end?

Just a thought,

Hank

On 10/26/06, DCLewis1 at aol.com <DCLewis1 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Brad,
>
> The article about Muslim cab drivers not carrying passengers with
> alcohol  is
> interesting, but really it's part of a larger problem.  You've also got
> Christian pharmacists not dispensing RU2 pills based on their religious
> convictions, doctors not providing service,  etc.  The problem goes a  lot
> further than
> Muslims.
>
> My opinion comes out of the civil rights era.  As I recall, barbers  that
> declined to cut the hair of black people - ostensibly because Afro  hair
> is
> usually wiry etc - lost their business license and/or were sued.   Few
> people had
> any qualms about that in the civil rights era.  What's  changed now is
> that the
> discrimination is based on religious convictions.  Seems to me the civil
> rights approach would work with Muslim cab drivers,  and Christian
> pharmacists and
> doctors.  All of the above are licensed to  provide a commercial service,
> if
> they decline to provide the full range of  services, for whatever reason,
> they
> should lose their licenses.  They  should find another line of work that
> is
> compatible with their  beliefs.
>
> Regarding the domestic terrorist issue, the lead article in the current
> issue of Foreign Affairs is titled" Is there Still a Terrorist Threat".
> The
> abstract reads:
> "Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks,
> there has been neither a successful strike nor close call in the United
> States
> since 9/11.  The reasonable - but rarely heard - explanation is that there
> are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or
> inclination to strike from abroad."
> I'm not sure I agree with the author, but he makes a case.
>
> Dave
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>