It is a matter of civil rights violation

Submitted by Hari Iyer (United States), Oct 11, 2006 at 01:43

Not taking a blind passenger with a dog is a civil rights violation. The person should affected ought to sue the airport and the city for damages.

The rationale for not taking a passenger is ridiculous. Let us say the blind passenger elected not to bring a dog as a companion and then decided to take a cab driven by a non-muslim driver, then the muslim drivers would erupt protesting that act as a civil rights violation. When you add a service dog then, can the issue be reversed?
This is something the muslim community needs to ponder long and hard. Do they want to travel this road?

If they can't provide a service to the travelling public then they ought to get out of this taxi business.

On the flip side, I would elect to carry a alcohol bottle (closed container, ofcourse) but visible so that I can avoid muslim drivers then.

Will they come to pick up patrons from bars?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".