I value my dogs' judgment over most people. Great post.

One of the cruelest things about being a boheimian grad student is that I can't in good conscience take on a pet. It wouldn't be fair to them to be forced to live in dinky little apartments with little attention. I'm not anti-pet. QUite the contrary. One of the reasons I want to visit the Castle is so I can play with a dog or a cat for the first time in several years.

And yet, I have to allow for them to say no dogs in their cab for the same reasons I say that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to sell any kind of drug they chose not to sell: it's their business and their property therefor I have no claim on how it is used or not used. That isn't 'tolerance'. That's respecting private property rights which is one of our fundamental beliefs here in the West, dontchaknow.

What should have the taxi driver done? He should have gotten on the radio to dispatch and gotten the woman another taxi, pronto. NO arguing. Just, "I'm sorry miss. I can't take you and your dog. Let me call dispatch to get you another cab." No lawsuits on either side. No victimology. Just getting the job of living with each other over.

Love your pets. That's you're right. But you do not have the right to make others do the same, nor do you have a right to their property. That's abridging their natural rights enshrined in our Con.

Sorry, Ry, but you are very wrong. Taxi drivers are licensed by the state or local government to provide a service and it is illegal for them to discriminate against handicapped folks.
Blind people and their guide dogs, by law, are permitted in any public place.
I'm not saying any old dog should be allowed - but certainly the guide dogs.

In London, probably 80 percent of the cabs are driven by Muslims - so it's not like folks have a great huge choice, either.

There are also cases where Muslims don't allow African Americans in their cabs - should that be okay too?

YOu're licensed by the state to drive your car. Does that give them the right to make claims against your car as well? The gov't licenses your car and has regulations about vehicles. Does that make your car their's?
Say I finish my PhD(please Lord?) and start my own biotech. I have to get licensing from the Fed and states to do so. Do they own my business and can they make demands that I pursue certain lines of research? No. This line of reasoning did not speak at all to what I was saying---if the cabbie owned his cab he has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason he might chose to have. Including not wanting to have a dog in his cab or not wanting to pick up people wearing purple hats.
He owns it, not the renter.
I know ADA makes it illegal to do so, that's why I asked that question when I linked to the same story over at John's, but I have fundemental problems with ADA. (And before some jackalope slanders me with bigotry: I was born with a club foot, and serious under bite that required major facial reconstruction, twice. My nephew suffers from DiGeorge syndrome and for ten years he lived in my home with me taking on a quasi-parental role and I still have much to do with this kid despite being 2000 miles away. I'm not unaware or unsympathetic to the troubles of the handicapped. So. Just. Don't. Go. There.(and no Beth, this isn't about you. You and BG have been nothing but nice to me. Just covering my back and anticipating jackalopism)) Nobody said life was fair. Misfortune does not obviate fundemental property rights. Or shouldn't, I should say.

But yes, you should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you can't it really isn't your property. Tom Sowell has the philosophical underpinnings of why if you care to look at them.
As long as it is not the gov't instituting the discrimination. That means all gov't buildings including schools and businesses inside a gov't building would have to be refittted to comply with the ADA and subject to non-discrimination in hiring policies but the random business should not. You don't have the right to punish me for your misfortune or force me to accomidate you with *my* property(see the above parenthetical before getting on some moral high horse people).
Or should some doctor be forced to perform abortions simply because the state regulates medicine? Should a pharmacist be forced to hand out abortifacts even if they don't want to stock that type of medicine? Would a law requiring you to pick up stranded people on the highway be right? Of course not. It's your property and gov't doesn't have the right to make those kinds of demands.
Granted, this cab company in the London case held a special relationship with the BBC(a state owned service). Which means they should come under such rules as they are not merely random business. But on general principle? Hell no. Or should we toss aside parts of the Con pertaining to property rights right alongside them tossing out the 2nd Amend? Equivalent pieces of philosophy that underline classical liberal thought.

I knew the cloaked racism claim was going to show up. It's just an urge that is so hard to resist. No harm no foul. I'm not a SOuthron, Beth. Trying to tar me with that just doesn't work. I don't flinch over that out of collective guilt. I'm a Californian. That doesn't work on us(unless it's Mexicans. You can get us on Mexicans.).

Yes, the gov't action in the 60's to end state sponsored discrimination nation-wide was a good thing. But that was because it was the gov't doing the worst of it and subsidizing the disgusting practice. BUt you can't force people to stop being jerks with their own property.

"I'm not saying any old dog should be allowed - but certainly the guide dogs." I agree that the cab company should have a policy allowing guide dogs. If this guy couldn't live up to that he should've made sure she got a cab with a driver who could accomodate her. You're playing at a very dangerous precedent here. If you can demand that someone give up a cherished belief/cultural norm simply because you don't like it what's to stop someone else from doing it to you when they have the majority---like SArah Brady and gun rights, or Micheal Newdow doing his damndest to make sure any sign of religion is out of his sight forever if he can get the 9th Cir Court to agree with him?
What I objected to was this driver getting into a snit about people abusing him over this and playing the victim card. Making the issue about Islam instead of property rights/autonomy rights or him being an idiot for not getting the woman a cab that would drive her home when his company was contractually obligated to. I objected to his turning it into a cultural fight and him into a marytr. That should be countered at every turn. He should be pimp slapped until he learns that he has an obligation once his company accepted her business to get her a cab that would allow her dog. HIs being a Moslem is not against that at all. That would've been decent. That would've been all sides finding ways to get thru life with the least amount of friction, mutual respect, and assimilation without coughing up identity.

I've rambled enough.(again, no, I'm not mad at you Beth. I'm just protecting myself from accusations from jackalopes who will show up and say i don't know because X when I actually do know because I have lived thru X) ;)

Well, they actually *are* unclean, what with the butt-licking, and the shit-eating, and the vomit-soliciting, and the vomit-eating, and the rolling in icky stuff.

I like 'em ok anyway.

They co-evolved with us, I think, so Lucy Van Pelt's fears of dog germs aren't so scary, to me at least.

If my dog is unclean then I guess I am as well. Oh, yeah, that's right... I AM!!

Imagine that.

Ry

I disagree with you a bit on the pharmacy thing. I agree that a pharmacy should be able to set standards on what types of prescriptions they're willing to fill, although there can be issues of 'public good' invoked on them. But a pharmacist should not be setting policy for his employer. If you have strong feelings about the issue then you should make sure your employer is agreement with those feelings or seek employement elsewhere.

As to the 'public good' bit I mentioned, if you're the only pharmacy in the area then there's a lot of pressure for you to provide as many services as possible.

Looking at you having your own BioTech and .gov interference: while I agree they should be pretty darned limited in meddling in your affairs I can see them getting a bit... interested if you want to do research on say, weapons quality infectious agents.

Once again it's riding the fine line between 'public good' and 'private property', an area rife with greyness.

I do agree with you that the cabbie could have made a case for himself by simply going with the 'not in my cab - let me get you another' but then again, how long should this woman have waited? 10 more minutes? 2 hours? A day?

Dislike of dogs was the VERY FIRST thing that led me to suspect there was something amiss in Islam, some thirty years ago. Nobody who dislikes dogs so much has a soul. Period.

Dogs are awesome creatures, whether they are clean or dirty. In fact, I'm pretty sure dogs rule - or at least they should. They'd probably do a better job than most of the humans in Washington. ;)

I am the least "pet-friendly" person you will ever meet. That said, if we let cab drivers refuse service animals based on religion it is dead wrong.

There's one rather amusing thing about Islam's problem with dogs. See, there's this very special breed of dog that dates back over three thousand years and is so highly valued by the Arabs that any proscription against them would certainly be ignored. So in keeping with the Eternal Law of "never give an order you know won't be obeyed," Mohammed gave them a special pass. So to a Muslim, a Saluki isn't a dog at all.

It's an impressive example of obviously specious and mendacious reasoning in a religion's "holy scripture."