NationStates

I'm not sure how I feel about this. obviously, it's fucked up, but i'm not sure if there should be a role for government.

One side of me says that it is extremely racist, discriminatory, and violates the principles of an inclusive society. No one should be seen differently or lesser because of their race, ethnicity, or culture. In a multicultural society, we can't tolerate things like this. It's extremely unreasonable for someone to demand a white taxi driver.

Another side of me says that it is a private business, and there's not direct discrimination by the employer.

so I'm undecided about whether or not the government should intervene.. if, somehow, it becomes a widespread thing where it's causing considerable discrimination, racism, or division between races then it should.

However if a business began offering taxi drivers of a certain ethnicity only, or only hired people of a certain ethnicity/race, then the government should definitely put a stop to it.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:What law requires cab drivers to actually take customers?

No, the law requires cab drivers to not be arseholes about taking customers.

Oh, sure, you cannot take services for a reasonable thing, but the right to take customers or not is not unlimited.

Is it reasonable to demand a white cab driver? I don't think it is.

New Aerios wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Well "There's no need" didn't really inspire me to eloquence.

Then why bother commenting?

Because I disagreed with you and felt like saying so.

---

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I think there's something relevant here, that it's pretty basic:

Even if you have a business, that still doesn't give you a right to ignore the law and be an asshole.

What law requires cab drivers to actually take customers?

I doubt there is one. Bet there's a law requiring them not to give employees, such as their drivers, preferential treatment on account of their race, though.

It is a normal reaction of people after being exposed to long term dictatorship of political corectness.

Brazilian People wrote: What if a driver just want to accept clients of a certain ethnicity?

They can already do that. A driver that doesn't want to take someone of some race is free to quit their job rather than do so. They would, of course, have to deal with nobody being willing to hire them afterwards.

Similarly, I believe a company should be free to authorise customers to request a driver based on whatever conditions they'd like, so long as they're willing to deal with customers opposed to such a policy taking their business elsewhere.

Buse wrote:It is a normal reaction of people after being exposed to long term dictatorship of political corectness.

Shit, another one has gotten loose from the Daily Mail comments section.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
No, the law requires cab drivers to not be arseholes about taking customers.

Oh, sure, you cannot take services for a reasonable thing, but the right to take customers or not is not unlimited.

Is it reasonable to demand a white cab driver? I don't think it is.

I don't think it is either. Customers cannot act like pricks either, but neither can the business.

If a customer demands a white cab driver it is unreasonable to expect that the business will comply to the request, same as if businesses demand to just have white customers, it is also unreasonable to expect the government and society will comply to the request.

Ieperithem wrote:

Brazilian People wrote: What if a driver just want to accept clients of a certain ethnicity?

They can already do that. A driver that doesn't want to take someone of some race is free to quit their job rather than do so. They would, of course, have to deal with nobody being willing to hire them afterwards.

Similarly, I believe a company should be free to authorise customers to request a driver based on whatever conditions they'd like, so long as they're willing to deal with customers opposed to such a policy taking their business elsewhere.

Alternatively, we could not allow businesses to be racist. That'd just be peachy.

Ifreann wrote:

Buse wrote:It is a normal reaction of people after being exposed to long term dictatorship of political corectness.

Shit, another one has gotten loose from the Daily Mail comments section.

I know you will sorry for the Pakistanis because they cannot rape no more, but cut this bullshit.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Is it reasonable to demand a white cab driver? I don't think it is.

I don't think it is either. Customers cannot act like pricks either, but neither can the business.

If a customer demands a white cab driver it is unreasonable to expect that the business will comply to the request, same as if businesses demand to just have white customers, it is also unreasonable to expect the government and society will comply to the request.

Fine, the cutomer will find another taxy company and the problem is solved. That is how markets works.

Buse wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Shit, another one has gotten loose from the Daily Mail comments section.

I know you will sorry for the Pakistanis because they cannot rape no more, but cut this bullshit.

Are you aware of the concept of a double negative?

Actually I think I revise my opinion. This is probably not that bad a decision...for instance.

Vulnerable women, for instance those who have been dometically abused, might ask for a 'female' taxi driver as they can't trust men. Is it wrong to deny them the service if you have spare female cab drivers? In the same instance, what about those people who have been abused by say, white men. Shouldn't they be allowed to ask for someone that they think they can trust, no matter how misguided. Instead of pushing our own agenda onto them?

Everyone has their own preferences...do you buy a black iphone or a white iphone, which would you feel more comfortable with? If the cab company have the resources spare, then imo, they should allow the customer to pick and choose even if there might be a longer wait or higher cost. After all, if they say "no, we don't allow customers to make a choice on that matter" or , "no we don't have anyone available", the customer is going to go somewhere where they can get that service and you're going to lose out on that repeat custom and perhaps a few word of mouth secondary customers as well.

I think we call that Civil Rights and Personal Freedoms.

Businesses on the other hand, should be able to make those same distinctions as they are there to maximise the amount of profit and they can't do that if they're being selective about their customers and therefore damaging the economy.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Is it reasonable to demand a white cab driver? I don't think it is.

I don't think it is either. Customers cannot act like pricks either, but neither can the business.

If a customer demands a white cab driver it is unreasonable to expect that the business will comply to the request, same as if businesses demand to just have white customers, it is also unreasonable to expect the government and society will comply to the request.

So...
What was being argued about exactly?

Fartsniffage wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
You're still not thinking through your post before posting it. You got caught making up a line of bull. I'm still waiting for you to actually contribute anything.

Although, that you think supporting the rights of others needs a defense doesn't leave me very hopeful

So you can't defend your statement. Concession accepted.

I contend that there is no need to defend supporting rights. There is no concession, because you've yet to actually even address any of my posts.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:What are you referring to here Iffy?
I was under the impression that service could be withheld as and when for no given reason.

Or is there a context from some posts previous that I haven't seen?

I think there's something relevant here, that it's pretty basic:

Even if you have a business, that still doesn't give you a right to ignore the law and be an asshole.

And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

Sexual molesting of children is popular among westernes, they seem to see it a human right. "Look, gays made it, so can we"

WestRedMaple wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I think there's something relevant here, that it's pretty basic:

Even if you have a business, that still doesn't give you a right to ignore the law and be an asshole.

And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

actually you can if the consensual private transaction involves something illegal :-)

Buse wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Shit, another one has gotten loose from the Daily Mail comments section.

I know you will sorry for the Pakistanis because they cannot rape no more, but cut this bullshit.

You're one to talk about bullshit, mate.

---

WestRedMaple wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
So you can't defend your statement. Concession accepted.

I contend that there is no need to defend supporting rights. There is no concession, because you've yet to actually even address any of my posts.

That's almost as stupid as the "Hurr durr political correctness" bullshit from the other guy.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I think there's something relevant here, that it's pretty basic:

Even if you have a business, that still doesn't give you a right to ignore the law and be an asshole.

And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

So does that mean we have no right to interfere in a mafia circle?

Alyakia wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

actually you can if the consensual private transaction involves something illegal :-)

You seem to be confusing the ability to do something with a right to do it

WestRedMaple wrote:

Alyakia wrote:
actually you can if the consensual private transaction involves something illegal :-)

You seem to be confusing the ability to do something with a right to do it

We're not the ones arguing that consensual private transactions should all be legal, here.

Alyakia wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

actually you can if the consensual private transaction involves something illegal :-)

So, if selling socks while wearing a clown hat suddenly became illegal, you'd be completely supportive of arresting people for it, right?

Ifreann wrote:

Buse wrote:I know you will sorry for the Pakistanis because they cannot rape no more, but cut this bullshit.

You're one to talk about bullshit, mate.

---

WestRedMaple wrote:
I contend that there is no need to defend supporting rights. There is no concession, because you've yet to actually even address any of my posts.

That's almost as stupid as the "Hurr durr political correctness" bullshit from the other guy.

Your inability to follow the discussion does not make my statement stupid.

New Aerios wrote:

Alyakia wrote:
actually you can if the consensual private transaction involves something illegal :-)

So, if selling socks while wearing a clown hat suddenly became illegal, you'd be completely supportive of arresting people for it, right?

illegal doesn't only mean prison. It can also mean fines and restrictions for your business.

So, of course we'd have to follow the law. We might argue it's not fair, but generally laws don't border into the absurd. Generally.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

So does that mean we have no right to interfere in a mafia circle?

Obviously not. The mafia harms other people. There is every right for us to protect ourselves from them.

Did you really miss the part about people deciding and consenting?