The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am
“Why stop with alcohol?” mused Daniel Pipes recently, in a piece on Minneapolis taxi drivers who reject booze-carrying passengers. “Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals, and unmarried couples.” Bus conductors, Pipes warned, might follow suit. So now we have this, also from Minneapolis:
A city bus driver who complained about a gay-themed ad got official permission not to drive any bus that carries that ad, according to an internal memo confirmed Tuesday by Metro Transit.
Transit authorities call it a reasonable accommodation to the driver’s religious beliefs.
The driver’s religion has not been disclosed; Presbyterian, possibly. Transport unionists oppose the decision:
“Our union tries to represent all diversity – whether it be religion, cultural, race, sexual orientation, any of that,” [Michelle Sommers, Local 1005 president] said. “And if you start saying this or that ad is inappropriate, you’re offending other people, and that can create a difficult environment for people to work in.
“We have Muslim employees,” she said. “Now if there’s an ad for alcohol on the side of a bus, should Muslim employees be allowed to not drive that bus? And is the next step that mechanics don’t have to work on the bus?”
Michelle gets it. Meanwhile, in Britain:
Police in Manchester have been told not to arrest Muslims wanted on warrants at prayer times during the holy month of Ramadan.
And in Paris, an association of French gynecologists and obstetricians has described the September attack on a male gynecologist by the husband of a Muslim patient as an example of Islamic fundamentalism:
The statement by the CNGOF professional association mentioned a similar incident that occurred in a Paris-region hospital in 2003.
In both attacks, gynecologists were “physically attacked and injured by the husbands of patients on the grounds that as male doctors they should not examine their wives,” the statement said …
“Are male gynecologists and obstetricians going to have to be protected by the police from now on when they do their job?” the statement asked. “Will they have to go into hiding like philosophy teachers?”
On that last point, I’m a little ambivalent.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.