Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 80
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The same article you posted.
    http://news.yahoo.com/cabbie-ordered...170859908.html
    "Under New York state law, public and private businesses are prohibited from refusing service based on sexual orientation. "
    And that law is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. He was in the process of providing service for them (he was driving them in his cab) when he asked them to stop kissing. So he isn't refusing to provide service based on their orientation.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  2. Likes Squatch347, evensaul liked this post
  3. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    I likewise don't enough about what actually happened to render a judgment.

    But to focus the issue,

    It's only discrimination if they were asked to stop because they were a same-sex couple. If the cabbie would have behaved the exact same way if it were an opposite-sex couple kissing, then it's not an issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

  4. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well that's good, because if you think I'm arguing either for or against anyone in this situation, you're quite mistaken. .
    Well then - that would be precisely the problem I am pointing out. Whatever you are doing here then, isn't relevant is it?

    ---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I likewise don't enough about what actually happened to render a judgment.

    But to focus the issue,

    It's only discrimination if they were asked to stop because they were a same-sex couple. If the cabbie would have behaved the exact same way if it were an opposite-sex couple kissing, then it's not an issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
    The guys is Muslim, and if we base that on what a Muslim would find offensive, that would be any making out at all in the back of seat, save possibly the an innocuous display of affection between a husband and wife. Anything beyond a peck, even then, would be considered ... out of line. So how is this 'discrimination'? Discrimination by ignorance? We no longer understand the view points of religions other than our own?

    The only real interpretation possible here is that:

    a. The guy had a the worst lawyer on the planet.

    b. It is so frivolous and unimportant, that the cab company likely didn't take it seriously at all and walked into the court and were shocked to discover that the issue was about 'discrimination'. Unable to think on their proverbial feet ...

    But that would be blaming the victim here, and that is ... not right. Someone telling you to knock it off is not a threat to your civil rights. YOU suing them over something so trivial and frivolous is the act of aggression here.

    Whatever this is, its not fighting legitimate discrimination against homosexuals.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  5. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The guys is Muslim, and if we base that on what a Muslim would find offensive, that would be any making out at all in the back of seat, save possibly the an innocuous display of affection between a husband and wife. Anything beyond a peck, even then, would be considered ... out of line.
    The article in the OP said "gave her a kiss". That does sound like an innocuous display of affection instead of "making out" and something he might have tolerated had it been a husband and wife.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    So how is this 'discrimination'?
    I'm guessing the court felt that he would not have reacted that way if it had been a heterosexual couple doing the same thing (giving a kiss). I don't have enough information to say that they are wrong and as far as I can tell, you don't either. Your objection seems to be based on the assumption that he would have reacted similarly if a opposite-sex couple did the same thing. Unless you know more than what was presented in the OP, I think you are engaging in guesswork.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The only real interpretation possible here is that:

    a. The guy had a the worst lawyer on the planet.

    b. It is so frivolous and unimportant, that the cab company likely didn't take it seriously at all and walked into the court and were shocked to discover that the issue was about 'discrimination'. Unable to think on their proverbial feet ...
    Or

    c. The cabbie was actually showing intolerance of a same-sex couple and the court ruled as such.



    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Whatever this is, its not fighting legitimate discrimination against homosexuals.
    So you are saying that he wasn't discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation? That he would have done the same thing if a husband gave his wife a kiss? How do you know that?

  6. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you are saying that he wasn't discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation? That he would have done the same thing if a husband gave his wife a kiss? How do you know that?
    Theophilus pointed this out, but I'll repost it from the article:

    Under New York state law, public and private businesses are prohibited from refusing service based on sexual orientation. Yet, in Spitzer’s opinion, Dahbi doesn’t think he did anything wrong. Dahbi’s lawyer, Ali Najmi, claims that the driver often told heterosexual couples to quit fooling around in his cab because they were distracting him from driving. “My client never once mentioned anything about their sexuality and never threw them out of the taxi,” Najmi told the New York Post.

    There's a link in the article to the NYPost article about it, which says:

    His lawyer, Ali Najmi, told The Post that his client has also told heterosexual couples in his cab to knock it off when their makeout sessions become too much of a distraction.
    http://nypost.com/2015/04/10/cabbie-...men-over-kiss/

    Here's what weird about this ENTIRE issue though. The ruling in the case that Dahbi had discriminated against the women by denying them "public accommodation based on their sexual orientation."

    But the details of the issue are thus:

    “Keep that for the bedroom or get out of the cab,” Dahbi shouted during the trip from Columbus Circle to Brooklyn’s Sunset Park.

    Unnerved, the couple said they got out of the cab in Chelsea, confronted Dahbi about his comment, then got into a fight about paying the fare.

    That’s when he called them “bitches,” “c- -ts” and “whores,” *according to official documents.
    http://nypost.com/2015/04/10/cabbie-...men-over-kiss/

    So you have to admit, Mican, it's pretty difficult to rule that he denied them public accommodation when they were riding in his cab to begin with and even left the cab of their own volition. Remember, his statement was ultimately "Stop kissing or get out" and their response to that was, "We'll just get out then". What logic is there that dictates that THEIR DECISION to get out qualifies as HIM denying them service?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  7. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    No, not really Gree. your example is of a judge lecturing someone they found guilty of a crime. That indeed they do. In this case here you would have him lecture someone innocent while letting someone guilty go. That they are not supposed to do.

    There is an inherent morality and ethical component to what happens in the court room. The idea of a 'frivolous' suit, exists and can, and has been, the grounds for tossing things from court (why this one was not?).
    Likely because it was not frivolous. You were not there and did not hear the case so its pretty hard for you to seriously make such a judgement in any kind of informed way. All you have to judge is your own assumptions and one brief article which is hardly a good basis for making such a decision. I will instead rely on the judgement of a professional who was there and listened to the entire case.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    The driver didn't tell the passengers to get out of his cab based on knowledge of their sexual orientation, but based on their behavior. The only way the judge, or anyone else, could find him guilty of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is to conflate homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. And that is a fallacy, because orientation and behavior are not the same. The anti-discrimination law doesn't cover behavior, but orientation, so it should not apply to this case.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The driver didn't tell the passengers to get out of his cab based on knowledge of their sexual orientation, but based on their behavior. The only way the judge, or anyone else, could find him guilty of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is to conflate homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. And that is a fallacy, because orientation and behavior are not the same. The anti-discrimination law doesn't cover behavior, but orientation, so it should not apply to this case.
    Presumably there was evidence his action were targeting them because they were lesbian, not just because they were kissing. Certainly now he claims that is not the case but without knowing the details of the case I have to presume there was such evidence. If there was not, then he should certainly appeal and have it overturned. The fact he and his lawyers claimed they were not doesn't hold a lot of water with me when the judge decided otherwise. Had we the transcripts or such we could pick it over but since we don't we cant.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  10. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Presumably there was evidence his action were targeting them because they were lesbian, not just because they were kissing. Certainly now he claims that is not the case but without knowing the details of the case I have to presume there was such evidence.
    Your speculation doesn't match the facts as reported in any of the news coverage I've read, so I will ignore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    ...then he should certainly appeal and have it overturned.
    Exactly right.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  11. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Your speculation doesn't match the facts as reported in any of the news coverage I've read, so I will ignore it.
    The reporter wasn't there and didn't report the facts in the case. All he did was get statements from the various parties. Of course the defendant is going to say that he is innocent, and doubly so his lawyer. But the question is what was the evidence in the courtroom and we don't know the answer. you can side with the defendants claims, I'll go with the judge who in theory is impartial (at least far more impartial than the defendant for obvious reasons).
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The reporter wasn't there and didn't report the facts in the case. All he did was get statements from the various parties. Of course the defendant is going to say that he is innocent, and doubly so his lawyer. But the question is what was the evidence in the courtroom and we don't know the answer.
    Well, we don't have the whole story, but enough of it, because various reporters were either at the hearing or read the judge's decision. They confirm that the women's testimony matched what the driver said about their need to either stop the kissing or get out of the car. Further, they said that they chose to get out and refused to pay the fare.

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...m-stop-kissing
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2181411

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    ...I'll go with the judge who in theory is impartial.
    In his decision supporting the plaintiffs, the judge wrote "The more likely reason for [Dahbi] stopping the taxicab and directing Ms. Spitzer and Ms. Thornton to stop kissing was, not that he objected to all kissing, but that he was uncomfortable with two women sharing a romantic kiss." So what little information we have suggests the judge played mind-reader instead of basing his decision on the facts and testimony. His opinion is that the cabbie was reacting to "two women sharing a romantic kiss", their homosexual behavior, and not their homosexual orientation generally.
    Last edited by evensaul; April 21st, 2015 at 08:53 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    In his decision supporting the plaintiffs, the judge wrote "The more likely reason for [Dahbi] stopping the taxicab and directing Ms. Spitzer and Ms. Thornton to stop kissing was, not that he objected to all kissing, but that he was uncomfortable with two women sharing a romantic kiss." So what little information we have suggests the judge played mind-reader instead of basing his decision on the facts and testimony.
    But then it's not reasonable to determine that a judge' ruling is faulty when you are operating with "what little information we have". Since he probably has more information than we do he's in a better position to accurately rule on the case than we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    His opinion is that the cabbie was reacting to "two women sharing a romantic kiss", their homosexual behavior, and not their homosexual orientation generally.
    Kissing is not a homosexual behavior since heterosexual couples do it as well.

    If one objects to something that they would tolerate from heterosexuals because it's homosexuals doing it, then their objection is based on the sexual orientation of the participants and not the behavior itself.

  14. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Well, we don't have the whole story, but enough of it, because various reporters were either at the hearing or read the judge's decision. They confirm that the women's testimony matched what the driver said about their need to either stop the kissing or get out of the car. Further, they said that they chose to get out and refused to pay the fare.

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...m-stop-kissing
    This is the best article so far, but it still doesn't tell us what evidence for discrimination was presented in trial so we still don't know what basis the judge made his determination on. Look, you are free to draw your own conclusions but you can't convince me there was no evidence if we can't see what evidence there was. Unless I have a clear case that this judge was acting as a mind reader, I'll presume he wasn't. If they win their appeal then certainly that would be convincing. If I could read the case transcript then that might convince me as well. The statements of the defense are not going to persuade me on their own.

    In his decision supporting the plaintiffs, the judge wrote "The more likely reason for [Dahbi] stopping the taxicab and directing Ms. Spitzer and Ms. Thornton to stop kissing was, not that he objected to all kissing, but that he was uncomfortable with two women sharing a romantic kiss." So what little information we have suggests the judge played mind-reader instead of basing his decision on the facts and testimony. His opinion is that the cabbie was reacting to "two women sharing a romantic kiss", their homosexual behavior, and not their homosexual orientation generally.
    That is his conclusion, it does not say on what basis he came to it. As to homosexual behavior, that does not matter. There is nothing illegal about behaving as a gay person would behave. Presumably all gay people behave as a gay person would and discriminating against specifically gay behavior is the same as discriminating against people who are gay.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Guys, I know you want behavior and orientation to be the same, or inextricably linked, but they're not. Most certainly not in any current legal way. Heterosexuals may be arrested for public sex acts, not for being heterosexuals. Pedophiles aren't arrested for their orientation, but only when they commit illegal behavior. The same with necrophiliacs. Despite their orientations, peds/necs can refrain from the associated behavior. The same applies to hetero and homosexuals.

    Two women kissing isn't an orientation, but a behavioral act, and sexual behaviors are not addressed in laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Anti-discrimination legislation could be written to cover homosexual acts, but I don't think such language exists in any current laws. That's the way it is, regardless whether you think it should be otherwise. And if the cabbie doesn't appeal on those grounds, and I doubt he will, someone will some day, and it may go all the way to the highest court.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Guys, I know you want behavior and orientation to be the same, or inextricably linked, but they're not. Most certainly not in any current legal way.
    But what is linked is discriminating against one's right to engage in a behavior based on their sexual orientation and discrimination against the orientation itself. That's why banning same-sex marriage is justifiably seen as discrimination against same-sex couples - it's banning the behavior of getting married only when it's performed by same-sex couples.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Heterosexuals may be arrested for public sex acts, not for being heterosexuals.
    But if the rules said that heterosexuals could not engage in public sex but gays can engage in public sex, then it WOULD be discrimination against heterosexuals.

    And the judge has ruled that the cab driver engaged in that kind is discrimination. In other words, he didn't object to the behavior of kissing itself but instead objected to a gay couple doing it and would not have responded in that way if it were a straight couple engaging in the exact same behavior.

    It is fair to question how the judge came to that conclusion but the decision itself is a valid ruling on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
    Last edited by mican333; April 22nd, 2015 at 11:12 AM.

  17. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    The push for legalizing gay "marriage" rests on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right.

    Are you arguing that kissing in a taxi a fundamental right?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The push for legalizing gay "marriage" rests on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right.

    Are you arguing that kissing in a taxi a fundamental right?
    No. I think my argument was pretty clear.

    In short, saying that one group can participate in a behavior and another group cannot is discrimination agains the other group.

    So one can say that everyone can kiss in a taxi. One can say that no one can kiss in a taxi. But to say that straights can and gays cannot is to discriminate against gays.

  19. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. I think my argument was pretty clear.
    Okay, well, I think your argument is very weak, and your comparison to marriage is apples to oranges.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Okay, well, I think your argument is very weak and your comparison to marriage is apples to oranges.
    I was presenting gay marriage as an example of discrimination and was not addressing a fundamental right to anything.

    Saying straights can marry but gays cannot is to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

    And likewise saying straights can kiss in a taxi but gays cannot is to discriminate based on sexual orientation.


    This argument stands until rebutted.

  21. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I was presenting gay marriage as an example of discrimination and was not addressing a fundamental right to anything.
    And that is a false analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Saying straights can marry but gays cannot is to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

    And likewise saying straights can kiss in a taxi but gays cannot is to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
    Repeating previous weak arguments in bold doesn't make them stronger.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This argument stands until rebutted.
    Discriminating against homosexual behavior is discriminating against homosexual behavior, not discriminating against orientation. Your argument is rebutted.

    It is clear neither of us will make headway against the other here. I'm willing to let this end. You can have the last word, if you like.

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •