According to the article they were informed.
The onus is on the company, there are no two ways about it.
Sharia Law or Canadian Law.....
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
According to the article they were informed.
The onus is on the company, there are no two ways about it.
Nope- they will lose.
They admitted they have a problem. They admit it is continuous- what disciplinary action did they take- None- Guilty as charged. Pay the man.
Human rights complaint filed against cab company over guide dog - Saskatoon | Globalnews.ca
If you’re driving a taxi in this country, you have got to know that you’re open to service dogs.”
Cliff Kowbel, operations manager at Comfort Cabs, said that the company continually informs its drivers that working dogs are not pets. He said the company has a policy that the dogs are not to be refused.
Simmonds said he was on his way to the airport two weeks ago when he was turned away by a driver who said a larger cab was needed.
He had called ahead for a taxi to pick him and his dog, Graham, up at a bus stop. When the cab didn’t show up, he called the dispatcher again.
He said she told him she was having a hard time finding a cab for him because of the drivers’ religious beliefs. Simmonds had to wait an additional 20 minutes outside for a taxi to come from across the city.
“That’s where I said, ‘Enough is enough. Three strikes, you’re out,’ and I’ll make my pitch.”
Sorry Goobs. Religious freedom trumps all. If it didn't Winston Blackmore would be in the pokey for polygamy.
You're on. I'll have an extra large.
A. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the cab company didn't send another cab to accomadate
B. Nowhere in the article does it mention if the person requested a non-Muzzie driver or mentioned it was a guide dog
C. The person keeps calling the same cab company knowing full well there are religious issues with some of the drivers
D. Blackmore wasn't charge with polygamy because of freedom to practise his religion has he chooses.
A. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the cab company didn't send another cab to accomadate
B. Nowhere in the article does it mention if the person requested a non-Muzzie driver or mentioned it was a guide dog
C. The person keeps calling the same cab company knowing full well there are religious issues with some of the drivers
D. Blackmore wasn't charge with polygamy because of freedom to practise his religion has he chooses.
Goobs is looser than I am.
He will win- HRC's can ignore the law as we are all well aware of. They also look to other Provs for rulings. I posted one earlier in the thread.
Sending another cab- Nope- fail
Asking for a Non Muslim driver- shows or could show religious prejudice on his part.
Calling the same company- They should have been aware of the dog
Blackmore -not relevant- His was in criminal court.
As to the article and what is or is not mentioned- normal for a paper- only so much space. Wait for the ruling.
Make mine an extra large.
No fighting now. You're both equally loose.
Easy one might even say, and not at all concerned with gaining a reputation.
the dispatch was having trouble finding a non-Muslim driver which indicates staffing problems, if so it is reasonable to assume, other cabs companies would have the same issue.
So if I was the cab company would it be a problem to pay double to a driver willing to drive guide dogs by labelling said driver special needs accommodation, or is that discriminatory?
All of those mentioned, have to, by law, be handicap accessible. If they are not, they can be fined. In order to be handicap accessible, taxi cabs have special cabs. So, no, I doubt that their individual cabs not being accessible to his specific handicap will stand up in a court of law. There are specific ones that are, and anyone with a handicap knows they need to schedule ahead of time for cabs. Given the fact that there are cabs that will accommodate him, and there are drivers who will take him, their service IS accessible to him, thus he will not win a suit claiming that they aren't simply because their time management sucks. He will be told to phone further ahead of time to schedule pick ups.
It also protects people's religious freedoms.
It will be an issue of whether 'the company' discriminated against him and denied him access, and as people have pointed out, it clearly hasn't. It has policies in place, and it has made accommodations.
HRC's are not a court of law and as has been shown can ignore the law.
He did not require a special cab. Just a cab for him and his dog.
He does not need nor should be required to ask for a specific person based upon religion to drive him. That would be discrimination on his part.
He does not need to call and schedule as he needs a cab- Not a special vehicle-
How is their Religious freedom infringed upon. When walking down the street, meeting a person with a dog- do they run to the other side of the street - Do they haul groceries- pork in there -
And he will win.
but petros it doesn't matter if there are ten other companies if most are Muslim drivers there will be an issue if one doesn't order ahead