Muslim taxi drivers in USA refuse to take passengers carrying wine bottle

Great Debates
1

this news article reports that in the airport at Minneapolis, some Muslim taxi drivers are refusing to accept any passenger who is carrying alcohol. Three quarters of the 900 drivers are from Somalia, most of whom are Muslim. What started with only a few drivers is now a spreading phenomenon: drivers who refuse to take anyone who is,say, carrying openly a gift-wrapped bottle of wine. It is now a “significant issue of customer service for us”, according to the airport’s PR spokesman.

The airport’s proposed ‘solution’ is to surrender: the airport’s governing commission will provide a colored light on the roof of such taxis, so passengers will know which vehicles to avoid when carrying alcohol.

This seems to me to be political correctness gone crazy. Absolutely, totally, unacceptably, crazy.
Minneapolis is not Saudi Arabia. Carrying a bottle of wine is legal, just like carrying an umbrella, or a bible. The airport is a public institution, run by commisioners who are appointed by the governor of Minnesota. cite. American citizens using the airport have a right to be treated equally, as long as they do not break the law. (i.e. state law made by their congressmen, not Sharia law made by Muslim theologians. )

If fundamentalist Christian drivers made the same demands, the ACLU would be screaming about separation of church and state.
What’s next? Taxi drivers who refuse to drive any passenger carrying a ham sandwich? Or refuse to drive women passengers unless they are wearing a burka?

  1. Question for liberals: does “cultural diversity” have any limits?
  2. Question for lawyers: how can this not be a violation of the 1st ammendment–i.e. government support for disrcriminatory religious behavior?
2

It’s like a Muslim rerun of the pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives.

3

But I thought those pharmacists (one case that I heard of) lost their case in court. And the case was a private individual suing his private-sector employer (if I remember correctly.) In the Minn airport, we have an official government agency violating the 1st ammendment.

4

I’m not going to wrangle legal specifics, but violating the spirit of the Constitution is a running theme in the US of late.

5

How would they know if your carrying alcohol? Lie like a dog and get in the damn taxi.

What if I had a beer at the airport? I’m ‘carrying’ alcohol then too.

6

The solution there is to cancel the franchise of anyone caught refusing to take passengers with alcohol. If they wish to follow the teachings of a pedophile/assasin/murderer/coward, they’re more than welcome to it. But if it interferes with their secular duties then they must be taken to task.

7

How does this violative anyone’s rights? I guess if they prevent a Priest from carrying Communion wine it could be religious discrimination. But can’t any private business concern ban others from taking many different types of things, including alcohol, into their private business locations.

8

Colored lights? Good. That way people will know which taxis to avoid… and not just when they’re carrying booze.

9

IANAL, but I don’t think that is the case with public transportation. In the Philippines (I’m not sure if it’s the same there in the US), taxi drivers cannot refuse passengers without legal justification lest they get their franchises revoked.

10

because of the ethnic, racial, and religous background of the taxi driver.

11

Absolutely uncalled for.

Make your case without insults, please.

12

It’s private transportation. And I wouldn’t be suprised that there are even public transportation venues in the US that ban alcohol.

13

Is rampant anti-Muslim bigotry some kind of a hallmark of GD threads, or did I start posting at a bad time?

14

No we don’t, and I fail to see how you draw that conclusion. No government agency is preventing persons carrying alcohol from taking a taxi, as far as I can tell from the article. Unless you can show otherwise, I imagine that, like in most cities, drivers are independent contractors, and therefore can choose to carry fares or not, as long as they cannot be shown to be dsciminating on the basis of religion or race. The article does mention that cabbies without these lights who refuse fares go to the back of the cab rank, resulting in their waiting in line for an additional three hours or so. That’s a significant hit on a cabbie’s daily income.

Agreed. It’s much colder in winter, for one thing. Nor is it Somalia, where, according to the article, most of the cabbies are from. Why are so many from there, by the way? That might make a fairly interesting news story in itself.

Taxi drivers in Minneapolis are not state employees, so far as I know. I have no idea how the ACLU might address this particular issue, and I don’t think you do either. Here’s an idea: if you want to know what the ACLU might do, contact them and bring this issue to their attention.

If the cabbies wanted to impose such silly rules and thereby wipe out much of their chance to earn a living, they could. Other persons, who are more amenable to passengers toting ham sandwiches, could get hack licences and agree to carry them as well.

Now, to your questions:

Yes, and I am under the impression that the US Constitution, quaint document that may be, sets those limits.

I’m not a lawyer, but it appears the cabbies are not discriminating based on other persons’ religious beliefs, but that they feel compelled to refuse alcohol-carrying fares because that is how they interpret the requirements of their own religion. This is no different in character from the religion-based requirements of male Sikhs that they wear a turban, or the various costume and hair requirements required of orthodox Jews.

If the airport authorty, therefore, were to say, ban Muslim Somali taxi drivers from picking up fares at the airport, or even just compelling them to take passengers carrying alcohol, that would in fact be religious discrimination.

That’s pretty much all the effort I care to spend on this particular issue, so I’ll just follow the rest of the debate silently, and I won’t be hurt if someone demonstrates I’m wrong on any of the above.

15

They still operate under a franchise, and those franchises can be revoked. I would imagine that a regulatory agency exists that governs them. What’s wrong with compelling them to take passengers who carry an unopened bottle of liquor?

16

Is that against the First Amendment?

If he can discriminate against me, I can descriminate against him.

17

Pretty much par for the course. Natch that doesn’t mean the SDMB’s ‘protected classes of persons’ can be subject to same. Hell no. Though, it does mostly depend which moderators are on deck.

18

Yes, you can discriminate against them because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. But they however cannot discriminate against you because of your race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.

19

No, they can just force me to follow the rules of their religion.

20

Actually, at most they can refuse to give you a taxi ride.