A taxi service operates under a public charter. It’s done so for a reason. Regulating fares and the prevention of discrimination are at the top of the list of charter functions.
Restricting fairs based on personal religious beliefs is discrimination. If all the cab drivers were Muslim then they effectively dictate who they pick up based on their beliefs.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
A taxi service operates under a public charter. It’s done so for a reason. Regulating fares and the prevention of discrimination are at the top of the list of charter functions.
[/quote]
cite? Can you link to the charter for us stating that people carrying alcohol is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against, please?
cite? Based on the personal religious beliefs of the driver? I might be willing to believe that not picking up a fare based on the religion of the fare is illegal discrimination in some cities, but the driver’s religion doesn’t enter into it. Can you show us the city or state code defining “discrimination” in such a backwards way, or that “carrying alcohol” is a class one cannot discriminate against, or that such “discrimination” is illegal? In fact, requiring a Muslim to carry alcohol is infringing on his right to practice his religion. The religion of the passenger is irrelevant, as he is not required to carry alcohol as part of his religion.
But they’re not. There’s no discrimination providing that only Muslims may get taxi driver’s licenses, so this is an irrelevant point. And they are perfectly willing to pick up passengers of any religion, just not to carry the *cargo *against their own religious beliefs.
This isn’t like pharmacists refusing to give out birth control or doctors refusing to give abortions. It isn’t limiting trade or access to services. The “license” is available to anyone, with very little training, and there are other providers within the area willing to give service. There is no hardship on the person looking for a ride - in fact, the light system makes it even easier for them to find a cab providing the service they’re looking for.
It’s not the person they’re unwilling to provide service to, it’s the cargo. Cargo isn’t protected. If the person gets rid of the booze (throws it out, mails it to himself, etc.), then the driver will give him a ride.
Do I think it’s kind of dumb? Of course I do! I don’t think we’ll get very far mandating morality for one another, legislation or otherwise. I’m in favor of legalizing all drugs and prostitution while we’re at it - but that doesn’t mean every individual must visit, condone or assist prostitutes. But I also think these guys will learn a lot quicker through the market forces than other methods. And if they’re fine with their business suffering, well, so be it. As long as they’re not restricting non-Muslims from getting cab licenses or people with booze from getting other cabs, then they’re not doing anything illegal.
What if a bus company had had problems with drunks coming on with bottles of booze, opening them, and consuming them on the bus, and in response issued a blanket policy that no alcohol was allowed on the bus system, even in unopened bottles?
It might be a more restrictive rule than necessary, but no one would complain that it was discriminatory or unethical or illegal.
Here’s the thing–the cabbies, as independent contractors, don’t have to justify their policies to anyone as long as they don’t discriminate against protected classes. It is, in the abstract, a reasonable policy under at least some circumstances (as demonstrated above). They could claim they were making their policy based on practical concerns instead of religious ones, or just give no reason at all, and it wouldn’t be anyone else’s bussiness.
OTOH, if the government agents responsible for regulating taxis would have allowed individual cabbies to make such a descision based on practical concerns and NOT require them to use a warning light, then they, not the cabbies, are violating the 1st Amendment.
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
It’s private transportation. And I wouldn’t be suprised that there are even public transportation venues in the US that ban alcohol.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe if you’ve got an open container or are drunk, but I’ve never heard of any public transportation in the US that won’t allow you to carry a bottle of wine home after shopping.
Come to think of it, a lot of public (and private!) transportation makes a big deal around the New Year of having “Call for a free ride if you’re too tipsy to drive” promotions.
If the airport is well served by public transportation and travellers have plenty of options then those cab drivers can do what they want. They can also expect a lot of backlash and loss of business.
I say the taxi driver takes whoever’s next when he gets to the front of the line, or he goes to the back of the line and starts over. Simple.
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
It’s private transportation. And I wouldn’t be suprised that there are even public transportation venues in the US that ban alcohol.
[/QUOTE]
If you’re talking about open containers or people drinking while on aboard then yes most public transit bans alcohol. If you’re talking about people carrying their groceries home it’s a whole other storey. And what’s next? Taxi drivers refusing to transport women with their hair uncovered or men with earings?
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
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.
[/QUOTE]
That makes sense, except that I wouldn’t allow any Magic-I’m-Exempt-From-The-Rules light.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
That makes sense, except that I wouldn’t allow any Magic-I’m-Exempt-From-The-Rules light.
[/QUOTE]
The light just lets the customers know that they can decline to accept that cab. It eases the hassle for customers having to argue with the cabbie while doing nothing to make the cabbie “exempt.”
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Oh, bullshit.
You have taken some incidents of supposed history (that may or may not reflect specific events correctly), and summed them up in inflammatory language for the purpsoe of being insulting. It’s a cheap stunt that makes you look like an ass.
[/QUOTE]
I do not suppose anything. I’m merely adopting the Muslim scholars own assessment of the historical documents. Those documents show that he is a murderer, a rapist and a pedophile and a coward. Again, tangential but not entirely irrelevant to the OP.
What about equal accommodation for services? While the drivers are independent contractors working for private companies, those companies are licensed by the government to offer services to anyone, regardless of their race, religion, gender, etc.
There is no equal accommodation of services when a potential client is denied a service solely based upon their religious status being different than the licensed contractor. At the same time, the client cannot avail themselves to an alternate serive when (according to the news article) the contractors are predominently Muslim.
The Minneapolis Code of Ordinances governs taxi companies and drives. For example,
Seems to me we have a license violation based upon the religious discriminatory practices of a contractor licensed by the government to perform a service.
Question-let’s say I have a bottle of wine in my bag or something-how would they even KNOW?
[QUOTE=Anduril]
Those documents show that he is a murderer, a rapist and a pedophile and a coward. Again, tangential but not entirely irrelevant to the OP.
[/QUOTE]
You are lying and, at this point, I suspect that you are trolling. While you might be able to make the “murder” claim stick, only the most idiotic Islam bashers on the blogs of the uninformed actually consider his behavior to have been “rape” or “pedophilia” and the actions that are labeled “cowardly” would be examples of prudence to people who were not simply trying to libel a group they hated to begin with.
You have had your little fun, here, riling people up with your smear campaign. You will now stop it as it has nothing to do with this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=Duckster]
There is no equal accommodation of services when a potential client is denied a service solely based upon their religious status being different than the licensed contractor.
[/QUOTE]
But the client is not being denied a service based upon their religious status; it’s whether or not they have alcohol on them. A Christian, Jew, Scientologist etc without alcohol will recieve exactly the same service as a Muslim wihout alcohol. Likewise, a Muslim with alcohol would recieve the same treatment as a Christian with alcohol, though that situation is less likely to occur.
The issue which is being discriminated against is the carrying of alcohol; and that is not a protected class.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
cite? Can you link to the charter for us stating that people carrying alcohol is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against, please?
[/QUOTE]
That’s an asinine site request. I simply stated that one of the purposes of a charter with a municipality is to avoid discrimination. Why would a charter specify a list of items for which discrimination is acceptable.
You’re not looking at the logic of a publicly chartered service. By default, there is a limit of competition and discrimination of any kind is not acceptable. What if the Muslims decide that they can’t take infidels in their holy chariots of commerce? What if they see a Democratic lapel pin and decide not to allow abortion proponents?
I thought something like that would be part of their charter. Thanks for the info.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
But the client is not being denied a service based upon their religious status; it’s whether or not they have alcohol on them.
[/QUOTE]
The client is being denied service based on the driver’s religious beliefs. If all the drivers are Muslim than it become impossible to leave the airport with a legal item. That goes against the service expected from a publicly chartered entity. In this case, it severly limits the ability to get a cab from a public airport.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Question-let’s say I have a bottle of wine in my bag or something-how would they even KNOW?
[/QUOTE]
I’m wondering that too. Are drivers just refusing to take people with unbagged wine or are they actually searching their potential customers before letting them the their cars?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
The client is being denied service based on the driver’s religious beliefs. If all the drivers are Muslim than it become impossible to leave the airport with a legal item.
[/quote]
They are not all Muslim. And it’s quite possible that not all of the Muslim drivers will not take alcohol-carrying passengers.
I agree. But is it illegal? Is the discriminated against class protected?
It limits the ability to get a cab from a public airport if you’re carrying alcohol. If you want to use “severly” you’re going to need to show a cite proving a majority of the cab drivers going to that airport won’t take alcohol-carrying passengers. And, again, merely limiting someone isn’t against the law; Mormons limit my ability to enter one of their temples completely, but that’s not against the law.
Just for reference, this is how the cabs work at MSP (I take a lot of cabs home from that airport).
You go to the cab stand. There are cabs lined up waiting for customers. The dispatcher directs you to a cab. You have no choice in which cab you get in - except that the dispatcher makes sure that there are vans available in the dispatch lane at all times (this is what we grab coming back from vacation with the kids).
Lights would mean the dispatcher needs to make sure there are “alcohol carrying” cabs and well as vans in the dispatch lane at all times. The dispatchers would probably ask “are you carrying alochol” and direct you to the proper cab.
Not a big deal at all…though I understand being a cabbie out of MSP is not the most lucrative profession and you need to manage to pull many runs in a day or risk actually losing money at it. Having the light would allow your customers to discriminate against you (perfectly legal discrimination, btw, I don’t call plumbers with little Jesus fish in their ads either - I don’t think religion and business mix and don’t find it pertienent information) and probably wouldn’t make being a cabbie profitable. Most of the cabbies are independant contractors and rent their cabs. Personally, I think it would be a good way to make cab driving unprofitable, but its their contract, their choice.
[QUOTE=Jakonovski]
Is rampant anti-Muslim bigotry some kind of a hallmark of GD threads, or did I start posting at a bad time?
[/QUOTE]
You came in at a bad time. Ordinarily we are far more civilized and evolved.