I have a pretty strong opinion on this, but I don’t really need to type it all out, because WhyNot already expressed it so well! Essentially, it is the same thing I wrote in the thread about the Jewish clinic being sued by the NAACP for being closed on Saturday…I don’t believe business owners can or should be forced to run their business contrary to their religious beliefs. Let the free market sort out the problem.
And if I ever fly to Mpls with acolhol on me, I will try to remember to hide it in my suitcase. Are there really that many people leaving the airport clutching a bottle of booze?
People on this board tend to be humanistic and anti-authoritarian and thus opposed to militant rigid ideologies. If anything, people here are far more critical of fundamentalist Christians than Muslims. I think that’s because this is a left leaning board and dissing Fundamentalist Christians is viewed as “liberal” while dissing Muslims is viewed as “conservative” for reasons that escape me.
Why is it bigotry to think less of someone because of a belief they freely chose. If someone is a Maoist or believes whites are genetically superior to blacks a lot of people will think less of them. Is that bigotry? Why do bad beliefs get a pass if they’re religious?
They operate under a license. They are violating the terms of the license. The religion of the drivers are a secondary issue. It would be preferential treatment if we allow them to disregard their secular duties simply because of a religious objection.
I would think less of people who think those things. Having a religious prohibition of alchohol is not QUITE the same thing, IMO.
I am not a liberal, I am a conservative. I believe the government should stay the hell out of regulating private businesses. Certainly, they should not be involved with forcing business owners to run their company in a way that violates their religious precepts. If customers have a problem with how the business is run, they won’t patronize it, and the company will go out of business. This is the risk the business owner takes, but it’s not the job of the government to “fix” the situation.
I agree. Fundamentalist Christianity is criticized here left and right with nary a word from the moderators. The moment you do the same for Islam, you get warned and accused of trolling (nevermind that your posting history doesn’t support this charge).
Yeah, I’m honestly not sure how I feel about getting the law involved here. Clearly there isn’t a constitutional issue, as alchohol carriers aren’t a protected class. However carrying passengers from an airport is an imporatant public service. I don’t like the idea of passengers engaged in a legal activity–transporting unopened alchohol for personal consumption–being inconvenienced for no good reason. We regulate businesses in the public interest all the time. Obviously we can have a debate about whether a particular regulation is a good idea or not. In this case I don’t know. If enough cabs are available for passengers who are carrying alchohol, maybe a regulation would be too strong a step.
However, regardless of the legal aspect, the taxicab drivers are acting like superstitious jerks, and should be denounced for that, IMO.
I wonder what would happen to a cab driver who refused to service women dressed in hijab or parties with women dressed in hijab on the grounds that they feel it’s deeply demeaning to women. It wouldn’t necessarily be religious descrimination, not all muslim women wear hijab… or racial since the practice spans many races and cultures. Do these cab owners also refuse to take pick up calls placed from bars or nightclubs that serve alcohol (and if so, how is that justified?), providing that service is vital for public safety. It’s all just a really bad idea, those who serve the public should be professional and indescriminate… it is NOT about what they want, they are paid to provide a service and they should do it.
True, we do regulate businesses in the public interest, but I tend to be against this…I am very much in favor of free-market approaches to business. In a case like this, I just don’t see it being that much of a problem. In all seriousness, how many people get in cabs at the airport carrying bottles of liquor? Additionally, when I used to fly to Minneapolis, I recall there being buses that could get you to the hotels & downtown, so I just don’t see need for regulation here.
I don’t think it has so much to do with superstition than it does with the moral precepts of their religion. We all have personal moral codes, and you may not understand mine, and I might not understand yours, but I would respect the ones you hold as long as they aren’t doing harm to anyone.
If a very high percentage of drivers refuse to take those with alcohol, then it might be hard to get a cab.
Thanks, Duckster - I wondered if they were violating the terms of their licenses, and it seems they are. If they can’t follow the law, they should find another line of work. I agree that this is similar to them refusing to carry women dressed “immodestly.”
In the old days people who bought duty-free alcohol would carry it on. (You’d hardly want to trust alcohol in checked luggage.) I once won a bottle of champagne on a flight. Now, it is probably rare, but I don’t see why they’d pick up those carrying alcohol at other places either. My understanding is that permission to pick up passengers at airports is highly valued, and I don’t see why the airport should allow drivers to be picky and choosy.
The problem is that the number of cabs is limited by law. So you have a person at the airport who may not have any way of getting home except by waiting for a non-muslim cab driver. If, as in Minneapolis, 3/4 of the drivers are Muslim then there is a problem. I think the interesting issue is whether the cab companies have the right to deny jobs to drivers that refuse to accept some passengers because of the cabbies religious beliefs. I wonder which side the ACLU would come down on that?
Good god, you’re comparing this to segregation and Jim Crow?!? Get some perspective, man.
Look, the drivers might be violating the terms of their licences, but they aren’t discriminating against anyone, they aren’t violating anyone’s human rights or civil rights, and they aren’t doing anything unconstitutional.
On the other hand, requiring drivers to take cargo (not passengers, cargo) in violation of their religious beliefs would be very likely to raise a 1st Amendment challenge, and you can guess which side the ACLU would be on then. (Well, I can guess, anyway.) I can’t imagine such a challenge would be very likely to pass muster in the courts, but it would certainly fare better than a lawsuit against the drivers on constitutional grounds.
In a conversation regarding discrimination the definition of “severely” is 1 person.
A Mormon temple is private property. Unless it’s being used for public use such as a voting station it has nothing to do with this situation. Taxis are chartered public transportation. The key word is “public”.
Picking up passengers at an airport pretty much guarantee’s that cargo will be involved. How does working in a job where packages (including but not limited to: wine, beer, and pork) are a daily event. By sanctioning this there is a defacto government involvment in church.
Picking up passengers at an airport pretty much guarantee’s that cargo will be involved. How does working in a job where packages (including but not limited to: wine, beer, and pork) are a daily event equate with first Amendment rights. By sanctioning this there is a defacto government involvment in religion. THAT is a 1st amendment violation.
Er, why, exactly? If for example (and yes, I know this isn’t the case here) there was one driver who refused to take passengers with alcohol, and 99 who were fine with it, I wouldn’t consider that a severe limitation to an alcohol-carrying passenger. Hell, if there was one driver who refused to take black people, and 99 who were happy to, that’s not a severe limitation to a black person. Of course the second example is much worse than the first (and illegal), but even then it’s not a “severe” limitation.
Alright, then as someone carrying some alcohol I think i’ll choose to just sit in the front and drive the taxi myself. Good thing it’s a public vehicle, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to do that.
No, the key word is “chartered”, and according to Duckster’s cite the drivers in question are indeed going against their charter, so they’re liable to have their license removed - something that’s perfectly acceptable to me.
This isn’t going over real well on lots of the kook message boards. Cab drivers ought to seriously consider whether or not they want to drive around with a big light on their cab identifying themselves as Muslims.
Have any of the Muslim leaders spoken out about this and given their opinion?