No it isn’t. Unless you have some case law showing that the government cannot make accomodations to allow someone to excercise their religious beliefs, you should stop claiming that it is.
Taxi charters represent public transportation. There is no case law that I’m aware of that would side with discrimination (religious or otherwise) regarding government chartered services. Otherwise, I could simply start my own religion and refuse to pick up anyone for any reason. An accommodation to discriminate based on religion would be a government endorsement of that religion.
You can’t even utter the word “Jesus” in a commencement ceremony. What makes you think you can refuse someone carrying his or her personal possessions out of an airport because Mohammed doesn’t like it. This is a government chartered business. It involves public transportation. I can’t make this any clearer.
-
Taxis are private, not public, transportation. Unless your car is public transportation, too, because the government registered your vehicle and gave you a license.
-
There is no discrimination going on in this situation. I don’t think you understand what constitutes illegal discrimination. It doesn’t matter why the driver establishes a certain policy. It can be for religious reasons, or because a fortune cookie told him to, or because he recieved a psychic message from Elvis. It doesn’t make it religious discrimination.
-
You don’t have to start a religion–just don’t pick people up! Seriously, Minneapolis may have a law in place stating that cabbies have to pick up all passengers, but there is no reason they have to have such a law. Dayton, OH, may not have such a law. In which case you are free to run a cab company that won’t pick up people wearing hats, or people with red hair, or people with too many Y’s in their name, or people carrying alcohol.
Last time I took a cab from Logan Airport, that’s how it worked. There was an airport employee at the cab pickup area who enforced it. Cabs in line, passengers in line, and the two were put together strictly by first-come, first-served.
I recall on one occasion a cabbie asking my destination and throwing a fit because it was a short hop instead of a long, much more profitable run to a suburb. The airport staffer was unyielding: take me as a passenger or go to the back of the line.
If these drivers insist on refusing certain passengers, for whatever reason, they should lose their place in line and suffer the economic consequences.
They operate under a public charter. You can’t just slap a sign on your car and call yourself a taxi. Charters are established to serve the people, not some of the people.
There is absolutely discrimination going on and it’s based on religion. That’s the entire focus of the debate.
Your argument is that if there is a law, someone doesn’t have to abide by it? Yah, you could say that about all laws. That’s what prisons are for.
Oh, yeah.
That was a trick question. The government is required, when it acts as an employer to “reasonably accomodate” the religious beliefs of its employees. (Nearly all businesses must do this.) So, for example, in an actual public transportation system, say a city bus or subway, a driver cannot be made to work on a religious holiday or on the sabbath, if his religion has one. A Sikh worker cannot be made to remove his turban unless wearing it causes a safety hazard.
I don’t know how the law applies to government acting in a regulatory capacity, but if it’s substantially different, I’ll eat my hat. If the government forced Muslim drivers to violate their religious beliefs by making them pick up certain people, the burden would be on them to show that accomodating the Muslim drivers would cause some form of undue hardship, or the drivers’ complaint might very well have a better chance in court than I earlier assessed.
And charters vary. It happens that in this case, the charter does require them to pick up all passengers. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires this, and as I explained above, it may in fact prohibit it.
Discrimination motivated by religion IS NOT ILLEGAL. Discrimination against people of a given faith is illegal, but that’s not what’s going on here.
No. That’s not what I’m saying at all. Read the paragraph you quoted again and see if you understand it. IF THERE IS NO LAW IN DAYTON requiring you to pick up every passenger, you don’t have to. You can discriminate against any group you want, and it’s PERFECTLY LEGAL as long as you don’t discriminate based on the race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or disability of the passengers. It is perfectly legal to refuse to pick up people wearing hats because of your religion.
I’m envisioning a comedy sketch in which a New Yorker (possibly a stereotypical Jewish lawyer,) late for an important meeting, converts to Islam in order to get a taxi ride from a Muslim driver. Heading in the same direction is a cab carrying a Catholic who converted to Judaism at the demand of the Hasidic cab driver. When the two cabs get into a fender-bender, the comic possibilities are endless…
That’s exactly right. I have a feeling this would solve the problem pretty quickly.
As stupid as this is, how would this really work? I’m guessing that if a cab in the queue is NA, and a potential passenger in the queue has alcohol, the next passenger in line steps up? IMHO the cab is refusing service and should go to the back of the queue.
Oh. And if this is based on strict religious beliefs, why it just becoming a problem now? Did the rules change? Did sombody re-write the big book? If they cannot have alcohol in their cab, can they go anywhere alcohol exists or is served? A grocery store? An airplane?
Yikes. I hadn’t thought of that. Here, let me just paint this bulls eye on your chest.
Hmmmmm. Wine is used as a sacrament. But not that I really think it matters. It’s legal.
I’m trying to think of something from another religion that would be so objectionable that it could not be carried in a cab. I’m kinda coming up empty. I guess If you are Hindu, it would be wise not to get a job at ‘Big Bobs House of Ground Beef’.
What if I, enipla as cab driver, refused to carry anyone that carried porn. A Playboy. How long would I have my job? What if a building inspector refused to go into a house that had a well stocked bar?
These guys are welcome to idle at the curb and refuse service as long as it does not interfere or inconvenience travelers. If it does, then I think that the law of supply and demand should come into play and the taxi companies will hire more non-Muslims.
I’ve been trying to figure out why this is a problem in the first place, but found out that Minneapolis is an international airport. So I suppose they have duty free shops.
Not quite sure what you are asking here. I consider myself quite liberal in that I allow other people the freedom they want as long as it does not interfere with mine. You are most welcome to worship in anyway you please as long as it does not interfere with my (or others) everyday ordinary legal activities (certain restrictions apply NAMBLA comes to mind). I don’t believe in giving anyone or group special privileges based on their beliefs.
In Aspen they call it the ‘Vomit Comet’ 
Ehhh? Sounds to me just the other way around. The customer is not declining the cab. The cab refuses to take anyone that has alcohol.
However, a patron carrying duty-free in his or her hand can simply hold up the bottle, point to the light on the cab, and move on to a cab later in line. If, as it appears in some versions of the story, the airport is requiring the cabbie to go to the end of the line, then there is no “exemption” for the cabbie. If the cabbie, (or the next seven cabbies bearing lights), are allowed to sit in their spot, forcing the patrons to walk an additional 160 feet down to concourse to find a cab with no light, then I would agree that the cabbies are being exempted. That did not appear to be the case–although the actual situation is not quite clear in the various stories I’ve read.
Well taxis are part of the transportation system of any community.
By your logic, it would be okay for a bus driver working for Greyhound to refuse a passenger because she was not accompanied by a man.
No, because gender is a protected class it would not be okay; it would be illegal. By his logic, it would be okay (legally) for Greyhound to have a policy of refusing passengers with hats. Or carrying alcohol.
Is there any other example of a group of people disregarding their secular duties because of a religious objection that we are okay with? Examples noted here like not working on a Sabbath are not relevant because no one can be forced to work 7 days a week and there’s always a scheduling workaround for this. Any other example that we are okay with? How about if a person claims to have a personal religion, can his personal beliefs be used to justify disregarding secular duties? How is this not different from any other belief?
I believe you will find that some doctors will not prescribe contraceptives on religious grounds. They are expected to provide a referral to a doctor who will, however.
But doctors are not duty-bound to prescribe contraceptives, are they? These drivers are duty-bound to provide transportation.
Doctors are duty-bound to provide medical care, which includes prescribing contraceptives. Quite frankly, refusing to provide one sort of medical care is a far, far greater “disregard of secular duties” than is refusing to provide transportation for one sort of cargo.
But they can still provide medical care without providing the prescription for the contraceptive. They are not duty bound to give out the prescription in the same way that he is not duty bound to prescribe a certain course of treatment he disagrees with ( so long as he is still able to provide medical care, i.e. alternative course of action). In fact, he doesn’t need a religious justification at all.
The discrimination begins with the driver. He/she was not forced to take a job that interferes with their faith. Imagine a pork processing plant that cannot discriminate against hiring someone based on religion. In your scenario a Muslim could walk in, refuse to touch pork, and collect a check. We’re not just talking about alcohol here, A Muslim could refuse a host of people for all kinds of reasons. Let’s start a list:
- Unescorted Women
- Unveiled women
- Pork products
- People carrying bibles
- People wearing crucifixes
- People wearing yamakahs
- People wearing alcohol based perfume/aftershave
- People who gargle with Listerine
- Someone with a Buddha statue
That’s just off the top of my head.