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

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Magiver]
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
    [/QUOTE]

It is illegal to discriminate against a prospective passenger due to the passenger’s gender or religion, as has been stated at least a dozen times in this thread. This entire list excepting the pork products, perfume, and listerine runs afoul of that. Why are people having so much difficulty understanding the difference between protected classes and unprotected classes?

102

[QUOTE=Anduril]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I am quite honestly completely baffled by what you are trying to say here. Doctors are duty bound to provide medical care. Medical care includes prescribing contraceptives. Refusing to prescribe contraceptives is not analogous to refusing to provide some treatment a doctor feels is medically inadvisable. The doctor is not refusing to prescribe contraceptives for medical reasons, but because the doctor is Catholic (or whatever) and believes contraception is immoral. More specifically, the doctor is refusing not to prevent the prescriptee from being immoral, but because the doctor believes it to be immoral to provide the prescription in the first place. The prescriptee is not being prevented from seeking a prescription elsewhere. This is precisely analogous to the cabbie who is not refusing the passenger because the passenger’s alcohol consumption is immoral, but because the cabbie believes that it is immoral for he, the cabbie, to have anything to do with alcohol up to and including transporting it. The cabbie is not preventing the prospective passenger from obtaining transportation from the next cab. In both cases, the service providers are (ostensibly) not attempting to force the service seekers to conform to their religious moral beliefs, but are merely refusing to engage in actions they believe would be sinful for themselves to engage in. I haven’t the foggiest idea of what distinction you’re trying to draw here.

103

All of this raises the question, why should we accede to the superstitions of people, just because they’re shared by a large number of others? What if a cab driver refused to carry blonde people, because “blonde people are actually space aliens bent on taking over the earth?” As soon as you mix “religion” into the equation, we are expected to fold and say apologetically, “Oh, well, if it’s religious, that’s alright, then.”

104

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
I am quite honestly completely baffled by what you are trying to say here. Doctors are duty bound to provide medical care. Medical care includes prescribing contraceptives. Refusing to prescribe contraceptives is not analogous to refusing to provide some treatment a doctor feels is medically inadvisable. The doctor is not refusing to prescribe contraceptives for medical reasons, but because the doctor is Catholic (or whatever) and believes contraception is immoral. More specifically, the doctor is refusing not to prevent the prescriptee from being immoral, but because the doctor believes it to be immoral to provide the prescription in the first place. The prescriptee is not being prevented from seeking a prescription elsewhere. This is precisely analogous to the cabbie who is not refusing the passenger because the passenger’s alcohol consumption is immoral, but because the cabbie believes that it is immoral for he, the cabbie, to have anything to do with alcohol up to and including transporting it. The cabbie is not preventing the prospective passenger from obtaining transportation from the next cab. In both cases, the service providers are (ostensibly) not attempting to force the service seekers to conform to their religious moral beliefs, but are merely refusing to engage in actions they believe would be sinful for themselves to engage in. I haven’t the foggiest idea of what distinction you’re trying to draw here.
[/QUOTE]

What I’m saying is any doctor can refuse to do any procedure, or refuse to prescribe any drug for any reason he feels like offering. There is no duty aside from providing medical care, which can take a variety of forms. If the doctor doesn’t wish to prescribe procedure/drug X to treat condition Y, he merely needs to offer procedure/drug Z or even choose not to treat the patient at all. He can do that without hiding behind any religious belief. (For emergency cases, he would need to stabilize the condition of the patient but he is not duty bound to continue after that). Aside from emergency cases, I am not even sure if there is a duty to treat at all, am I wrong?

105

I am insanely curious what those who think that the Muslim taxi drivers are infringing on the religious liberty of others would think about this thread. Basically, a group is trying to compel a Jewish medical clinic to keep its doors open on Saturday because failure to do so is essentially religious discrimination against non-Jews who may seek medical appointments on that day.

If you believe that cabbies must be compelled to carry passengers who carry alcohol because of some Constitutional reason, do you also believe that the Jewish medical clinic should be forced to open its doors on Saturdays for the same reason?

106

Nope. The Jewish Clinic you refer to is a private concern. They have no duty to open on Saturdays or even on Mondays. The drivers in question do have a duty under their charter to provide transportation and not refuse passengers who are orderly and not doing anything illegal. There’s a big difference there.

To answer your question: The Jewish Clinic should not be compelled to open on Saturdays.

107

[QUOTE=Magiver]
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.
[/QUOTE]

But you’re still missing that illegal discrimination is discrimination against someone because of *their *religion, not the discriminators.

** - Unescorted Women** - illegal to discriminate against when gender is a protected class
** - Unveiled women** - illegal to discriminate against when gender is a protected class
** - Pork products ** - not protected, and is just as allowable to ban as alcohol.
** - People carrying bibles** - a trickier line - I could carry a Bible and wear a yarmulke, but as a pagan woman, it wouldn’t be a sign of my relgion. If one were to use crucifixes and yarmulkes as signs of two particular religions, and religion was a protected class, then it would not be allowed.
** - People wearing crucifixes** - see above
** - People wearing yamakahs** - see above
** - People wearing alcohol based perfume/aftershave** - not a protected class. Allowable
** - People who gargle with Listerine** - not a protected class. Allowable.
** - Someone with a Buddha statue** - see “bible” answer above.

[QUOTE=Eve]
All of this raises the question, why should we accede to the superstitions of people, just because they’re shared by a large number of others? What if a cab driver refused to carry blonde people, because “blonde people are actually space aliens bent on taking over the earth?” As soon as you mix “religion” into the equation, we are expected to fold and say apologetically, “Oh, well, if it’s religious, that’s alright, then.”
[/QUOTE]

There are legal definitions of religion in the US. I say we use those. Under those qualifications, Muslims are most definitely members of a recognized religion, and not a “religion”. Should we compel the anti-blonde cab driver to drive blondes? I’d say no. Let him lose fares.

Now, according to Duckster’s info, these drivers are indeed violating the terms of their license. They can and are guilty of that without being guilty of illegal discrimination.

But the license holder can’t discriminate against them, either. So the question now becomes what “reasonable accomodations” the licensor has to make for their drivers’ religious beliefs, if any. “Reasonable accomodations” for religious belief in a Wal-Mart might include Christians getting Sundays off, or Jewish people getting Friday night off. It might include a Jewish person only working at the Kosher deli at the local supermarket, but not being scheduled at the regular deli (at least one store around here has two delis like this.) It also extends to some licensed professions, like doctors and pharmacists, allowing them to refer patients elsewhere in lieu of filling their birth control prescriptions (yes, I’m on the record as being against this, and I still am, but it’s how it works at the moment.) So the licensor has to decide if there’s leeway in the job duties of the licensee that would permit free exercise of his religion while still fufilling enough of the job duties to be hireable. Obviously, they’ve found a way to do that.

108

[QUOTE=Anduril]
What I’m saying is any doctor can refuse to do any procedure, or refuse to prescribe any drug for any reason he feels like offering. There is no duty aside from providing medical care, which can take a variety of forms. If the doctor doesn’t wish to prescribe procedure/drug X to treat condition Y, he merely needs to offer procedure/drug Z or even choose not to treat the patient at all. He can do that without hiding behind any religious belief. (For emergency cases, he would need to stabilize the condition of the patient but he is not duty bound to continue after that). Aside from emergency cases, I am not even sure if there is a duty to treat at all, am I wrong?
[/QUOTE]

It boggles my mind that you think a doctor has less obligation to provide routine, basic medical care to a patient than a cabbie has to provide transportation for anything and everything in a fare’s luggage.

109

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
It boggles my mind that you think a doctor has less obligation to provide routine, basic medical care to a patient than a cabbie has to provide transportation for anything and everything in a fare’s luggage.
[/QUOTE]

While **Anduril **is technically, legally correct, such action on the part of a doctor will eventually lead him to a review board, and he’d better have a more solid answer than “I don’t like blondes” if he wants to retain his license.

110

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
It boggles my mind that you think a doctor has less obligation to provide routine, basic medical care to a patient than a cabbie has to provide transportation for anything and everything in a fare’s luggage.
[/QUOTE]

It’s just that from what I’ve read of the medical profession, they have no duty to treat at all (except in medical emergencies). I can be wrong, of course. With the cabbie, we have their licensing agreement stating forth their duties. I have no opinion on who should have a bigger obligation, I’m merely basing it on what the law says (based on what I’ve read - I’m open to correction re: doctor’s duties).

111

[QUOTE=Anduril]
It’s just that from what I’ve read of the medical profession, they have no duty to treat at all (except in medical emergencies). I can be wrong, of course. With the cabbie, we have their licensing agreement stating forth their duties. I have no opinion on who should have a bigger obligation, I’m merely basing it on what the law says (based on what I’ve read - I’m open to correction re: doctor’s duties).
[/QUOTE]

A doctor has no obligation to see a patient (except in an emergency), but once the doctor-patient relationship has been established, the doctor most certainly does have very extensive obligations to the patient. Far more extensive obligations than any cabbie has no matter what the cabbie’s licensing agreement reads.

112

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
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…
[/QUOTE]
I can hardly wait for the movie. Reminds me of Bye, Bye Braverman, when a VW (I know, I know) carrying 4 Jewish guys of various orthodoxies crash into a taxi driven by Godfrey Cambridge. Harsh words ensue, until Godfrey says, “Hey, any of you guys Jewish? Me too!”

113

At the airport every single car at the taxi stand will have a taxi medallion. Medallion owners have a monopoly on at-will transportation for hire, nobody else can pick up a fare on the street or at the airport.

Part of the deal with owning a medallion is that you will pick up any and all fares from any point in the city, and drop them off at any other point in the city. That’s why the quoted text is part of the charter. The city gives you the exclusive right to operate this sort of business, and you agree to operate it a certain way. That way does not include refusing orderly passengers who are carrying a bottle of wine. People who refuse to do so should go into another line of business.

AFAIK, there is no requirement that a taxi company or driver be working on Saturday or Sunday, or any other day, just that when they are on duty, they can’t refuse passengers.

114

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
But you’re still missing that illegal discrimination is discrimination against someone because of *their *religion, not the discriminators.

[/QUOTE]
The act of discrimination is being committed by the taxi drivers based on their religious beliefs. The job of taxi driver is a publicly chartered job. They serve the public interest. To ignore the public interest in deference to religion is government support of the religion.

Regardless of the religious aspect of the discrimination, there is an expectation that publicly chartered transportation will be free of constraints. This is not being met. The drivers should lose their license over this.

115

Magiver, you’re welcome to hold that opinion. Legally, however, the city of Minneapolis is free to interpret the charter however they wish within the bounds set by the courts, or to change the charter however they wish. If they choose to interpret and enforce the charter as you wish, they would be open to some legal challenges, on which they may or may not prevail. You are free to advocate for whatever laws and public policies you desire, but the legal facts are as I’ve stated them.

116

[QUOTE=Anduril]
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).
[/QUOTE]

For some reason, “Jesus was a cunt” is OK, but “Muhammed was a rapist” is trolling. Go figure.

Well, religious speech and practice is given special protection under the Constitution. I imagine that explains most of it.

But it also allows this confusing stuff about “protected classes” like race and gender. Better (IMO) that we adopt a free-market solution - cabbies who don’t want to carry liquor-bearers go to the back of the line and someone else gets the fare.

The only trouble arises when the government imposes a monopoly. Then, when enough Muslim cabbies refuse to carry passengers with liquor, the customer has to wait, or (if the cab drivers’ union makes it policy or something) can’t ride in a taxi at all. It would be best, then, to allow more people to get medallions.

Again, free market solutions have the most “natural” consequences and the least government action. They are thus preferable.

Regards,
Shodan

117

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
A doctor has no obligation to see a patient (except in an emergency), but once the doctor-patient relationship has been established, the doctor most certainly does have very extensive obligations to the patient. Far more extensive obligations than any cabbie has no matter what the cabbie’s licensing agreement reads.
[/QUOTE]

The obligations do not include having the doctor prescribe medicine. There is an obligation to provide diagnostic information and treatment options, but does not extend to the actual prescribing of the medicine or treatment (if I’m not mistaken).

118

[QUOTE=Magiver]
The act of discrimination is being committed by the taxi drivers based on their religious beliefs. The job of taxi driver is a publicly chartered job. They serve the public interest. To ignore the public interest in deference to religion is government support of the religion.

Regardless of the religious aspect of the discrimination, there is an expectation that publicly chartered transportation will be free of constraints. This is not being met. The drivers should lose their license over this.
[/QUOTE]

There is no act of discrimination. I’ve answered your misconstrual of the word “discrimination” several times in this thread, and you’re just not getting it. I give up - I don’t conceed the point, don’t kid yourself that you’ve “won” or anything, I just don’t know any other way to explain that what the drivers are doing is not illegal discrimination.

The government is free - nay, bound - to allow others to practice their religion. They just can’t say I have to practice any religion.

The license part, I agree with, except that the licensors themselves don’t agree. They’ve found a different solution, and if they’re ok with it, then no one is breaking the license agreement - it’s effectively ammended, even if the paper trail doesn’t reflect that yet.

[QUOTE=Anduril]

The obligations do not include having the doctor prescribe medicine. There is an obligation to provide diagnostic information and treatment options, but does not extend to the actual prescribing of the medicine or treatment (if I’m not mistaken).
[/QUOTE]

Again, legally you are right at the moment. Several states are reviewing their licensing requirements to either tighten or loosen their stance on the availability of certain treatments - generally sparked by birth control being refused. However, this is the sort of thing usually left to medical review boards - present a compelling case that Phlebotnum isn’t a good antidiuretic, and you’ll likely be cleared from suspicion of misconduct for not prescribing it. Say that you don’t think blondes deserve Phlebotnum, or that God should take care of the sick or that blue fairies prohibit you from dispensing Phlebotnum on Tuesdays, and you’ll find yourself unable to practice medicine pretty quickly.

The specific issue of whether or not doctors should have to provide birth control against their religious beliefs is hugely debated right now, and there’s a whole lot of doctors who think they should be so compelled. We’re in the middle of the story right now - there’s no telling how it will end.

119

[QUOTE=enipla]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, some of the wacky boards are alreay calling this the jihad jitneys. They’re also saying that a muslim organization is behind this but most of the stuff I read there was pretty crazy, so take that with a grain of salt.

Is this just a rule for Muslims in Somalia? The article said it’s been a problem for a while but I was wondering why it suddenly became such a large issue. I’ve read that it hasn’t just happened at this airport. A flight attendent said she stopped in the duty free shop on her way out and then couldn’t get a cab. Someone else said they had a dog in a carrier and they wouldn’t let her in the cab.

Is this based on religion or the culture from their country? Somalia isn’t exactly a beacon for human rights. Working at resorts in some of the Muslim countries is a very sought after job. I was reading an article in VF about a resort in Egypt where people pay half a years pay to get a bartending or other job.

I don’t have a problem with anyone practicing their religion if that’s what this is.
People are entitled to any job they choose. But if their job requires them to do something that they personally believe is wrong, maybe they should find another job.

I wonder if there are going to be any lawsuits? It would be interesting to see how this plays out.

120

[QUOTE=Anduril]
Nope. The Jewish Clinic you refer to is a private concern. They have no duty to open on Saturdays or even on Mondays. The drivers in question do have a duty under their charter to provide transportation and not refuse passengers who are orderly and not doing anything illegal.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’re addressing a different, more sensible argument than I was seeking to explore. I addressed the question to those who are arguing that religious freedom demands that the cabbies be stopped, not the matter of whether or not the cabbies were violating the regulations of their license.

However, I do have a question: does anyone have a link explaining the nature of a “public charter”? I’ve googled it and looked on wiki and I can’t find anything describing what taxis have to do with charters. I always understood that taxis were licensed and regulated in roughly the same manner that other professions are, be they electricians or doctors or truck drivers or whathaveyou. I don’t quite understand what these public charters are, or why they would confer upon taxi drivers a substantially greater responsibility to the public than exists for various other tradesmen or some professionals.