Have any of those things been such an assue that they have needed to be addeessed by the metropolitan airports commision? If the people could be easily accomodated without inconvienecing the passengers, why not do it? To me this is no different than the pharmacist that refused to distribute emergency contraceptives (well, maybe a little different as the cabbies aren't being asked to kill anyone, just contribute to their drinking, from their perspective). It isn't like there are no alternatives that are or could be made available.
Not yet. What happens when a Somali Muslim taxi driver at the front of the line refuses to take a businesswoman in a pantsuit? Is that inconceivable? No more than a Somali Muslim taxi driver refusing to take someone with a quart of rum just off the plane from the Caribbean. Or someone with a guide dog for crying out loud. I don't think it's an easy accomodation and I think it is a bad precedent to set. There is limited space at airports. Clogging up that space with an extra taxi line isn't in the public's interest. It would increase confusion and require unnecessary lane usage. The amount of medallions/taxi licenses are also highly regulated in order to keep taxis to an appropriate number/keep them regulated. Every taxi that becomes limited use takes the place of a taxi that would give the public full utilization. It's a bad precedent to set. There is no public interest in creating a special class of taxi drivers. If they want to be special use they can take that route without using up taxi licenses designed for open public access. They can start private car services and then tailor their use for their religious target market. Would we be having this conversation if the taxi driver's were southern baptist who were refusing to let people transport liquor? I seriously doubt. Those taxi drivers would be getting no benefit of doubt whatsoever.
I think it is a bad precedent to set to tell people your religious freedom ends when you get a job as a cab driver. Yep. Just like I defended the pharmacist that wouldn't sell abortificants, I would defend a southern baptist who wouldn't transport liquor. Maybe it isn't a workable solution, but it wouldn't hurt the commision to look into it. Maybe they have plenty of room for an extra cab stand.
StupidMoniker, To extend your analogy, I believe (not sure) that a pharmacy could make selling the "morning-after" pill a condition of employment. A government-owned pharmacy could do the same thing. It's not an apples-to-oranges comparison, because a cab-driver is an independent contractor for the municipality, but I still believe that a municipality forcing a cab driver to pick up drunk passengers is not denying freedom of religion in a unique manner.
They could make it one, but a pharmacist still has the right to refuse to sell it and there's nothing you can do about it but either come back later or go to a different pharmacy.
Sorry to be a precedent setter but since the beginning of recorded history, lots of freedoms, both religious and otherwise, are not unlimited when you voluntarily enter into an industry that is subject to regulation of some form.
Your freedom doesn't give you the right to dictate to others. If you choose to be a taxi driver then you need to abide by the regulations set out for all taxi drivers, not demand some special rules for yourself. So I'm curious - is it ok for a Somali Muslim cab driver to refuse to transport a woman unless she has her face and head covered?
I don't have a problem with it. That is going to cut down on his business by quite a bit (more than half of people are women and most of them don't wear headscarves), but if they are willing to acept that consequence, go for it.
Sure, except that you're ignoring that there are only so many allotments for taxi licenses and for taxi spots at the airport. With your position we could have an infinite number of taxi lines depending on the driver's religious beliefs, and the resulting gridlock both from space requirements and limitations on cabs. OTOH those drivers who want to force the public to abide by their religious beliefs can already do so by driving for a private car service without the problems incurred with your solution.
Not only that but establishing "muslim driver only" taxi lines could construed as an establishment clause violation.
It is stupid, the cab drivers knew the rules when they took the job, just start yanking their licenses...tell them if they don't want to carry people who are drinking etc....to go find another job. DD
source [rquoter] In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views. [/rquoter] source [rquoter] Four States (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota) have passed laws allowing a pharmacist to refuse to dispense emergency contraception drugs. Illinois passed an emergency rule that requires a pharmacist to dispense FDA approved contraception. Colorado, Florida, Maine and Tennesee have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically mention pharmacists. California pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and can only refuse to dispense a prescription, including contraceptives, when their employer approves the refusal and the woman can still access her prescription in a timely manner. [/rquoter]
Whats wrong with dogs? I am a Muslim, but some of these demands made in the name of Islam are just....
Well I gotta agree with Hayes here, OMG! Having taken taxis from the MSP airport I can tell there is no practical way you could do a separate Muslims only taxi line. SF's point about there being limits placed on freedoms in regard is valid as being a taxi driver at the airport isn't a right so limits can be placed when a religious belief conflicts with providing necessary service.
So whats your point? That like I said a pharmacist can refuse to sell contraceptives and all you can do is go somewhere else to get them?
while i can sympathize with people wanting to adhere to their religion, if they can't make a better argument they simply won't win this.
