The Muslim cab drivers at Minnesota’s biggest airport who have been refusing to transport passengers who are carrying alcohol or are accompanied by dogs will face stiff new penalties according to Reuters:
A large number of taxi drivers in the area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslim Somali immigrants. Many say they feel the faith’s ban on alcohol consumption includes transporting anyone carrying it.
Some also have refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.
The new rules cover any driver who refuses a ride for unwarranted reasons, including those who refuse to take short-haul passengers in favor of more lucrative longer trips. They can still refuse fares for certain reasons, including threats to their safety.
Under the new regulations a first offense would result in a 30-day cab license suspension and a second in a two-year taxi license revocation.
The current penalty only requires that cab drivers who refuse a fare to go back to the end of the taxi queue, costing them time and money.
Since January 2002, the commission said in announcing the new rules, there have been about 4,800 instances where cab drivers refused to pick up people with alcohol in their possession. Travelers arriving from international destinations often bring back duty-free alcoholic beverages many in easily identifiable packages.
Good news for blind people, now they don’t have to switch to ponies. —MEGHANN MARCO
Minnesota’s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown [Reuters] (Thanks Acambras!)
(Photo: bluhousworker)
More From Consumerist
-
Seattle May Leave Hygiene Standards To Cab Drivers Instead Of Dictating Cleanliness Rules
-
Trying To Pay Your Cab Fare With Marijuana Will Probably Not Go Over Well
-
Cab Company Balks At Cleaning Up After Driver Caught Pooping On Sidewalk
-
Cab-Hailing Apps May Give NYC Users Unfair, Illegal Advantage
-
Forget The Whistle: NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission Changes Rules For Cab-Hailing Apps
Huh. Here I was about to say that the occasional crazy things the ACLU does doesn’t effectively overshadow the many, many good deeds they do. Different perspectives, I suppose, but I always thought it was nice that there was an organization that wanted to protect everyone’s liberties, even if I don’t agree with them.
Maybe it’s the cabs that stink, not the cabbies.
Anyway, being from Minneapolis, I feel like the whole rejecting fares based on religion deal is just part of visiting here. We’ve got lots of refugees here, and lots of different cultures. So if you get rejected by your cab at the airport, it’s kind of like our little state saying, “Welcome to Minnesota. We’re quirky. It’s our thing.”
@EtherealStrife:
@ManWithLostPassword: Please see my post above…Ok so most muslims in America who are not recent immigrants are just like everyone else. But the ones that are typically driving cabs are pretty fresh to the country and are not aware of typical customs of our country.
I am aware of problems relating to water in other parts of the world. I was just stating that the ones who smell here haven’t grasped the custom we have of bathing regularly. But I still wonder why the French stink so bad when they have access to water?..
@Jason: Speaking about other groups does not constitute a Klan meeting. I haven’t seen one post calling for anyone to be beaten or hanged yet…
I wonder how tolerant these “religion of peace” types would be if I were to go to their so-called country and demand they do things my way?
I mean, as a white American male surely I can expect the “religion of peace” to accept me for who I am and embrace my ideology?
Right?
I’m kind of tired or America bending over backwards not to inconvenience anyone. I don’t want to learn Spanish, I don’t want to convert to Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, and I definitely don’t want to have to follow their religious rules, just so I don’t offend them.
I want to be able to eat pork, take birth control, and keep my faithless head from bowing in school prayer.
I don’t care if they have their religion. I think that’s fine and hunky-dory.
I do care when it affects me.
They have a right to religion, but I have a right to a lack thereof as well.
I’m going to go pet a dog out of spite now, then cuddle up with my kitten.
I can do that.
Joyous news. Pharmacists next!
@mopar_man: I think we called it the First Amendment.
@spiderjerusalem: “Remember Cobb County voting out evolution? Remember who filed over it?”
Dude, my uncle was totally the biology teacher who precipitated the case by refusing to stop teaching evolution at the high school and mocking the stickers in class. (And to all you religion-haters, he’s an uber-Catholic. THAT’S WHY HE’S ALL INTO THE TRUTH about evolution and science and shit.)
This is all about one individual trying to force their own morality onto another. I’m sick and tired of people trying to convince me that their brand (or the lack) of religion is the best.
Chances are, each cabbie takes a dozen unmarried couples to local hotels each day before refusing one heathen, booze-toting fare. Do they ask each woman to prove that the male with them is their husband, father, or brother? If helping someone transport alcohol is forbidden then why hold a job that makes you an ‘adultery-enabler’?
I can see it now. Pharmacists will be able to ask if that Viagra will be used only with the opposite-sex spouse of the customer and refuse if they don’t like the answer. Are you sure you need this anti-depressant? Maybe you should read this book by L. Ron Hubbard. What is this antibiotic really for young lady? Sinuses? Sure it is…
I don’t want my pharmacist to concern his or herself with my moral health. If my doctor prescribed it, then hand it over. If this conflicts with your religious beliefs then go to confession (or the equivalent) and leave me out of it.
My beliefs are mine, I’m not running around trying to save anyone, I don’t want to be inhibited by yours.
Just do your freaking job, I’ll pay you, then we’ll go on about our lives.
Where’s MADD? Don’t they already reject smokers? Why are some vices protected and others are required to stop?
Let there be freedom of association. Let the owner of the Cab decide whom they want to serve or not. And what they want to allow in the back seat.
@Eyebrows McGee:
I’m not a dude, but that association (your uncle is the biology teacher) makes me happy.
Maybe they should require people to carry a sticker on the side of their cab saying they don’t transport alcohol, dogs, pork, single women, etc, and save people the pain of getting rejected when they manage to flag down a cab. I think the big thing is that if you want a cab, you want it for convenience or safety, and obviously wasting time negotiating with and getting rejected by a cabbie promotes neither safety nor convenience.
No one seems to get the Pharmacist issue. They are not declining to provide birth control to impose their morals upon you, they do so to avoid violating their own moral code by cooperating in what they believe is abortion. In most cases their is someone else on staff who will dispense the medication. This usually happens without the customer even knowing the issue exists. In many states, even this is now aganst the law and results in penalties for the pharmicist. This is a violation of the pharmacists religious freedom in that the government is now restricting their ability to practice their religous beliefs. The ACLU will not take up their cause because they are only interested in protecting the rights of those they agree with.
The 1st amendment protects freedom of speech FROM THE GOVERNMENT and nothing else. Businesses are an entirely different matter.
@tz:
There’s a difference between rejecting a smoker and prohibiting smoking. One is directed at the person, the other at the behavior.
Is this happening to any great degree in any other city? Why Minneapolis and (presumably) nowhere else? And as unwritten07 pointed out, it seems they’re doing some rather bizarre picking and choosing as to what parts of their faith invoke their personal no-service rules. Perhaps they’re trying to emulate those hypochristians who pick and choose from the bible?
But why Minneapolis? Why not San Francisco, or New York or Los Angeles? Why are the Muslims in Minnesota so delicate compared to their coastal counterparts?
Some people seem to be forgetting that licensed occupations, by definition, have regulations established by local, state, or federal institutions. Simply put, being a cab driver or pharmacist is not about your “inherent” rights–it is a privilege, and it is a function of society that carries numerous responsibilities. This includes necessary restrictions to ensure the safety and rights of the individuals and communities being served.
So, no, these questions are not simply a matter of a cab driver’s or pharmacist’s “rights”; rather, they’re questions a community has the power to answer as it sees fit. If it is legislated that a cab driver license holder must follow X number of regulations, then that’s the end of the story. Same with pharmacists, doctors, etc. Holding a license to practice medicine is a privilege, not a right. A privilege which, when abused, can and should be revoked.
There was a similar story about cab drivers refusing to pick up black passengers or go into black neighborhoods.
There was a story like this in chicago a couple years back.