Muslim cab drivers II

The Metropolitan Airports Commission moved one step closer to punishing cab drivers who refuse service to passengers this morning as their committee recommended the change to the full Commission. The full MAC will hear the proposal this afternoon.

The story on the committee vote had a bit more context on the issue as it's being discussed in the Commission. For one, it details the proposed punishment for the cabbies:

The proposed change would suspend for 30 days licenses of drivers who refuse to carry alcohol. A second offense would result in license revocation for two years...

MAC's perspective was offered by the lead hearing officer:

"But personally I think it is reasonable to ask them to accept alcohol if they want to drive at MSP [airport]," [hearing officer Molly Sigel] said. "If we're going to err, I think we should err on the side of customers. I think this is a practical, reasonable solution."

And the cab drivers weighed in as well, along with their lawyer. The cab driver's comment on the very few folks refused service is interesting, though I'm sure the court cares little whether it's 27 or 2700, since it seems to be more of a civil rights issue.

Abdinoor Ahmed Dolal, a taxi driver at the meeting, noted MAC statistics showing 27 alcohol-related refusals out of 120,000 passengers for two months starting in mid-November, one of the airport's busiest times. "This is a religious issue, not a customer service issue," he said.

Jeffrey Hassan, a lawyer for the Muslim drivers, told hearing officers about a 1990 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that allowed Amish people to forego displaying bright orange triangles on their buggies for religious reasons.

I thought the latter's comparison to the Amish and buggies a very interesting precedent. And as an amateur legal pundit, I'd say that it all depends on whether the courts will consider this an issue of religious freedom or civil rights.

Muslim cab drivers: Serve or be served

The Minneapolis Star Tribune writes that the Metropolitan Airports Commission will vote today on penalties for cab drivers who refuse service to any passenger, for any reason. The is the latest development in the dispute between Muslim cab drivers and the airports commission after Muslim cabbies had refused service to people with guide dogs or who had alcohol in their carry-ons (both dogs and alcohol are verboten to strict-practicing Muslims).

Previously, the airports commission had ruled that cab drivers refusing service would have to go to the beginning of the cab queue (a three-hour wait).

Conservative columnist Katherine Kersten also wrote on the issue of accommodating religious beliefs of Muslims today in a "slippery slope" column. She discusses the Muslims Accommodations Task Force (link provided, but the server was down at the time of posting):

The task force's eventual objectives on American campuses include the following, according to the website: permanent Muslim prayer spaces, ritual washing facilities, separate food and housing for Muslim students, separate hours at athletic facilities for Muslim women, paid imams or religious counselors, and campus observance of Muslim holidays.

I think the organization's goals reflect two big ideas: 1) that Muslims would like to feel free to practice their religion in their daily life and 2) that this organization has a poor understanding of why Americans have fought against "separate but equal" for 60 years.

Accommodations are important means to respecting each other's beliefs. Separate facilities are a gateway to deliberate discrimination and misunderstanding. In the same fashion, the Airports Commission is right to draw the accommodations line at where other people's rights are trampled on.

Note: on that topic, Skemono has an interesting look at how civil unions have promised the equivalence of marriage for gays, but how in practice it's more like providing a "colored" restroom.

Update: MSP Airport cabs will take passengers or queue up

In an interesting twist, the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minnesota found a way out of its dilemma involving Muslim cab drivers refusing rides to people carrying alcohol. Any cab driver who refuses a passenger has to return to the start of the cab queue, a wait of as much as 3 hours for another passenger. I don't think Muslims should be punished for wanting to follow their faith, but neither should people seeking cab drivers be discriminated against for not following Muslim law.

Update 10/26/06: as one might expect, a few other bloggers are weighing in. This guy says we should let Muslims discriminate, but post signs to let people vote with their dollars. Another says that any preferential treatment for Muslims based on their religion clearly violates the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. Interesting stuff.

Have booze, won't travel

The Minneapolis Airport has recently been struggling with an issue brought to them by travelers - Muslim cabbies refusing rides to people carrying (even unopened) liquor, citing their religious beliefs. This is similar to an issue arising a few months back, where national attention was focused on pharmacists who would refuse to dispense the morning-after pill, citing their Christian religious beliefs.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Muslim cabbie issue was that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was negotiating with cabbies and considering a special light for the cabs to indicate drivers who would refuse service to booze carriers. In other words, they were ready to accomodate this service distinction.

In an email listserv I read, one respondent found this idea a slippery slope:

Still, this seems to me to set a very troubling precedent. Cabbies are licensed to provide a secular public service that, in my mind, has nothing to do with their personal religious belief systems. If they are allowed to discriminate based upon their personal belief systems, where does it end? A special light for cabbies who refuse to transport scantily clad women? Another light for cabbies who refuse to transport women and men traveling together (unless of course they show proof of marriage)? I recall an incident reported in the local press a few years ago in which a Mpls cabbie kicked a gay couple out of his cab (which I believe violates the city's anti-discrimination ordinances). Perhaps local cab drivers and/or local Muslim leaders can chime in and educate the rest of us on this issue: What are the limits here? When should a cabbie's personal beliefs influence whom he chooses as a client?

The challenge is that both pharmaceuticals and cab rides fall under the purview of state licensing and therefore have a modicum of state oversight. I would think that nondiscrimination clauses should apply in both cases and that these cabbies should not be able to prohibit riders who are carrying legal and unopened substances.

After all, it really comes down to an issue of religion in a secular society - your freedom to practice extends right up until you force your beliefs on me. Christian fundies, take note.