Cultures Clash In Cabs

realtraveller · #1 10-08-2006, 01:45 PM

Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport (75% of whom are Somali Muslims) are refusing to carry passengers who are carrying wine or liquor.

Got wine at the airport? It's harder to grab a cab

In Australia, Muslim cab drivers are refusing to drive blind people with guide dogs, because they think dogs are 'unclean'.

Muslim cabbies refusing the blind and drinkers | NEWS.com.au

**hadassahchana**[$] · #2 10-08-2006, 01:55 PM

I've been reading about the cab problem in Minnesota, and I think that anyone offended by passengers ought to be doing something else.

As for the service dogs, that happens in Britain, too. I'm on an email list for owners of service dogs, and this article was posted:

blind woman refused ride by Muslim cab driver

It's really hard at best being even mildly disabled in England. I can't even imagine how awful this must have been for that woman.

realtraveller · #3 10-08-2006, 02:13 PM

It would be a clear violation of the ADA for any cab driver to refuse to carry a blind person's guide dog. They would be sued and lose their cab license.

As for the MN airport case, leaving someone standing on the curb in a freezing MN winter because they were carrying the wine they picked up on their trip is just bad, it may not be illegal.

Note to self: One more reason why I prefer renting cars when I travel. Don't have to deal with idiotic cab drivers.

**AuntieEmma**[$] · #4 10-08-2006, 03:32 PM

I thought cabs were regulated, and that the drivers were required to take all passengers. Maybe that's true in some cities, but not in others?

Anyway, this is like the flip side of the pharamacist controversy that came up a while ago: Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense birth control methods that violate the pharmacists' religion? The question here is should cab drivers be allowed to refuse to accept passengers who will bring items into their cabs that violate the drivers' religion? It's essentially the same question. My answer to both would be "no," and I would welcome regulations that enforce that.

But I expect that many people who supported the pharmacists' right to refuse birth control -- framing it as a freedom of religion, freedom of business, and freedom from regulation issue -- would also be quick to condemn the cab drivers who turn away passengers carrying alcohol. And that's just not consistent. It shows that some people think freedom of religion depends on which religion you are talking about, and whether or not they agree with that religion's tenets.

**conradd** · #5 10-08-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

AuntieEmma said

But I expect that many people who supported the pharmacists' right to refuse birth control -- framing it as a freedom of religion, freedom of business, and freedom from regulation issue -- would also be quick to condemn the cab drivers who turn away passengers carrying alcohol. And that's just not consistent. It shows that some people think freedom of religion depends on which religion you are talking about, and whether or not they agree with that religion's tenets.

It doesn't show anything unless you have specific examples of people who supported a pharmacists right to refuse birth control and also condemned the cab drivers. Otherwise it's just another logical inconsistency. I'm too lazy to look up the precise fallacy, but setting up a supposed chainink of events and citing that as proof of your point isn't exactly persuasive when you dissect the argument.

erik_kosberg · #6 10-08-2006, 04:02 PM

This is old news in Minneapolis. A similar story ran in the Strib about five years ago. The sky has not fallen since then.

realtraveller · #7 10-08-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

AuntieEmma said

I thought cabs were regulated, and that the drivers were required to take all passengers. Maybe that's true in some cities, but not in others?

Anyway, this is like the flip side of the pharamacist controversy that came up a while ago: Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense birth control methods that violate the pharmacists' religion? The question here is should cab drivers be allowed to refuse to accept passengers who will bring items into their cabs that violate the drivers' religion? It's essentially the same question. My answer to both would be "no," and I would welcome regulations that enforce that.

But I expect that many people who supported the pharmacists' right to refuse birth control -- framing it as a freedom of religion, freedom of business, and freedom from regulation issue -- would also be quick to condemn the cab drivers who turn away passengers carrying alcohol. And that's just not consistent. It shows that some people think freedom of religion depends on which religion you are talking about, and whether or not they agree with that religion's tenets.

This was being debated on Volokh.com last week. They got into issues of common carriers, which religious belief imposed more of a burden on the one being denied service, etc.

Both the customers of the cabs and the pharmacies can go to other places to get the services. The wine-carrying passengers can wait for another cab. The pharmacy customers can get the pills from another pharmacy or another pharmacist in the same pharmacy. (The flip side to the consistency argument is that while some states require the pharmacist to dispense the pills that are against their religion it appear as though the city of Minneapolis is accomodating the Muslim beliefs).

I always turn to the free market to solve things because that essentially allows the people to decide. If so many people in a particular place want RU 486, there will be pharmacies to accomodate them. After all, there's money to be made.

If lots of people want to bring wine into cabs in MN, then the city should give licenses to non-Muslims to accomodate them.

**conradd** · #8 10-08-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

realtraveller said

If lots of people want to bring wine into cabs in MN, then the city should give licenses to non-Muslims to accomodate them.

This doesn't make sense to me. Is being Muslim a pre-requisite for driving a cab? If not, the free market should also apply here. Non-Muslims are free to apply for a license. However, if 75% of the cabdrivers are Somali Muslims, this would seem to be higher than the overall proportion of Somali Muslims in the general Minneapolis population (unless demographics have radically changed since the last time I visited). What would account for that disparity?

**hadassahchana**[$] · #9 10-08-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

erik_kosberg said

This is old news in Minneapolis. A similar story ran in the Strib about five years ago. The sky has not fallen since then.

Maybe it hasn't for you. Perhaps people wanting a cab late at night after a flight might feel otherwise. And if I were ever refused a ride because my dog is haram, trust me, the sky would at least shake.

realtraveller · #10 10-08-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

conradd said

This doesn't make sense to me. Is being Muslim a pre-requisite for driving a cab? If not, the free market should also apply here. Non-Muslims are free to apply for a license. However, if 75% of the cabdrivers are Somali Muslims, this would seem to be higher than the overall proportion of Somali Muslims in the general Minneapolis population (unless demographics have radically changed since the last time I visited). What would account for that disparity?

Obviously they're not using racial quotas.

I'd imagine the market is at work. 75% of people applying for cabs are Somalis.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #11 10-08-2006, 09:47 PM

The debate arose in NYC and it was pointed out that the city subsidizes the cabs. With public tax dollars involved, religious discrimination isn't just between the cabbie and the fare. e.g., if a Somali Muslim drove a city bus, could he refuse to pick up customers carrying wine bottles? After all, they could just wait for the next bus. Since city money is spent on the yellow cab system, should the cabbies be treated differently than the bus driver?

poseidon · #12 10-09-2006, 02:25 PM

I hope they do have the little lights that identify which cabs are driven by Muslims who don't want to have patrons who carry alcohol.

That way, I can identify which cabs I don't want to give my business to, even if I don't have any booze.

**amykhar** · #13 10-09-2006, 03:31 PM

Here's the problem with the dogs. If a Muslim touches a dog, he must change clothes and wash or shower before he can pray. Many of these drivers are out of their homes way longer than an 8-hour day, and it's not practical for them to do so. The dog hair would also have to be cleaned off the cab seats.

And, I do not believe the ADA applies in Australia

Perhaps the best solution would be for Muslims who do not choose to have contact with dogs or alcohol to not drive a taxi. But, we all know, we don't live in an ideal world. You make a living the best you can.

I honestly don't know what the best solution in this case is. I would expect teamwork with a non-Muslim driver would be the most practical. When presented with a problematic passenger, the Muslim driver could call his non-Muslim fellow driver and have him/her handle the fare.

The passenger gets a ride and the driver can stick to his principles. I'm not a huge fan of telling people their principles are crap simply because it inconviences me. I'm not going to honk my horn at Amish buggies on the road because they're in my way and going too slow. I'm not going to scream at kosher deli for not selling me a cheeseburger and I'm not going to start trying to tell a cab driver he has to drive my dog.

But, that's just me. I try to be a live and let live sort of person.

Amy

erik_kosberg · #14 10-09-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

I'd imagine the market is at work. 75% of people applying for cabs are Somalis.

It's anything but a free market. There's a finite fixed number of cabs allowed at the airport (not sure what that number is but it's probably set by the Metropolitan Airports Commission). There's also a finite fixed number of cabs in the entire metro area. Cabbies and cab companies have fought for years to keep that number from going up. Over the years, a politics-makes-strange-bedfellows assortment of Democrats and Republicans has mostly sided with the cab industry here. It's not much different from a medieval guild system.

realtraveller · #15 10-09-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

amykhar said

Perhaps the best solution would be for Muslims who do not choose to have contact with dogs or alcohol to not drive a taxi. But, we all know, we don't live in an ideal world. You make a living the best you can.

Amy

In the Illinois-pharmacist situation, the state basically said, if you are a pharmacist whose religious beliefs prevent you from dispensing the morning after pill, find another profession.

At least a Muslim cab driver doesn't have to throw away years of professional education and training. But we can't have cab drivers refusing to transport the blind. And since the city has a monopoly on the licenses, they need to give the licenses to those who will provide this essential service to those who are unable to drive.

erik_kosberg · #16 10-09-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

At least a Muslim cab driver doesn't have to throw away years of professional education and training.

Many of them threw that stuff away to become cab drivers. The Somali community here is anything but hicks who fell off of a turnip truck. Many were professionals in Somalia (doctors, diplomats, etc.) whose Somali credentials mean squat here.

Quote:

...they need to give the licenses...

GFL. See the medieval guild reference above. Much easier said than done. That system here has deep roots, going back to a time before there was a Somali community here.

realtraveller · #17 10-09-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

erik_kosberg said

Many of them threw that stuff away to become cab drivers. The Somali community here is anything but hicks who fell off of a turnip truck. Many were professionals in Somalia (doctors, diplomats, etc.) whose Somali credentials mean squat here.

Just what we'd need. Doctors who wouldn't treat blind people with dogs.

**theworm**[$] · #18 10-09-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

realtraveller said

Just what we'd need. Doctors who wouldn't treat blind people with dogs.

why do you sympathize with pharmacists who won't dispense medication, but not with doctors who refuse to touch dogs?

realtraveller · #19 10-09-2006, 05:03 PM

Because the health care professional who believes that human life begins at conception and doesn't want to be part of destroying it has some rational basis for his belief. (Whether you agree or not, scientific arguments can be made on both sides, but they are arguments based on medicine not based on superstition.)

Unless you are allergic to dogs, there is no scientific, rational basis for refusing to deal with blind people who bring along dogs. Do you know of any scientists or doctors who would argue that guide dogs are so 'unclean' that you need to bathe and change clothes after being around them?

erik_kosberg · #20 10-09-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

scientific arguments can be made on both sides, but they are arguments based on medicine not based on superstition.

Um, yeah, just like the rational scientific arguments used by creationists.

Sorry, but this is fast becoming a pointless debate.

**hadassahchana**[$] · #21 10-09-2006, 05:11 PM

Getting back on topic, since the city puts caps on the licenses and therefore the cab industry is regulated by government and therefore we still have seperation of church and state, what on earth is wrong wtih telling the cabbies to either take the fares and STFU, or pulling their cab liences? This is absurd- and yes, I do understand abpout not being able to be in contact with dogs, so another job sounds like a better idea than refusing to do the one you've got. People with disabilities aren't telling Muslims how to practice their religion, they are expecting to be given a ride when they need one.

Same thing with alcohol - what about someone needing a ride home from a bar or party? Would you prefer these people drive because God forbid we can't offend another person's religious beliefs? If you work it out, the argument becomes ridiculous very quickly. Whether or not the Somalis were doctors etc. in their own country is irrelevent. Sad, I agree- it's heartbreaking to see some of the jobs that immigrants must do because their skills don't transfer into their new country. However, giving a cab driver the choice to accept or not accept a passenger based on his beliefs is just plain ridiculous. There are other jobs which won't involve people carrying wine or disabled people using dogs.