- ‹ previous
- 6771 of 8922
- next ›
Minnesota Taxi Drivers Seek Religious Exemptions
It's hard enough to get a taxi in some places if you are not Caucasion, but it's becoming even harder, in some cities, to get one if you do not fit the driver's religious ideal of a passenger. For example, in London, two Muslim taxi drivers were fined for refusing to pick up a blind customer. The same thing has happened repeatedly in Melbouren. The reason? The customer's seeing-eye dog was "unclean." In Minneapolis, Muslim taxi drivers have refused to pick up a transgendered customer. And throughout Minnesota, taxi drivers are seeking a two-tiered system that would permit them to refuse to pick up certain fares because of their own religious beliefs.
This is how the system would work: If a driver refuses to pick you up because you are gay, transgendered, have a seeing-eye dog, are carrying a "forbidden" book, have a peace symbol on your briefcase, or are a woman with part of your abdomen showing (I could go on and on), you go to the back of the queue until someone finds you acceptable enough to ride in his or her cab.
Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star Tribune says:
And what if Muslim drivers demand the right not to transport women wearing short skirts or tank tops, or unmarried couples? After taxis, why not buses, trains and planes? Eventually, in some respects, our society could be divided along religious lines.
Pam Spaulding, writing in Pandagon, says:
I hate to break it to the Star Tribune's Katherine Kersten, but we already are divided. "Christian" pharmacists in some parts of the country are allowed to refuse filling a prescription if they object on religious principles to the use of the drug.
Ones gut reaction is to side with religous freedom, but in this case there is larger issue at play. As stated in a earlier comment, there are religous divisions already in this country, as in the case of pharmacists that will not fill certain perscriptions on religious grounds. Those religous divisions are intolerable because they trample on the liberty of others by imposing ones religous ideal on another by denying a service based on that ideal. If they are not able to give rides to all people reguardless of their religous beliefs, they would do well to look for other employement that does not challenge those beleifs. A religuous pacifist would not voluntarily become a police officer, and expect to not ever have to engage anyone. I beleive the same principle applies here.
Try getting a taxi in Minneapolis while wearing a turban and beard.
Some Christian colleges and many religious private schools legally practice racial segregation. Some synagogues legally seat women and men separately. The Catholic church legally refuses to ordain women priests. Either nondiscrimination trumps religious expression or it doesn't. I am not sure what side I would take, but I know for sure that it's unfair to expect members of a vulnerable religious minority to live up to a higher standard than we would apply to Christians.
I don't think the comparison is valid. Jewish women choose to attend synagogue. Catholic women choose to be part of the Catholic church. People seeking transportation are not members of such a group; rather, they are the public, just trying to get a taxi.
By the way, this doesn't mean that I support religious colleges discriminating racially. I do not. Nor do I support they way they often treat girls and women. But permitting this kind of pick-and-choose in a public arena is even more dangerous, I think.
I agree with Andrew. If I were to limit my own business to serving people whose values I approve of, I would be out of money.
If you want to a job working with the public you have to put up with the public. Surprise!
I don't think I should pay taxes to a country which I disagree regarding the war in Iraq, come on people, get a grip, if you won't do the job basised on religious grounds, find a new job. The constitution says everyone is created equal, if you want to employ your moslem, catholic, or jews, or athestic practice, move to a country that katers to you personal prejudices which are rooted in your religious beliefs.
Its hard to believe this could be true but does it give any merit to that sign i sometimes see in a restaurant, "we reserve the right to refuse service...." granted this articles point of view is religious and the restaurant sign is more of a business owner right?? .. It is hard to believe I would be denied a ride to my destination because I had a pierced ear.
Additionally, there has to be the start of a joke in this.. I am waiting for taxi and i see a blind, half-dressed gay person wearing cowboy boots w/ spurs and holding a coffee cup that says "jesus died for his own sins, not mine". Does the taxi stop???
Tom lighten up on that "send" key!
My personal view is that public policy trumps religious faith-except in certain narrowly defined circumstances. In the UK we recently had a case in which a Muslim police officer refused to guard the Israeli Embassy in London because he disapproved of the country's
invasion of Lebanon.
Islam may consider dogs to be "unclean" but so what- it's not as if he was being asked to eat the(expletive deleted) thing. if someone feels in good conscience that doing something will violate the tenets of his/her faith then he or she has a moral responsibility to find alternative employment-otherwise let the"taxi-cab rule" prevail!