Muslim Taxi Drivers Cannot Refuse to Take Passengers Carrying Alcohol

Here's the news:

Muslim cab drivers at Minnesota's biggest airport will face new penalties including a two-year revocation of their taxi permits if they refuse to give rides to travelers carrying liquor or accompanied by dogs, the board overseeing operations ruled Monday.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission, responding to complaints about the liquor issue, voted unanimously to impose the new penalties beginning in May.

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.

This issue is hard to sort out. There's obviously the question of freedom of religion, and that these drivers have every right to forbid taking alcohol and dogs into their private cars - when driving as private citizens. However, even if the cab belongs to them, once they become licensed by a municipal agency, one has to assume that the heavy regulation involved includes having to follow a stricter set of guidelines than those a driver might be allowed to follow if he was part of a private car service. The new rules prevent cab drivers from refusing passengers for any reason - not just religious ones. Of course, there's the fact that no one is forcing anyone to drive a taxi, of course. And who can ignore the old slippery-slope question of, to what end? If we allow taxi drivers to refuse customers because they are traveling with alcohol or dogs, what's next? Refusing to transport women who are dressed inappropriately? Refusing to transport passengers who are openly homosexual?

This issue is probably most comparable to that of the right of pharmacists to refuse to sell Plan B contraceptives on religious/moral grounds. A pharmacist is permitted by law in most states to refuse to dispense the contraceptive, but must have a sign on the storefront proclaiming that they do not carry it. Why should pharmacists have the choice to limit their services based on their religious beliefs without losing their licenses - but not Minnesota cabbies? It would seem to follow that cabbies should either be allowed to refuse passengers as long as they put a visible decals on the sides of their cabs proclaiming that they will not transport alcohol or dogs - or that pharmacists should lose their licenses if they refuse to dispense Plan B. I mean, who's to say that one person's religious beliefs are more compelling a reason to refuse service than another's?

This issue is so hopelessly convoluted that it gives me a headache. Feel free to chime in while I go take two advil.