Well for one thing the pharmacy will still let you in the door to buy whatever they are selling.
Remember back in the bad-old-days of Jim Crow the argument was made that as Walgreens is a private business they can choose not to serve anyone they want. This was rejected. It was decided that "public accomodations" must serve everyone. A taxi is very much a public accomodation. Therefore the drivers must not be allowed to discriminate on religious belief. Cearly in trying to enforce their religions dogma on passengers they are doing so.
The taxi commission should say: no dice. What if a taxi drver said "I won't carry gay couples, because their acts violate my sense of Christian propriety!". Ha! Imagine the outrage.
As far as the pharmacists are going, I think many of them have lost.
Another quibble I have with the pharmacist analogy is this:
Whereas "morning after" pills are a fairly new arrival (thus justifying the fact that pharmacists' objections to dispensing them only became news in the last few years),
in contrast,
neither taxicabs, nor Muslim taxi drivers, nor fares-who-might-be-carrying-alcohol are ANYthing reMOTEly new.
Point: Why are these objections (by cabbies) bubbling up NOW, hm? Is there a sudden upswing in fares who are carrying lots of booze? in the numbers of Muslim cabbies?
I think not.
Rather, I surmise this is a group of nasty, anti-Western (yet Minneapolis-ian ... go figure) American Muslims who've decided they're going to "stick it to" the horrible Crusaders, somehow. I'm sure it's only a small subset, but it still bothers me.
JMO.