Posted on 01/03/2007 10:26:53 PM PST by Man50D
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport officials say too many cabdrivers are refusing to carry airport travelers, apparently due to religious beliefs.
So during a Wednesday meeting of the Metropolitan Airports Commission's management and operations committee, officials suggested a heavy-fisted solution — drivers who refused such fares would have their airport licenses suspended.
Airport director Steve Wareham asked the committee to suggest to the full commission that they slate public hearings on whether to revise its taxi ordinance. The revision would suspend the airport license of any cabdriver refusing a passenger who is not life-threatening or intoxicated. Suspension would last 30 days on the first offense, and two years for each offense after that.
The committee unanimously approved the request for public hearings. The next meeting of the full commission is at 1 p.m. Jan 16 in the Commission's chambers at the Lindbergh Terminal.
About three-quarters of the airport's taxis are driven by Somalis, said airport spokesman Patrick Hogan; such drivers are commonly Muslim, and many believe their religion strictly forbids the transport of alcohol or dogs.
Hogan said that one year ago, 77 people a month were refused transport due to alcohol, and others were refused because they only had to go short distances. He added that about a half-dozen people a year were refused transport because they had animals traveling with them, including service animals such as guide dogs.
Hogan said that since September, when the government placed restrictions on liquids carried aboard airplanes, the number has dropped (to what, he was not certain), but it was "still a problem."
No members of the taxi industry were present during Wednesday's committee meeting.
A formal discussion between airport officials and those in the taxi industry began last summer but have yet to produce results. In October, airport officials were firming up plans to allow Muslim taxi drivers to alert potential fares of their beliefs with a different-colored light atop their cabs. But following a barrage of negative public feedback, they scrapped the idea.
A memo from Wareham and assistant airport director Arlie Johnson to the committee stressed a need to set a deadline for discussions "to provide eventual closure to this process."
Hogan said airport officials hope to have a new ordinance in place before May 11, when cab drivers must decide whether to renew their airport licenses.
What do you want to bet that the ACLU will sue for freedom of religion? Or that CAIR will intimidate them, and in either case Jesse Jackson will be there singing we will over come.
What weould happen if a Christian cab driver refused to transport a pregnant woman to an abortion center?
Get rid of them.
They should treat these cabbies the same as if they refused to give rides to blacks. You want to live here, act like an American. Otherwise, there are plenty of backward hellholes you can crawl back in to.
I would propose something much simpler: if a driver at a taxi stand refuses a fare without good cause (e.g. the person wishes to travel someplace the taxi is not allowed to go--a common situation at DCA if passengers board the wrong cab) the driver should forfeit his turn at the front of the line and have to drive around to the back. It should be up to the driver's discretion how many fare opportunities he's willing to give up.
He / she would be fired instantly and prosecuted for hate crimes. His / her home would be surrounded by Leftist mobs and it would be burned to the ground.
Later that day, CNN would praise the heroism of the freedom fighters who defended their city against such intolerance.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Send them back to Somolia. I'm sure they would make a much better living than in this country filled with christian infidels.
C'mon. These people are operating public conveyances for public benefit. They can't decide which fares to transport (short of rejecting obviously dangerous fares which they are allowed to do).
These people are operating private businesses. In a free country, they would have the right to carry or refuse such people as they see fit, with the proviso that anyone who won't a passenger should forfeit his place in line to someone who will.
I like the idea of different colored lights, It simplifies targeting.
Y'got a congresscritter that just mobilized every raghead, not only in Minnisota, but the whole damned raghead community in America has stood up, took notice and figured, "Yeah, baby ... we gotta' stick up f'r'ousefs!"
What'a'y'all thinkin', Minnisota ..? .. This a friggin' cartoon?
These useless godless Somalis will merely go back to welfare. Which is where they prefer to be. Somalis and Hmong are about the worst immigrants we get. Plus they are all refugees which gives them immediate access to welfare programs and lo lo lo interest SBA loans which they quite often use to engage in fraud and ripping off the USG
Legally they have no choice. They regulate a "common carrier" and are subject to civil liability and mandamus petitions under 42 USC 1983 if they permit drivers to discriminate contrary to federal law.
Anyway, I have a hard time finding the Muslim prohibition against the consumption of alchohol to be all that offensive when applied by individuals rather than at the state level. I think this country would benefit from a culture of responsible drinking or even one of abstention. After all, look what happens to spider's web building when exposed to drugs or alchohol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.