Posted on 01/17/2007 10:37:46 PM PST by NormsRevenge
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Muslim cab drivers at Minnesota's biggest airport are facing a possible crackdown for refusing to give rides to travelers carrying liquor or accompanied by dogs, an official said on Wednesday.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has authorized a public hearing next month on a staff proposal to increase penalties for refusing fares, spokesman Patrick Hogan said.
A large number of taxi drivers in the area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslim Somali immigrants.
Many of them say they feel the faith's ban on alcohol consumption includes transporting anyone carrying it. Some have also refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.
Under the proposal -- which is also aimed at drivers who refuse to take short-haul passengers in favor of more lucrative long trips -- a first offense would result in a 30-day cab license suspension and a second a two-year license revocation.
The public hearing, approved at a commission meeting on Tuesday, will be held February 27.
Hogan said the number of refused rides has fallen from about 77 a month early in 2006 to eight to 20 a month currently.
The decline is due in part to the government security ban on large quantities of liquid in carry-on baggage, but the staff felt the situation needed to be addressed for a variety of reasons, Hogan said.
Hesham Hussein, a spokesman for the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, said that group, in trying to work out a compromise last year, told the commission that Islamic law prohibits not only the drinking but the selling and transport of alcohol. He said the group said nothing about dogs and would not agree that a person with a seeing-eye dog should be denied a ride.
The compromise the group tried to work out involved marking cabs to alert dispatchers and customers to those who would not transport alcohol so they would not be hailed or called up from queues.
The commission rejected that idea and Hussein told Reuters that approach idea now appears to be dead. Given the "social polarization" and intolerance among some in the country, he said, the "cards are stacked" against the drivers.
If the stronger penalties are approved drivers could still refuse to accept a fare if they feel the person seeking a ride presents a threat to public safety or is drunk or on drugs.
I refuse to ride in cabs driven by Muslims or Arabs.
BS!!! They should have done this in the beginning. SEND THESE IDIOTS BACK TO SOMALIA! They do not belong in America.
Is there alcohol in the gas they use?
Oh, the irony!
Let's turn the argument of the drivers around and see if it still floats ... let's say that a large number of the travelling public, oh ... perhaps mainly white males? ... started refusing to accept a cab ride from a muslim driver or a black driver or a female driver. Instead they wnt to the next cab in line and chose a white driver. What would the reaction be? /rhetorical
Coming from the most intolerant people on earth.
Oooof! You are on to something there! "I declare fatwah against E85," said the cleric.
Cabs are “Public Accommodation” the same as restaurants and hotels. Since the Civil Rights Act they can not refuse service to any paying customer.
BUMP!
how is refusing to take passengers with service dogs NOT a violation of the Amercian with Disabilities act-anyone other than a protected class-like moooslums would have their collective a$$es slammed for this.
This happened to me last year when I had to go to San Francisco to our corporate office for a few days at the end of a home leave.
Weather had delayed the flight for several hours and I dragged into SFO after 1 a.m., worn out and loaded with luggage that I was taking back overseas in a few days. My hotel was near the airport and this slimebag was the only cab driver there. He refused me because it was too short a trip (it was certainly not in walking distance). I finally insisted and he grudgingly let me get in the cab, but was uttering a stream of cusswords in Arabic.
I said "I live and work in the Middle East and I KNOW what you're saying. I don't appreciate being called a 'sharmouda,' for one."
He FREAKED and apologized over and over and begged me not to report him. I didn't...but I decided not to tip him so much as a dime, either, when my intent had been to be generous in that respect.
Immoral Taffir laws..
/ s
I'm not crazy about this practice, but this is none of Government's business. It's their business, if they want to lose money this way, so be it. There are other cabs to take people places. Let the market take care of it.
If this were a Christian refusing to drive a woman to an abortion clinic, all of us, including myself, would be supporting his right to do so, and saying he's brave for standing up for his beliefs.
You are overstating the law. You can't refuse service because of someone's gender or race, you can discriminate all day long based on behavior (drunkeness) or other behaviors (having a Dog).
You would have a point when it came to seeing eye dogs, however.
Let them drive cabs in Mogudishu if they think they have it bad surrounded by us infidels.
Of course it is the government's business. Taxis or public conveyances are a franchise. The government has granted an exclusive privilege or license to act in a certain manner prohibited to the general community.
Although both are exclusive, a distinction is made between a "monopoly" and a franchise. As explained in Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.):
"A monopoly is that which has been granted without consideration; as a monopoly of trade; or of the manufacture of any particular article, to the exclusion of all competition. It is withdrawing that which is a common right, from the community, and vesting it in one or more individuals, to the exclusion of all others."
A "public" franchise is one affecting common or public rights. It is exclusively granted as a "license" to a corporation or individual to provide a public service or utility in order to promote the general comfort and convenience; advance the public prosperity; or to facilitate the purposes of safe, convenient and cheap ways for transportation and travel. The rights of public franchises are established only in charter or license and the services provided are subject to regulation under the public laws.
As explained by Justice Story in Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.):
"...Another is, that wherever a grant is made for a valuable consideration, which involves public duties and charges, the grant shall be construed so as to make the indemnity co-extensive with the burden. Qui sentit onus, sentire debet et commodum. In the case of a ferry, there is a public charge and duty. The owner must keep the ferry in good repair, upon the peril of an indictment. He must keep sufficient accommodations for all travellers, at all reasonable times. He must content himself with a reasonable toll. Such is the jus publicum. In return, the law will exclude all injurious competition, and deem every new ferry a nuisance, which subtracts from him the ordinary custom and toll. See Com. Dig. Piscary, B.; Ibid. Ferry. So strong is the duty of the ferry-owner to the public, that it was held, in Paine v. Patrick, 3 Mod. 289, 294, that the ferry-owner could not excuse himself from not keeping proper boats, even by showing that he had erected a bridge more convenient for passengers. It would be a fraud upon such a grant of a ferry, to divert the travel, and yet to impose the burden...."
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.