USATODAY.com – Airport Check-in: Fare refusals in Minnesota — Sounds like this is more easily resolved by pulling their cabbie license. What gives?
Minneapolis-St. Paul is concerned that its taxi service is deteriorating. Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia are refusing to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. It started with one driver a few years ago, but the average number of fare refusals has grown to about three a day, says airport spokesman Patrick Hogan. “Travelers often feel surprised and insulted,” he says. “Sometimes, several drivers in a row refuse carriage.”
Taxi drivers and officials from the airport, taxi companies and the Muslim American Society are discussing how to address the issue. Partly out of concern that taxi drivers might be citing religion to avoid short-distance fares, the airport is now forcing drivers who refuse a fare to go to the end of the line for waiting taxis. It is not a popular decision among drivers, Hogan says.
I guess these same guys are useless insofar as taking drunks home from bars too, eh? So what good are they?
We really do have a problem (or our government does) of saying these are our laws and you can either stay here and follow them or take your chances with the warlords back in Somalia. Personally I think coping with the stress of a guy with a 40 riding behind you is better than armed and stoned militia.
Discrimination pure and simple.
Laws governing public access to transport have been pretty solid — stemming from the battles against segregation. Unless a passenger constitutes a danger to themselves or others they have the same right to access and carriage as anyone else.
Drop a civil rights suit on a couple of cab companies and the question goes away. Of course, as John said, if the governmental body in charge of licensing had any backbone — the question goes away even sooner.
How about we first go after hotels and restaurants that won’t serve smokers?
The root of all human insanity is religion.
This is just like those druggists that refused to provide prescribed medication because it was “against their moral principles”.
Don’t open container laws apply to taxis as well?
“…are refusing to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol.”
obviously, these taxi drivers are fearing something:
1. low fare
2. physical or verbal abuse
3. fleeing non-paying rider
4. alcohol reminder (actual or imagined) that invokes a violation of religious indoctrination.
I say that the first 3 come with the territory. The fourth is their choice. If they cannot tolerate then they must not operate.
As Deep Throat said, follow the money. It looks to me like a fine way for a Muslim cabbie to winnow out possible problem passengers and avoid short fares. Making these cabbies go to the end of the line seems like a near perfect solution to me. If it’s a genuine religious issue, the driver should have no problem with that penalty. If it’s just an opportunistic way to avoid problem or short-ride passengers, losing their place in line will discourage the practice. Why pull licenses when there’s such a simple, practical solution already at hand?
That’s funny. I refuse giving my business to muslim cab drivers.
Isn’t the free market great?
Or the fear of being shot.
That has been an issue in Minneapolis for cab drivers
Try that in New York and you will be walking or taking the subway James.
#10, James: In some places that means you’ll never get a taxi.
If all else fails, just read from the Bible while in their cab.
#1 – Some days it does look like the People’s Republic of Minnesota around here (sorry about that public radio thing …).
#7 – They’re not open containers (illegal here). Oftentimes it’s a tourist returning from wine country with the bottles in sealed boxes.
#8 – Low fare shouldn’t be an issue – the cities cover a large area and the people using the airport are more likely to be suburbanites. Abuse and nonpayment are far more likely on an intracity run.
We haven’t had reports that they’re refusing actual drunks yet, though (whew! ;-).
Moss, what exactly does this have to do with fighting segregation in public transportation? One is owned and operated by the government, and the other is a private enterprise. Just because the government feels it should be licensing every single activity that people engage in doesn’t make a private taxi “public transportation.”
#11 – While cabbies may well fear getting shot, it doesn’t actually happen that often here – every time it does happen, it’s a big whoopty-doo we’re-in-the-big-time-now local news story, and I can’t even remember the last one.
Taxi’s are very much like public transportation because not only are they licensed, they are severaly restricted in numbers. While they are privately owned, it is only nominal control that the owners have – the government mandates how many cars can be on the streets and sets many rules for how they are managed.
Seems to me this is a good reason to eliminate the licensing rules entirely. If someone has a car and wants to use it to drive others around for a fee, it’s not our business to tell them they can’t.
One more reason to kill em all
18: Hmm… seems to me that restricting the number of taxis on the road is quite a nice way of artificially keeping the fares high. Government licensing being used to restrict competition; who would have thought…
As to the first issue, it’s simple, refuse a fare, lose your license.
As to the issue regarding government licensing and regulation of taxis you should be either for govt regulation or against it for every industry, not just taxis.
I’d love to believe that gov’t regulation started nefariously as ways to restrict competition, but I’m sure most of it came from believing people were stupid and need to be protected from the bad guys.
People buying snake oil? Let’s regulate the drug industry. People dying in bad non-regulated ‘public’ transportation, lets license it.
All government regulation starts with good intentions, I believe, but quickly becomes a beuarocracy (sp?) that maintains the vested interests.
Well, as the saying goes: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. You have to be delusional to believe that the evils of men can be solved by a body comprised of men. Which is why I will always view government as a false promise. As long as the tendency will be towards corruption anyway, you might as well leave people free to pursue their own endeavors with as few restrictions as are absolutely necessary.
#7 – Don’t open container laws apply to taxis as well?
Comment by Gig — 9/19/2006 @ 8:33 am
Why yes, yes they do… thanks for asking 🙂
I don’t have clue 1 what how Minnesota rolls, but when I drove a cab all those years ago, I rented the cab like a car. Cab drivers are not employees. And I turned down fares for whatever reason I damn well felt like.
I once put a guy to the curb who was trying to put $300 in my hands because I knew that where he wanted to guy combined with his level of intoxication meant I’d be talking to cops if I accepted the fair.
As a rule, if I talk to cops and I didn’t initiate the conversation, I consider it to have been a bad day.
Cabbies face a very high risk of violence. They typically run 12 hour shifts. They have to pay the lease on that car whether thier reciepts cover it or not. I surely have no issue with cabbies being selective about their fares, even it is for nutty religious reasons.
I loved runs to the airport. Those are money. But I rarely lined up. I drove back out to the grids, unless the doors were flowing. As for short trips, really, who cares? True I made big money if I could string several distance runs together, but its also true that most days are slower and you have a better chance of cashing out in the black if you keep your meter running.
On really good days, if i made my nut in short time, I’d go hunting for the more interesting fares (read: dangerous) but I knew what to steer clear of – drunk rednecks – I don’t want em, I don’t carry em.
Alcohol + Skeeter = Police involvement
If you are young enough, and not too squeemish, and can handle yourself in a brawl, I suggest you spend a year in a cab.
I am sorry but I’ve got to side with the guy in a way. Alcohol is the second most abused drug in this country and leads to the most social problems. Almost all crimes that are committed in the States are when an individual is under the influence (rape, murder, assault).
I have to go with OFTLO in # 23.
I’ve never driven a cab, never wanted to. In any jurisdiction though, the operator of public transportation has the right to refuse a fare. How many times have airline pilots refused to allow certain passengers? If the driver refuses the fare then it is his financial loss, but maybe his safety gain.
Unless you can guarantee the driver’s safety, you really can’t farce him to accept a bad (in his view) fare.
This is not just in reference to drunken individuals, but anybody suspected of carrying alcohol period. I was refused a ride when I carried a sealed bottle of sake from overseas. “Against their religious beliefs”. Anyways, I try to avoid them if possible as they are often quite rude (although that is becoming harder and harder).
I should note that when I answered yes about the open container question, that I was correct, BUT the story isn’t about open containers but rather passengers with packages that contain sealed spirits.
#24 – I assume the first is tobacco. I stopped “abusing” a slight 5 days ago and I’m about to kick someone’s ass just for looking at me sidways… I guess I got a few days to go 🙂 At any rate, its funny that the most abused drugs are legal. It’s also funny that Television is not counted as a drug.
#25 – Fusion, you’re a good man in a tight corner 🙂
#26 – I feel ya… You come back to the states with some exotic spirit and you can’t buy a ride from a cabbie because his father fed him too many heaping spoonfuls of mythology as a kid…
But what are ya really gonna be mad about? Get the next cab and relax. You have to a respect a man’s ride, even if you can’t respect his worldview. He might be wrong… Hell, he IS wrong… But it’s his car, and we all need to learn to live with that.
So what happens with they refuse a priest carring sacrimental wine?
Can Christian Cabbies refuese to carry Muslims on the grounds they are heritics?
I love the part about “suspected” of carrying. Isn’t that “profiling” So I guess its OK if I refuse to carry a Muslim because I suspect he’s a terroist? Right? Or a black person because I “suspect” they are muslim.
Cab drivers are licensed if they refuse a fare from the airport where you know the people have been screened for weapons they should lose their airport card for 90 days.
To those of you who feel it is appropriate or acceptable for the cabbie to refuse a fair for religious reasons, then I’d ask you that consider if you had a christian cabbie who refused to accept homosexuals or a jewish cabbie that refused to take you because you had a ham.
I’d also suggest you take a look at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770
to see how muslims cabbies react to the blind.
I personally don’t like having muslims (unlike christians or jewish or buddist or hindu, etc.) trying to impose their religious customs (note the keyword customs) on me, a non-muslim.
What happens when a muslim cabbie refuses to take women who don’t have veils?
Better think these things through before you start allowing religious doctrine to be imposed on society blindly.
YOU ALL KNOW THIS IS CRAP. ALL THIS IS, IS ISLAM TRYING TO GET ALL THE LANDS THAT THY LOST IN EUROPE AND MORE. THEY HAVE DONE THIS IN MANY PLACES IN EUROPE LIKE SOUTHERN FRANCE THS IS ALL ABOUT TAKING LAND FROM US INFEDELS FOR ISLAM AND CONVERTING IF THE CAN GET GOV’T TO BACK THIS IN WITCH THEY WILL THEN THEY HAVE A FOOT HOLD INTO OUR SOCIETY THIS COUNTRY IS BASED ON FREEDOM OF RELIGON PERSCUTION NOT ON IMPOSING YOUR RELIGON ON US WE HAVE RIGHTS ALSO I AM NOT A RELIGIOUS PERSON AT ALL I FT WERE ME I WOULD NOT GET OUT THE CAB OR BETTER YET BOYCOT THE CAB BUSINESS BLACKS DID IT TO THE BUS SYSTEM AMERICANS SHOULD DO IT TO THE CABBIES