I believe in individual rights. But, how do you balance individual rights versus public good ? The usual libertarian line is that you are free to do anything you like as long as you are not harming or affecting anyone else. Of course, in the real world most issues are murky. One such example that has been discussed before is the trans-fat ban.
What about the rights you hold from your religious beliefs? Recently there was quite a furore over cab drivers refusing certain passengers from the Minneapolis-St Paul twin-city airport, where the majority of such cabbies are Muslim Somali immigrants. There were cases of Muslim cab drivers refusing to take fares when passengers carry alcohol or pets (even guide dogs). The airport authorities have decided to crack down on this.
MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) – 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. (link)
In this case, it could be argued that the cab drivers, as private owners of a service, have a right to refuse fares. But they are using the airport property to pick-up passengers (and there is almost 100% guarantee that they can pick-up someone at a busy airport). As the airport is public/tax-payer funded property, I believe they have every right to impose a penalty on cab drivers who refuse fares. Such drivers are free not to come to the airport to pick-up passengers. Additionally, cab-drivers are licensed by authorities to provide a public service – hence they should not be refusing any kind of passengers any circumstances (of course, explain that to a NYC cabbie).
However, for the sake of a fair debate, this begs the question (pointed out by Rohit): can then airlines refuse to fly certain passengers who ‘look suspicious’ ? Airlines are private, but they operate on public, tax-funded properties. Do security concerns outweigh religious beliefs ? The answer, I suspect, will depend on the individual’s political position.
Than again, what about pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions (read birth-control related) due to their religious beliefs ?
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The pharmacists individual rights in this case is actually infringing on the rights of another person. In many case, such pharmacists have been fired.
Finally, there has been some stories that Muslim cashiers at a Target grocery (again in Minnesota) are refusing to scan pork/alcohol products ! While, this Minnesota Public Radio segment suggests this is not a wide-spread issue and has been rather hyped up, I do find it rather extreme and ridiculous.
America as a whole is becoming less and less religion friendly ( in my opinion). Accommodations will be made easily for practically anything before accommodations are made for religion.
As it relates to the point of the legality of airline taking passengers off the plane for security reasons, it also applies to cabs. They too have the right to refuse a passenger if the driver has safety concerns.
I would have to imagine, though as always am too lazy to check, that there are provisions in the taxi licensing agreement as to when it is acceptable to refuse service.
As for the pharmacists/cashiers, if you own your own place of business, obviously do whatever you want, but if you refuse to do the job that you were hired for, using religion as an excuse is pretty weak.
Is above poster your first spammer? You must be hitting the bigtime, Pondit.
@Daniel: can’t exactly agree.
@Brian: Agree with the owning business/working argument.
Oh – the spams come in thick and fast – most get taken care of by Akismet. The dude above is pretty subtle.