Taxi drivers’ beliefs cause dilemma

The Metropolitan Airports Commission voted unanimously to impose penalties on Muslim cab… The Metropolitan Airports Commission voted unanimously to impose penalties on Muslim cab drivers of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who refuse to give rides to passengers either carrying alcohol or accompanied by pets. According to The Washington Post, the Commission stated that there were 4,800 instances where Muslim drivers, citing religious concerns, had refused to pick up people carrying alcohol.

Issues like this one seem to be quite common in the United States, where accommodations sometimes have to be made for people of different faiths and cultures. For example, some pharmacists refuse to fill prescription contraceptives because of moral and religious reasons.

We have to approach this issue from both sides. On one hand, it is important to respect other cultures and beliefs. Perhaps there are ways to accommodate these drivers without having to suspend them or fire them from their jobs. For example, the cabs could be labeled as “non-alcoholic” or “pet-free” cars. Or maybe they can move to another field in the transportation industry. Drivers unwilling to accommodate passengers with alcohol or pets could also aid in finding the passengers alternative transportation by contacting another cab.

But these solutions pose obvious problems. If cab drivers are allowed to decide who to pick up and who to leave behind, more people will be without rides and more cabs will be driving around empty.

The fact of the matter is that personal decisions – like refusing passengers because of religious concerns – affect many people.

America is a nation founded upon religious tolerance, but where do we draw the line?

The cab drivers are certainly entitled to their beliefs, but they are also working for a company providing a much-needed service for other people. Giving rides to people with alcohol or pets is part of their job. Refusing service can result in numerous problems. Blind people who require the aid of seeing-eye dogs could go without rides and people who are intoxicated, who need to be given rides for both their safety and the safety of others, can also be refused.

However, if we make allotments for people of one religious ideology, we would have to make allotments for everyone. If the cab drivers are allowed to refuse rides, others who have religious concerns with their jobs could do the same. And it is impossible to accommodate everyone – the service industry would come to a screeching halt.

While we do not think the cab drivers should have to violate their religious beliefs, we also acknowledge that their job is to provide a service in line with the missions of the cab companies. It’s a delicate task to balance values. Everyone’s interests are at stake, and what’s difficult to decide is whose interests are most important.