Those multi-cultural Taxi Drivers
Reader comment on item: More on Those Alcohol-shy Taxi Drivers
Submitted by Les Lieberman (United States), Feb 21, 2007 at 06:04
The following is a copy of the letter I sent to the governing board of the taxi-license issuers at the Metropolitan Airports Commission of Saint Paul, Minnesota, at the suggestion of Dr. Pipes, a memo for which I received on February 20, 2007.
Landside Operations Department
February 21, 2007
This is a follow-up letter in support of my previous position in which I discussed modified treatment of passengers requiring Taxi services at your airport.
I am writing in strong support of the decision you made concerning the non-sectarian discrimination of airport taxi licensing and the subsequent need for the legal transportation of alcoholic beverages by customers.
To allow the drivers of the taxis to dictate what they would do and not do based on their own particular religious terms, after they have secured the necessary license to serve the public, is totally unacceptable.
An extension of this slippery slope would be to allow Catholic drivers to not transport single pregnant women, Jewish drivers to refuse to transport customers who had just eaten a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, and a prejudiced person to refuse service to someone whom they might discriminate against as a matter of personal bias!
It seems to me that the privilege of being issued a license carries with it the requirements to reflect the non-religious mandate of the Commission, and not the narrow, limiting mandate of a non-governmental body!
If the drivers feel that the Commission is wrong with their mandates, the drivers should seek licensing elsewhere.
It is nice that the drivers wish to abide by what they believe to be their moral responsibilities under their religious beliefs, but if this current demand is met and they are allowed to dictate the conditions under which they will provide service, then what is next? Denial of services to women whose arms are bare, to Orthodox Jewish men, to single women, to Christians per se? Where would the line stop?
A "compromise" in this case indicates an abdication of the Commission's authority and responsibility, and I urge you to refrain from allowing this emasculation of your policies, and continue to enfore the mandate to provide 100% service to the next in line, randomly, as people need said service.
If a driver finds this abrasive or immoral, than the driver should seek employment elsewhere where his or her religious views can be better accommodated, but not in the public sector.
If a Jew or a Moslem would work at McDonald's and tell a client they could not serve them a bacon cheeseburger because of the server's religious convictions, it would be the same abuse of the role. If a Hindu worked at Wendy's and denied service to anyone wanting beef, that would be similar.
Yes, individual people are allowed to refrain from being forced to work in areas repugnant personally or religiously to them, but they should not be allowed to deliberately go into that work area and then dictate changes to it to accommodate their own beliefs to the detriment of the clientele being serviced.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (203) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes