So if you are flying to Minneapolis, Minnesota – that beautiful city with that greatest monument to the American consumerism, the Mall of America and would be taking a cab from the airport and you are carrying wine with you then my advice to you is don’t! That is, either don’t fly to Minneapolis, or don’t take a cab or don’t carry wine or any other alcoholic drinks with you.
Why?
Because the Muslim cabbies serving the airport, and they form 33% of the cabbies there, will refuse you a ride if you are carrying alcohol. Now, where’s the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union ) when you really need them?
From a CNN story:
“This is America, we have freedom of religion,” says one cabbie. We could see their feelings are intense — that the issue seems to cut to the core of their identity.
“The Metropolitan Airport Commission is discriminating against us Muslim drivers,” says Abdulkaddir Adan, a Somalian-American who’s been driving a cab in the Twin Cities for two years.
Sure dude, this is America and that is why no one’s forcing you to be a cabbie. Go get yourself some other job rather than pushing your religion values on me. If every religion starts pushing its values on others, then there’d be no end to it. Going by the same rationale, why should devout pro-life Catholic pharmacists be punished when they refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills?
[...] Vikas is pissed off at the demands of Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis. [...]
cool post. provocative, as it should be. While I persoanlly I do find this another manifestation of fundamentalism and intolenrance in the name of “resurgence religion” or “going back to the roots”.
However, I do think that the cabbies have the right to deny taking people carrying alcohol, so long they are not infringing on a law. ( I don’t know what’s the legal stand on a cabbie denying a ride to anybody in Minnesota).
This sounds quite like many exclusive Gujrati co-op sousing societies in South Bombay denying tenancy ( and ownership) to non-Gujjus, especially non-vegetarians.
There is a conflict in play between 3 key questions in a democratic civil society where right of faith, enterprise and speech are gauranteed : 1) Do people have the right to run their enterprise/property in the manner they wish, even it is exclusionary ? 2) Where does the line of exclusive choice blend into discrimination ? 3)Is it morally correct to be exclusionary while claiming to be practicing the right to freedom (of faith, speech and enterprise)
I don’t know the answer for any of these. While I intuitively react to such instances as being “morally wrong” but I think a true liberal society awards its constituent the right to be fundamentalists !
PS : congrats on being featured on DP, again.
I agree this is an issue with two very well-backed stands, however it does boil down to how deep a respect does the “infringer” have for the “infringee’s” religion. Personally, in this particular situation, I wouldn’t be too hassled by such a situation if I had immediate access to a second cab in line at the airport whose driver would not mind transporting my alcohol with me. Given just 33%, and assuming not all members of that percentage follow this cardinal rule strictly, it shouldn’t be a huge problem to find another cab.
Sigh. It will never end. What’s next? Insisting flights carrying Muslim passengers not serve alchoholic beverages? Countries with resident Muslims shut down their alcohol industry? Or perhaps they’d be reasonable, and ask only that alchohol manufacturing units with Muslim employees (they won’t choose another profession, see) switch over to, say, orange juice. I wonder how this would apply to ham and pork… “No more ham in hamburgers!!!” Or maybe just move to ban pig-farming across the world.
Kapil – I don’t think that the comparison with Gujarati co-ops is an apples to apples comparison. When you buy a piece of land – it becomes your private property and as long as you are not indulging in certain anti-state activities, I think you should be allowed to do what you want to (though what those Gujarati societies are supposedly doing would be illegal in the US under Fair Housing Act).
I strongly believe that when you are dealing in the public sphere, as these cabbies undoubtedly are, you have to stop wearing your faith on your sleeve because once you start going down this path – there is no telling where you will end up as a country, probably like India where in the name of secularism, every religion essentially follows its own constitution. What if the cabbies start demanding that they would carry only Muslims in their cab? Would that be allowed by a liberal society too?
I agree that a truly liberal society would allow its citizens to be fundamentalists and it is a very good motto to follow, but it needs to stop before the point of self-annihilation, before the fundamentalists end up changing the very fabric of the liberal society.
Sameer – The question is not of finding another cab, it is about a principle and not convenience. At what point would you start finding it troublesome? 50%? 75%? By that time it would be too late my friend.
Vikas, I said I agree with your sentiment on this case, but I was also trying to think from the cab drivers’ perspective. Lets assume that these guys are refusing customers because they think transporting alcohol is blasphemous. They are crippling their own business model in this process. When I said people should find another cab, I want it to be an inconvenience. That helps restrict such prohibitive actions on part of the drivers and their ridiculous demands would be checked. The system controls itself.
Gujarati societies, on the other hand, is a different case and needs different handling, because they no longer form a miniscule percentage of society, they are a larger integral element. Therefore, mere inconvenience is not going to help keep that system in check. My opinion anyway, but I really liked the points you guys have brought forth.
Hey,
they need a kick on their buts and thrown back to their
Somalia to rot.
The freedom of religion only applies as long as it does not infringe upon anybody else’s rights. In this case, the cabdrivers’ freedom of religion is infringing upon the rights of the passenger. Ah well, when nobody gets into the ‘sharia’ cabs there may be less of such cabs.
Everybody’s beliefs ought to be respected. Many of us find it offending when we go to India and asked to take off shoes while entering temples and houses. But we understand, that it is your culture. You don’t serve us beef and we also understand. So I have no problem with cabbies. Most of us don’t prefer such works and thus people from other countries are doing these jobs.
Well if some org ensures freedom of expression for you then I guess the same org ensures freedom of expression for others as well….even if they are “Muslims”.
It’s a pity that you cannot do without alcohol for even a single day! Allow me to ask, what if you plan to go to a mandir? Will you carry alcohol with you? I’m assuming you have that much respect for your own religion that you won’t! So what’s the big deal if a Muslim is avoiding that when he considers the entire planet to be a place of worship?
What’s the issue being rejected or him being a Muslim? When you show some respect for your own religion then why can’t you digest a Muslim showing respect for his own faith? What’s the big deal?
And mind one thing; he is not “dictating” his religion on you! Is he asking you to throw your baggage or quit drinking?
He is just refusing that he cannot travel with someone who is carrying alcohol. And if you have some thing called conscience, then it won’t be difficult for you to understand that he is only affecting his own business by refusing! You don’t need a brain like that of Einstein to understand such a simple thing!
The catholic you talked of, is again a fundamentalist. What people fail to acknowledge is that fundamentalism exists even outside the boundaries of Islam!
In India many hindus do not befriend Muslims, because Muslims eat beef! What will you call it?
Freedom of expression! Huh?
Have the same yard sticks for everyone! Why do you highlight everything big and small if a Muslim is involved? To get maximum hits!??
I can only suggest you guys to get into something constructive instead of crying hoarse about what Muslims are doing!
Get a life guys!
aqsa I don’t think you understand the issue here and I am not surprised.
Of course fundamentalism exists outside Islam too (refer Bal Thackerey) and that is why I fully oppose the pharmacists who claim that it is their religious right to refuse to dispense legally presribed abortion pills. The point is not what you do on your private property – which a Mandir is, but what you are doing when you are engaged in a service – which a cab is, the right to which is provided by the government which is secular. Now how difficult is it for you to understand that it is not a Muslim or a Hindu or a Catholic question, it is a religious question and when all religions are supposedly equal, such absurdities cannot be allowed to go on.
This is an issue that for me at least is a lot tougher than I thought at first glance it would be.
My first response was of course that this is America and that the Muslims are being too unreasonable with demanding that we go out of the way with accommodating them and their religion, which I believe is true on a lot of things with them.
But then I thought about Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience which are cherished values in our society. And, I did think of the pharmacists that Vikas mentioned.
After thinking very long and hard about it I guess it is the right of Muslim cabbies to forbid the transport of alcohol in their vehicles. But that said, they need to make it very clear on their vehicle that this is the case so that the customer isn’t surprised about the policy after entering the vehicle.
The people who have alcohol to transfer would just take another cab. Then the cabbies will still be able to keep their principles but the passenger will still have the opportunity to ride in taxis that do allow alcohol to be carried in it.
I really believe that whenever possible private owners should be able to make their own rules.
I am all in favor of making accommodations that don’t infringe upon the rights of others and aren’t too difficult to manage. But if the Muslims ever try to make it illegal to transport alcohol on all Taxis, not only the ones they own, that would be going too far.
The ACLU’s sole goal is the destruction of American Society.
It has been that way from its foundation.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/18/enemy-within-part-i/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959
The ACLU is a far, far greater threat to America than any foreign terrorist group could ever be. It has been successful in bringing America to the brink of destruction.
Steve Thanks for your thoughtful comments. But if we start allowing private owners to make their own rules, even when they are engaged in a public service, we might be going down a very slippery path. If you grant this right to these cabbies, how will you stop a Palestinian guy who won’t give a ride to a Jew? Or a Hindu cabbie who won’t take you to a steak house?
Yes – at the airport, you have multiple cabs lined up but what about a night when a bunch of guys are too drunk to drive and they call a cab and can’t find a non-Muslim cab to get them back home?
There is simply no justification on such Balkanization of society on religious ethos in a public sphere. India embarked on precisely such a treacherous path under the leadership (?) of Jawaharlal Nehru and as a result today India has a thousand different laws on the books on marriage and divorce alone.
I feel that if the cabbie is willing to suffer the financial cost of such a practice, then it would be wrong for them to be forced to so something that they are so against.
The lost customers will result in a demand which will be met by other businessmen who will see it as an opportunity for them.
I agree with Steve, and believe we should not assume escalation of the issue (to Palestinians and Hindu cab drivers per Vikas’ examples) in this particular instance.
The circumstance dictates the nature of reaction. Clearly displayed indicators of non compliance by the driver would elicit a milder reaction than a situation where a person is asked to step out of an occupied cab (which would be ridiculous).
While the cab companies that these drivers are affiliated to, may not explicitly pursue these demands, most of them do have clauses saying that refusing service in certain instances is at their discretion (which would protect them if you tried litigation).
If I recall correctly, there was an article about an over-abundance of cabs in the Twin Cities, which automatically leads to the assumption that there is a lack of business – thus for every cab driver who refuses business on some pretext, there is at least one who would jump at the prospect of income.
Unfortunately, services restricted or denied within private holdings are totally legitimate as they border on freedom of speech/religion more than racial/religious discrimination.
On the other hand, there have been instances where debatable circumstances have been quelled through court orders. I’m referring to the recent story on free soup.
http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/france/12759
Hmm. After reading Steve’s comment, I am inclined to agree with what he says. Yet, I think it’s a dangerous trend to go on accomodating whimsies of religion. In my opinion, China’s practice of trying to keep religion a very private matter – handled with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, is a very good idea. Religion shouldn’t be brought out into public life.
Steve and Sameer I think you are missing a very critical point here which is that a private cab plying on public roads is not private property.
The city and its citizens have granted a license to them to carry on their trade and expect a service without any caveats. If that service is not being provided to the citizens, then they have every right to cry foul about it.
I am not sure on what basis you are claiming that the escalation examples that I give are implausible. After all, you can look at India’s civil code; in an effort to ensure the so called freedom of religion, India ended up granting all its religions to do as they please and as a result India’s civil code is a veritable tower of Babel.
Vikas,
The distinction I’m making is between characterization of discrimination towards other people versus upholding of belief to oneself. Denial of service on the basis of race, religion, color, social attire, etc. is discrimination and can be acted against. Refusal of service based on personal belief such as proximity to alcohol or beef should not be acted against in a diverse society. Catholic chemists not stocking birth control pills, or Muslim meat shop owners not selling pork (although they may have customers wanting to consume it) is a matter of freedom of religion. How would you react in a situation, say, where you happened to be traveling in a cab whose Muslim driver had to pull over for a 2 minute prayer (the timing of which cannot be compromised according to his faith)? Would you insist that Muslims should not drive cabs at certain times of day? We all need to be accommodating towards religious practices to a certain extent – a diverse society cannot function otherwise. There are fuzzy levels of tolerances, and we should react appropriately to foreign religious practices whose basis we may not always fathom.
vikas,
where is common sense when you need it?
the first thing is you cannot compare the likes of bal thackerey with someone who’s trying to follow his religion in the best possible manner.
as far as my knowledge goes…bal thackerey is hardly representing hindu religion, at least not for me. he is just another freak who can go to the extent of using religion for political benefits.
coming to the cab drivers again, i kind of agree to sameer.
in todays world with such a diverse society we need to accommodate others as well instead of just expecting others to do the same.
Hi webmaster!
Hi webmaster!
xxx-power net,