View Full Version : Religious beliefs in context with a more mundane issue-cab driving
This is an ongoing battle here. Muslim cab drivers are refusing rides to people who pick up alcohol at the duty free shop at the airport. Would their religious rights be violated if they had to pick up all passengers, including the alcohol carrying ones?
Here are a couple of background articles:
If you drink, some cabbies won't drive (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/25/oppenheim.cabbies/index.html)
Taxi proposal gets sharp response (http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1029753.html)
Christine
03-15-2007, 09:30 PM
That's interesting. Seems to be along the same lines of the pharmacist debate, huh? :giggle
Desirae
03-15-2007, 09:33 PM
Very true Christine! :giggle
I don't know enough about cab drivers to know if this is similar or not to the pharmacists. Pharmacists belong to professional organizations that have codes of ethics, and denying people medications because of personal preference goes against that. And, pharmacists are employed under certain terms of employment, and denying people medications because of personal preference also violates that.
If that's the case with cab drivers, then obviously they should pick everyone up. If a cab driver is employed by a company that has a policy of driving people to and from establishments that sell alcohol, then a Muslim cab driver should either do it or find another company to work for. And, if there is some sort of cab drivers professional organization that has a code of ethics that would require a driver to pick up anyone who isn't engaged in an illegal activity, then they should also do it.
But, if a cab driver is self-employed or isn't required to pick up anyone they don't want to, then obviously this shouldn't be an issue. If pharmacists were allowed to simply deny someone a prescription on a whim, whenever they felt like it, then EC wouldn't be an issue, either. But, pharmacists aren't, while I'm not sure about cab drivers. My impression has always been that self-employed cab drivers can choose to pick up or not pick up anyone they want, and can choose to not give someone a ride on a whim, in which case they can choose not to drive someone to a liquor store. I'm not sure what the issue is with companies, but I'd have no problem with a cab company that drives people to and from liquor stores (which I'm sure most if not all do) denying employment to someone who refused to do that. If they won't do the job, then they should find another line of work.
I believe the Metropolitan Airports Commission issues licenses to cab drivers who want to work at the airport. I will have look into it more. But I know it isn't a free for all for cab drivers. They want to work that territory under certain conditions. I will try to look up legal side of this in the morning.
gr8mommy
03-16-2007, 07:30 AM
That's interesting. Seems to be along the same lines of the pharmacist debate, huh? :giggle
I don't think so at all. The cabbie isn't being asked to be a party to killing anyone/thing, which is the entire objection to the morning after pill fracas.
over here most cab drivers are self employed or contract workers- they only earn the fares they take or they only earn a % of the fares they take if working on contract so to me it's up to them who they fetch as they're the ones losing out on wages by doing so. In England it's fairly common for cabs to refuse to take you if you've consumed alcohol- the ones that do have a very high clean up bill if you throw up in their cabs, most refuse to take women in labour for the same reason as well but those are based on having to have the cab valetted in the event of damage- actually carrying alcohol isn't going to do that.
I always saw it as muslims are not allowed to purchase, give or drink alcohol nor enter/frequent establishments where it is freely available but in our town man of the muslim owned restaurants (and there are alot- i live in 1 town over from the city that has more Indian restaurant per square mile than India itself has!!!) they generally do not sell alcohol however they permit you to take your own in to consume with your meal.
It's a weird one to me- i can't see why they would have such issue all of a sudden.
Erika
03-16-2007, 12:26 PM
O for goodness sake. I'm sorry but if you have issues with picking up people who just happen to have alcohol on their person, then you shouldn't be working at the airport. The queues for taxis are long enough as is. Why should a passenger have to wait longer just because they have bottles of wine or whiskey or whatever on them?
There is freedom of religion and also freedom FROM religion. In this case it does seem like the passenger is having religion foisted on them.
Religion and the workplace should really be kept seperate (unless you work in a church of course LOL). That is not to say that you should ignore your personal beliefs during workhours. But it should not interfere with your work duties and those beliefs shouldn't affect other people, whether it be who you decide to pick up or what meds you dispense to others.
Christine
03-16-2007, 12:42 PM
I don't think so at all. The cabbie isn't being asked to be a party to killing anyone/thing, which is the entire objection to the morning after pill fracas.
I know. I was just trying to make light.
I don't think so at all. The cabbie isn't being asked to be a party to killing anyone/thing, which is the entire objection to the morning after pill fracas.
I actually see this as more of a religious issue than EC, which I see as a political issue. The Koran has clear, stated prohibitions against alcohol use and involvement in alcohol use. While Muslims vary in their interpretations and applications of the Koran, you can point to specific passages that make the prohibitions very clear. The Bible, on the other hand, never states that a fertilized egg is a person, that a human life at the moment when sperm joins egg has the same moral status as a born person, or that it is wrong or immoral to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. People may infer that from passages, but it's only one interpretation of those passages, and is in no way a clear religious tenet.
I see the EC issue as being mainly political, and about what role people think state power should play in determining what reproductive roles and choices are available to women, rather than religious, especially since the movement to allow individual pharmacists to deny women EC is so closely aligned with efforts to prevent any women from having legal access to it. Muslims in this country, on the other hand, are not making efforts to use state power to limit what choices are available to people in terms of alcohol consumption, and it is clearly more of a personal religious issue than a means of using religious rhetoric to push a political agenda.
That's not to say that cab companies or airports must retain cab drivers who won't transport alcohol, because I don't think they should. But, I don't think this is any less a serious issue to Muslim cab drivers than EC is to pharmacists, and in many ways I think it is more genuinely religious, because it isn't tied up in larger political efforts to use state power to force people to conform to one specific interpretation of a specific religious text.
gr8mommy
03-17-2007, 09:53 AM
Muslims in this country, on the other hand, are not making efforts to use state power to limit what choices are available to people in terms of alcohol consumption, and it is clearly more of a personal religious issue than a means of using religious rhetoric to push a political agenda.
Not yet.
Do devout Muslims refuse to fly because you can buy booze on board? If so, then not wanting to transport closed containers when driving a cab is a valid argument, albeit one I disagree with. They aren't being asked to handle the alcohol.