Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
The full story
After listening to emphatic appeals from proponents and opponents of a new taxicab ordinance at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is considering increasing the penalty for drivers who refuse to transport alcohol-toting passengers because of religious concerns.
About 200 people packed a hotel room in Bloomington on Tuesday for a hearing that took more than four hours.
Airport director Steve Wareham said some drivers refuse to transport customers with service dogs. Others avoid short fares or passengers who pay with airline vouchers and credit cards.
One after another, taxi drivers denied refusing to carry people with service dogs. Abdinoor Dolal, a taxi driver who said he’s in favor of a penalty for “unauthorized fare refusals,
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
6 Comments »
Comment posted March 1, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
I’m with the cabdrivers Cab drivers are independant businessmen. They lease a car and pay the cab company for scheduling services.
I think they should be able to deny service to anyone they choose to.
I travel 2 or 3 times a month and I take a cab to and from the airport.
I defend their right to make it, but since I don’t agree with their decision and do not wish to have my time wasted so I also think it is perfectly acceptable to tell a dispatcher not to send a Somali driver when arranging for a cab from my house to the airport, and to make the same request of the “heeler” (the guy who directs people to the next cab in line at the airport) on the return trip.
Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing.
Comment posted March 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
But what about the Humphrey Terminal! I have followed this story with interest as it happened to my family a few years ago. One thing that I haven’t heard anyone talk about is the Humphrey terminal. We were returning from vacation and had to call for a taxi about 10:00 at night. For whatever odd reason, we were the only ones around for a taxi. You had to actually call for one…there is no line waiting for you. So the first one finally came, and refused us service because we were had one of those travel cases of alcohol that we purchased in St. Thomas. (Which, of course is all very legal.) We ended up having to wait for 4 taxis before we finally had one that would take us! Believe me, I was VERY upset and frustrated about this. I did contact the MAC the next day, and basically got a line that they were trying to work it out.
I have read some comments about what is the big deal, just catch another taxi. This is NOT an option at Humphrey! At least it wasn’t at that time.
As far as I’m concerned, we were being discriminated against. It still boils down to a taxi driver refusing you service for possessing legally purchased alcohol. Taxi drivers need to follow our laws, not their “laws”.
Comment posted March 8, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
They miss understood the faith!!!! Taxi drivers should follow the rules and the regulation of this country. If they have problems carrying alcohol and dogs because of their religion, they are probably in the wrong business. I used to work in a pork factory while attending college even though I’m a muslim. Today I work as an ENGINEER, and I’m gald I had those odd jobs. I don’t think it’s their business anyway to check what people are wearing or carrying.
Comment posted March 1, 2007 @ 7:41 am
I'm with the cabdrivers Cab drivers are independant businessmen. They lease a car and pay the cab company for scheduling services.
I think they should be able to deny service to anyone they choose to.
I travel 2 or 3 times a month and I take a cab to and from the airport.
I defend their right to make it, but since I don't agree with their decision and do not wish to have my time wasted so I also think it is perfectly acceptable to tell a dispatcher not to send a Somali driver when arranging for a cab from my house to the airport, and to make the same request of the “heeler” (the guy who directs people to the next cab in line at the airport) on the return trip.
Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing.
Comment posted March 1, 2007 @ 9:51 am
But what about the Humphrey Terminal! I have followed this story with interest as it happened to my family a few years ago. One thing that I haven't heard anyone talk about is the Humphrey terminal. We were returning from vacation and had to call for a taxi about 10:00 at night. For whatever odd reason, we were the only ones around for a taxi. You had to actually call for one…there is no line waiting for you. So the first one finally came, and refused us service because we were had one of those travel cases of alcohol that we purchased in St. Thomas. (Which, of course is all very legal.) We ended up having to wait for 4 taxis before we finally had one that would take us! Believe me, I was VERY upset and frustrated about this. I did contact the MAC the next day, and basically got a line that they were trying to work it out.
I have read some comments about what is the big deal, just catch another taxi. This is NOT an option at Humphrey! At least it wasn't at that time.
As far as I'm concerned, we were being discriminated against. It still boils down to a taxi driver refusing you service for possessing legally purchased alcohol. Taxi drivers need to follow our laws, not their “laws”.
Comment posted March 8, 2007 @ 8:55 am
They miss understood the faith!!!! Taxi drivers should follow the rules and the regulation of this country. If they have problems carrying alcohol and dogs because of their religion, they are probably in the wrong business. I used to work in a pork factory while attending college even though I'm a muslim. Today I work as an ENGINEER, and I'm gald I had those odd jobs. I don't think it's their business anyway to check what people are wearing or carrying.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment