pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[StevenC]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

I will side with the cab drivers. The riders can get anouther cab same as you can go to a different pharmacy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if it's a convenience store, that sells beer? Does the employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he won't sell beer, but will sell everything else?

The "Muslim" part is irrelevant. The question is does a convenience store owner have a right not to hire an applicant who indicates they won't sell beer which is part of the job duties of the clerk position.

The answer is "Yes". It's based on an unwillingness to perform the duties of the job and nothing to do with religion.



>>>>

Exactly. I don't say, can you pick up 72 lbs. landscape block. I take them out to a block and say, this is part of what we do in our work. Is that something you can do? Male or female the question is the same.

So now you agree that the pharmacy has every right not to hire someone who can't perform their duties, and religion is not an excuse. Why didn't you say that when I asked you.

btw, that would mean also that a pharmacy also should have every right to fire an employee who can't perform their duties, and religion is not an excuse.

 

[Syphon]

You know what? When the state gets involved in these type of situations it is WRONG. It is WRONG some of the time and it is WRONG all of the time. A person's religious convictions are protected under the first amendment and it is an attempt to circumvent those protections.

There is another thread where a gay judge won't perform straight marriages. The reasoning being that since he believes that the state is being inequal by not allowing gays to marry, then he will not perform any marraiges. Naturally, those of the left who abhor the idea of a 'religious' based objection to something think that this judge is just WONDERFUL. To them, his refusal to perform straight marriages is a courageous way to protest the 'inequality'. If the judge does not have to perform any marriages then he is within his rights not to perform them.

The hypocracy of the left just simply amazes me. A pharmacist who is a devout Catholic doesn't want to dispense the morning after pill because he believes it is immoral is within his rights. If you don't like it then you can vote with your feet and your purchases. Likewise, a doctor who will not perform abortions should not be required to regardless. But of course, if you are a member of the left, then if you refuse to violate your religious beliefs, why we'll have you jailed OR we'll force you out of business. When someone champions a cause of the left, then they are 'courageous.'

You absolutely KNOW that the Supreme Court is going to jump all over this... The left who absolutely LOVES activist judges is going to scream like a little girl when they get slapped...

performing marriage services is not a required part of a judges duties, it is a courtesy which they perform voluntarily.

dispensing medication is a required part of a pharmacists job. refusal to do so for anything other than a real that raises legal concerns (i.e. a patient having 10 prescriptions of a pain killer, or knowingly giving the same patient 2 drugs which could lead to death). if the types of products that he/she would be required to dispense are objectionable on a moral basis, then they are free to choose to have another profession. it is not their job or responsibility to be the gate keeper of someone elses morality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

I will side with the cab drivers. The riders can get anouther cab same as you can go to a different pharmacy.

I side with the licensing authority. If a cab driver can't fulfill the obligations of licensing, then he should not be entitled to that license.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

If the Pharmacist is an employee and refuses to fill prescriptions that the employer deems acceptable, then the employer should be able to terminate the employee for failure to perform their duties.


In the case of the Muslim cab drivers, their employment status is between them and the employer. The situation at the airport is that not all cabs can pick-up fairs at the airport. To decrease congestion a cabbie must have a permit to operate there. Most airposts that I've been through have a queue line for cabs. When one cab starts to pick and choose customers it disrupts the queue and impacts service to there customers. The airport is correct in requiring cabs to service airport customers on an equal basis.



>>>>

 

[Uncensored2008]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

This is bullshit. The Courts have NO authority to compel a cab driver to pick up any person for any reason. I don't care who the cab driver is, if they own their cab, they have the right to pick up or NOT pick up, anyone they damn well choose.

Free country - there is a concept here.

 

[saveliberty]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

Was the rule in place before the person took the job?
Did the employer make it clear what the cabbies duties were prior to hiring?
How can cab riders carry an open container in public?
I think the cabbie should appeal.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

This is bullshit. The Courts have NO authority to compel a cab driver to pick up any person for any reason. I don't care who the cab driver is, if they own their cab, they have the right to pick up or NOT pick up, anyone they damn well choose.

Free country - there is a concept here.

I agree. Either we have freedom in this country or we don't. If some nitwit wants to turn down money at his business because he doesn't like someone, by God they have that right, or rather they SHOULD.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

This is bullshit. The Courts have NO authority to compel a cab driver to pick up any person for any reason. I don't care who the cab driver is, if they own their cab, they have the right to pick up or NOT pick up, anyone they damn well choose.

Free country - there is a concept here.

The courts are not compelling anyone to pick up a person. Cab's are licensed to operate at the airport. If they want to pick and choose which customers to pick-up, simply run your cab for other fairs and don't apply to work at the airport.

Cabbies have a right to pick or not pick up anyone they choose (which isn't really true depending on the States Public Accommodation laws, but that's a different debate) - however they do not have a right to receive a special license to operate at the airport and then refuse to pickup airport customers. If they want to choose their customers, don't try to do it at the airport.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

Was the rule in place before the person took the job?

Not really relevant, operational rules of jobs change all the time.

Did the employer make it clear what the cabbies duties were prior to hiring?

It's not a function of the employer, it's a special license/permit to work the airport.

How can cab riders carry an open container in public?

Not a matter of open container, cabbies were refusing to carry someone if they were carrying alcohol - like a bottle of wine picked up on the trip or (IIRC) if in the cabbies opinion the person had been drinking because the passenger had possibly injested alchohol.

If I remember the stories from the time, they also refused to pick up passengers who had a dog (which included service dogs for the disabled).

I think the cabbie should appeal.

This was an appeal they lost.

From the link:

"The appeals court agreed with the lower court that cab drivers who face suspension don't suffer irreparable harm because they can appeal their suspensions to the airports commission and keep working while their administrative appeals are pending. "​

The cabbies didn't loose their license to operate a cab, they lost their license/permit to operate specifically at the airport for pickups (any cab can do a drop off).


>>>>

 

[Syphon]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

This is bullshit. The Courts have NO authority to compel a cab driver to pick up any person for any reason. I don't care who the cab driver is, if they own their cab, they have the right to pick up or NOT pick up, anyone they damn well choose.

Free country - there is a concept here.

be careful what you wish for. your line of thinking can lead to wide spread discrimination. think civil rights era. white business owners refused to serve black patrons saying it went again their beliefs. it took a constitutional amendment to change this, instead of people simply treating all people as equal.

so now if i want to be able to use the religious defense, i could conceivably start my own religion, and make it a white only doctrine. i could then open up a pharmacy and refuse to sell prescriptions to any and all minorities (asian, black, latino, arab etc etc). would that be within my religious rights?

 

[Immanuel]

If it was a requirement of her position, I would agree with you. However, her position as Judge does not require her to perform any weddings. Other judges on her level do not perform weddings and are not required to.

Therefore, I disagree with you. However, I respect your opinion. Also, the people of her county are her employers. They have the right to have her removed from the bench.

Ah, this is where we disagree, the people of her county are her subjects, not her employer. They have an opportunity to vote every what, 6 years? They cannot fire her, only impeachment will remove her from office.

As for the pharmacist in your example I agree. His employer has the right to make that decision. If the employer is the owner of the pharmacy (too bad the corner drug stores are on their way out!) then he has the right not to offer that product if he so chooses.

Immie

I agree completely.

By impeaching her wouldn't they be exercising the right to fire her as her employer? Actually, I suppose that if it were a citizen initiated event it would be termed a recall. Impeachment would have to come from the state legislature. Right?

Immie

 

[Inthemiddle]

Oh, nice try.

The case specifically deals with a teacher employed by a church run school school, and clearly rejected the governments position that only employees with exclusively religious functions were covered by the ministerial exception, which probably doesn't exist anyway.

Go read the decision before you try to tell me it only deals with ministers.

That's the exact opposite of what it says! Just shut the **** up already. Either you haven't read it at all, or you are deliberately lying. Either way, just shut the **** up because you have no business talking about this because you're 100% ignorant.

The Opinion of the Court

The question presented is whether the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an action when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.

The District Court agreed that the suit was barred by the ministerial exception and granted summary judgment in Hosanna-Tabor’s favor. The court explained that “Hosanna-Tabor treated Perich like a minister and held her out to the world as such long before this litigation began,” and that the “facts surrounding Perich’s employment in a religious school with a sectarian mission” supported the Church’s characterization.

We agree that there is such a ministerial exception.

We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.

The contention that Smith forecloses recognition of a ministerial exception rooted in the Religion Clauses has no merit.

Having concluded that there is a ministerial exception grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, we consider whether the exception applies in this case. We hold that it does.

Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree.

In light of these considerations—the formal title given Perich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church—we conclude that Perich was a minister covered by the ministerial exception.

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit.

 

[saveliberty]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

Was the rule in place before the person took the job?

Not really relevant, operational rules of jobs change all the time.

Sure its relevant.

It's not a function of the employer, it's a special license/permit to work the airport.

It is a function of the employer, it services the airport.

How can cab riders carry an open container in public?

Not a matter of open container, cabbies were refusing to carry someone if they were carrying alcohol - like a bottle of wine picked up on the trip or (IIRC) if in the cabbies opinion the person had been drinking because the passenger had possibly injested alchohol.
Its supposed to be out of plain sight then. Its the law. A cabbie shouldn't required to aid in an illegal act.
If I remember the stories from the time, they also refused to pick up passengers who had a dog (which included service dogs for the disabled).

I think the cabbie should appeal.

This was an appeal they lost.

From the link:

"The appeals court agreed with the lower court that cab drivers who face suspension don't suffer irreparable harm because they can appeal their suspensions to the airports commission and keep working while their administrative appeals are pending. "​

The cabbies didn't loose their license to operate a cab, they lost their license/permit to operate specifically at the airport for pickups (any cab can do a drop off).

You can appeal to a higher court.>>>>

My replies in blue.

 

[Immanuel]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

I will side with the cab drivers. The riders can get anouther cab same as you can go to a different pharmacy.

I would side with the cabbies. However, that doesn't mean that if I stood in line waiting for a cab and there were no more cabs around and the driver refused me service that I wouldn't call him every dirty name in the book, but I would still side with them... after I had simmered down.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

If the Pharmacist is an employee and refuses to fill prescriptions that the employer deems acceptable, then the employer should be able to terminate the employee for failure to perform their duties.


In the case of the Muslim cab drivers, their employment status is between them and the employer. The situation at the airport is that not all cabs can pick-up fairs at the airport. To decrease congestion a cabbie must have a permit to operate there. Most airposts that I've been through have a queue line for cabs. When one cab starts to pick and choose customers it disrupts the queue and impacts service to there customers. The airport is correct in requiring cabs to service airport customers on an equal basis.



>>>>

A cab driver is usually, I think an independent contractor of the cab company, but even if they are employees of the company, if they refuse to offer service, I would say that the cab company has the right not to employ their services.

For one reason, if I am refused service in this hypothetical case by a cabbie driving a Yellow Cab, I am going to blame Yellow Cab not the cabbie and it will affect Yellow Cab's "Goodwill" not the cabbies.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

This is bullshit. The Courts have NO authority to compel a cab driver to pick up any person for any reason. I don't care who the cab driver is, if they own their cab, they have the right to pick up or NOT pick up, anyone they damn well choose.

Free country - there is a concept here.

Free... but for how long?

Immie

 

[WorldWatcher]

Was the rule in place before the person took the job?

Not really relevant, operational rules of jobs change all the time.

Sure its relevant.

It's not a function of the employer, it's a special license/permit to work the airport.

It is a function of the employer, it services the airport.

Not a matter of open container, cabbies were refusing to carry someone if they were carrying alcohol - like a bottle of wine picked up on the trip or (IIRC) if in the cabbies opinion the person had been drinking because the passenger had possibly injested alchohol.
Its supposed to be out of plain sight then. Its the law. A cabbie shouldn't required to aid in an illegal act.
If I remember the stories from the time, they also refused to pick up passengers who had a dog (which included service dogs for the disabled).

I think the cabbie should appeal.

This was an appeal they lost.

From the link:

"The appeals court agreed with the lower court that cab drivers who face suspension don't suffer irreparable harm because they can appeal their suspensions to the airports commission and keep working while their administrative appeals are pending. "​

The cabbies didn't loose their license to operate a cab, they lost their license/permit to operate specifically at the airport for pickups (any cab can do a drop off).

You can appeal to a higher court.>>>>

My replies in blue.

Since you seem to have issue with proper use of the quote function I'm don't feel compelled to try to fix it for you...


1. Their religion isn't relevant, the refusal to perform the duties of the job is.

2. Their employment is a function of their employer, the individuals ability to service the airport is based on a special permit needed to pick-up fares at the airport. If they don't want to comply with the rules of the permit, they don't have to be allowed into the cab queue. Their employment status beyond that is between them and their employer.

3. First of all where do you get the idea that alcohol cannot be carried in plan site? In most places it is not against the law to carry an unopened bottle of wine or can of beer in plain site. Thirdly, they were refusing service to someone if they felt they even had had a drink in the airport bar - last I checked drinking in a bar was not illegal if you were of age.

4. If you notice the link was from 2008, if they appealed I don't think they were successful.


>>>>

 

[StevenC]

So does everyone here who sides with the Christian pharmacists also side with the Muslim cab drivers??

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

September 9, 2008


St. Paul, Minn. — (AP) - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in Minnesota courts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

Feel free to greet this with stunned silence, wingers. We're used to it.

I will side with the cab drivers. The riders can get anouther cab same as you can go to a different pharmacy.

I would side with the cabbies. However, that doesn't mean that if I stood in line waiting for a cab and there were no more cabs around and the driver refused me service that I wouldn't call him every dirty name in the book, but I would still side with them... after I had simmered down.

Immie

Agreed. If it was me I wouldv'e probable poured the bottle of booze over the cab.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would side with the cabbies. However, that doesn't mean that if I stood in line waiting for a cab and there were no more cabs around and the driver refused me service that I wouldn't call him every dirty name in the book, but I would still side with them... after I had simmered down.

Immie

I would be irritated with the airport for limiting competition by issuing licenses rather than letting the free market take care of the issue.