Alcohol, Religion, and Economics (Part 2)

In the previous post I explained what the situation was. In this post I'm going to try to expound on the situation, interjecting some of my own opinions.

Essentially, there are a multitude of problems concerning this religion versus economics squabble brewing in Minneapolis. First and foremost, in a land of freedom of religion, does a company, providing arguably a public service, have a right to discriminate against a religious faction, if that faction hinders and at times halt that public service?

Depending on the example from history you might find, you can say both yes, and no. The biggest example of yes they could and should, actually springs from rather recent times and concerns this nations struggle with racism, in which groups, such as the Klu Klux Klan blocked public services (hospitals, schools, water fountains). The Klu Klux Klan was then prosecuted and basically eliminated as a group by the federal government.

On the other hand, if you were to look at the current debate over Abortion you could see something of a see-saw to the same argument. Abortion by many definitions is an economic versus Religious debate, where the Religious side is claiming it's tenements do not allow or proscribe that anyone, even those not of their religion should be able to have an Abortion. In the current battle this comes down to meaning that doctors have the right not to perform an abortion, if they believe it's against their religion. At the same time, Anti-Abortion groups have with differing levels of severity been restricted from impeding those who want to have an Abortion. Thus Anti-abortionists still picket many clinics that offer this service, but if they cross the line from picket to active refusal, such as by hitting, grabbing, or causing damage they are then actively prosecuted for discrimination and violence. The latest wrinkle to this debate is that a number of supposed Abortion clinics have been popping up where they are really controlled by Anti-abortionists who find ways to delay or convince their patients not to have an Abortion. So far, this unusual tactic when found out, has mostly been closed down by immediate press revelations.

Which brings us back to this problem of alcohol and cab drivers. By all rights, this attempts of the MAC appear to have been honest attempts at compromise to allow the cab drivers their religious freedom, while lessening the impediment of the public. The drivers on the other hand have decided that all these attempts have only been about discrimination and thus have decided to act like it.

The hook in the matter is that although they can say they are being discriminated if the MAC decides to restrict them for refusing a service, they, themselves, are honestly discriminating against others by their very own refusal. They are trying to foster a set of rules on their attempted passengers, which the passengers don't wish to agree to. In most societies where this happens, it then becomes the passengers right to not use that service and instead opt for one which allows the transportation of alcohol. But in this environment, where the cabs all look similar and it's hard to distinguish between them, this attempt to use the service that allows them is causing an undue hardship delay.

My own opinion is thus, in a society of freedoms, any attempt to curtail another's rights, whether religious or not, should be struck down. Thus, the cab driver's wants to not allow the transportation of alcohol in their cabs, although lawful, well meaning, and within their right, should not give them the authority to block a person from using a cab in a timely fashion.

If they want to continue this religious choice, either they should then accept a compromise that allows a person to choose their cabs, or they should expect to lose the business of passengers.

As an aside, while working on this post I got in to a lengthy discussion with some co-workers about this particular issue. From his POV (Point of View), the only "discrimination" that was going on was against the cab drivers. Thus from his POV, he believes either the cab drivers will eventually compromise, or the airport will just restrict all alcohol transportation. I disagreed and then we launched in to a long debate on discrimination, which I will post at another time.

Alcohol, Religion, and Economics

Via Cnn.com comes an article about a group of cab drivers in Minneapolis (Minnesota) who have been refusing to transport anyone carrying alcohol. What makes the situation more complicated then simple economic driven supply and service is that the group of cab drivers are Muslims, predominately from Somalia.

Essentially the Muslim religion teaches that transportation, consumption, or any other use of alcohol is strictly forbidden, and a sin. Thus the cab drivers, even though they should be driven by economic forces to transport another person, even one not of their religion, who has partaken or is carrying alcohol, would be committing a sin to do so.

Normally in a mixed religion nation such as ours, this particular problem doesn't crop up that much, as the mix is great enough that a person refused a service because of religious issues could easily get service from some one else. The problem in Minneapolis is that the group of cab drivers refusing service is so large, that it's causing major bottleneck problems at the local airport.

According to the article, in the last years approximately 5,400 people were initially denied service from a taxi at the airport at least once, for this reason alone. One commuter interviewed even described being denied a taxi cab five times, and having to wait twenty minutes for carrying a sealed bottle of wine he had bought on his vacation.

The local authorities (Metropolitan Airport Commission or MAC) then tried to step in and work out a compromise that wouldn't violate the religious freedoms of one group, or discriminate against the freedom of another group. Unfortunately what should have been a simple matter of compromise took a wrong turn when the MAC was rebuffed twice.

The first time then went to local religious leaders and asked for a special dispensation for the cab drivers. The local leaders disagreed and reiterated the doctrine against transportation of alcohol. The MAC then tried a different approach of asking those who didn't want to transport alcohol to use some identifying symbol on their cabs so that patrons could know which they couldn't use, and which they could. They were again rebuffed as the group cried this discrimination.

Now the MAC has been left with little choice but to either impose harsh penalties on cab drivers refusing to pickup passengers for trying to follow their religious faith, or to get hit with lawsuits and other economic penalties for not providing a service for their customers.