Just to add to my previous post in response to Marty's questions: 1. Not all of the Muslim cabbies felt religiously obliged to refuse to carry passengers with open displays of alcohol (or dogs) as I remember. However, there was a fatwa issued by a local Muslim organization saying that they shouldn't do it. Since a fatwa is a legal opinion, it certainly provides legal authority for the cabbies' insistence that they shouldn't do it; it wasn't simply their personal view per se. 2. Airport regulation 102 now provides that taxi drivers cannot refuse to take a passenger unless he refuses to pay, is seriously intoxicated or is a physical threat. One provision of the section also prohibits drivers from refusing service based on race, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or age, or having a service dog. 3. The cabbies' appeal for an injunction was denied by the trial court and upheld by Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2008 on the basis that they had an adequate remedy at law--any license denial could be appealed and the cabbie could keep his license in the meantime. Dolal v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n, 2008 WL 4133517 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court/ I couldn't find much recently about the effect on Muslims serving the airport except this related news, in January, a major airport taxi company here fired Somali drivers who protested the refusal of the company to sit down and negotiate their working conditions http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2012/01/report_somali_cabbies_learn_pr.shtml
Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 (work phone) 651-523-2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) >>> Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> 3/7/2012 5:35 AM >>> Can anyone point me to a good, thorough account of what happened in Minneapolis, including (i) the explanations, if any, the cabbies offered for why the lack of the exemption burdened their religious exercise (did it mean they were unable to accept work as other forms of common carriers, such as pilots, UPS/FedEx delivery employees, bus drivers, etc.?); (ii) how the controversy was resolved as a matter of law; and (iii) what became of the Muslim drivers after the exemption was revoked. Thanks in advance.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
