I didn't see any answer from you or anyone on your side to my two posts pointing out:
Must've missed it, I'll take a shot at it now.
1. What's going on at Minneapolis Airport where 3/4 of the Cab drivers serving it won't pick up passeengers carrying alcohol, resulting in at least 5400 declined fares.
I'll avoid discussing my feelings regarding the licensing of cabs and whether cabs are a public service or a private enterprise. Instead, I'm going to assume what the public generally assumes -- that it's appropriate for the government to license and regulate cabs, and that they are a public service.
Back in 2006, the Metropolitan Airports Commission thought they had an appropriate solution -- assign one dome light color to cabs that would take passengers carrying alcohol, and another color to cabs that would not. That way, travelers looking to depart the airport could know at a glance which cabs would take them and their luggage, and which ones wouldn't.
Unfortunately, there was a huge outcry and the MAC scrapped the plan a mere week after announcing it. In light of that, they reverted to the existing regulations -- you refuse a fare, you go to the back of the queue and wait your turn. In other words, not only do you lose the fare, but you have to wait for every cab behind you to pick one up before you get a chance to refuse to carry someone else.
At the time, it wasn't a big deal because Federal security protocol was such that you couldn't carry more than a relatively tiny amount of any fluid onto a plane with you, so the number of passengers being refused service for obviously carrying alcohol was fairly small. I don't know how it is now.
Currently, the authorities are considering a new regulation which would result in a suspension of license if a cab driver refuses to pick up a fare for any reason.
None of us has a Constitutional right to convenience, and yet I think most of us would agree that it is reasonable for us to expect certain things from professionals whose job it is to serve the public. Those professionals, I think also have a right to have their religious convictions respected -- but only to a point. The question is, where is that point?
The short answer is: I really don't know. Expecting people to do what you want them to just because you were born here or you were here first or you're the customer just doesn't cut the mustard. At the same time, it is reasonable for a society to set a standard for behavior and expect all living within its boundaries to uphold that standard, or move elsewhere, or face the consequences. The problem is that we don't really have a standard which covers cases like this.
It seems to me that we as a nation need to hash this out, rather than rattling our sabers and accusing those with religious convictions of pressing their faith on others, and that's the best I can do right now.
2. What happens when second (3rd/4th) girl in a Hijab shows up at Wegmans looking for a checkout job.
The smart thing for any employer to do is to describe the jobs they're offering to prospective employees, and inquire as to whether or not they have any personal convictions that would prevent them from fulfilling the job as described. If they wish to accommodate any such convictions, they should be free to do so, with the caveat that if at any time management decides accommodation is hurting the business they will cease accommodation. Should that circumstance ever arise, management should offer those employees another position where those convictions aren't an issue, or advise the employee that accommodations have ceased and that they are to do the job as originally described or turn in their uniform.
If such a policy is clearly defined and disclosed, I can't imagine anyone mounting a serious legal challenge to it.
