Well, well, well.... I wonder if the courts will force them to work.

[Adam]

Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games.

Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.

Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.

The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

Soooo....

Will the court step in and force these drivers to engage in an activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs?


Lemme guess: that's different, somehow. It just is.

[Tom Servo]

Back in 2007, the people running the Minneapolis airport faced a similar dilemma, as 75% of the cabbies there are Muslims from Somalia. They were refusing to transport alcohol or dogs. Transporting alcohol is a sin in their religion and dogs' saliva is considered unclean. The airport authority wound up cracking down on this, revoking licenses for two years for anyone who refused a service dog or someone with liquor on their possession.

I don't know if that is still in effect or it was sued out of existence. I can't find stories saying one thing or another. If it's still in effect, then it would appear that the cab drivers don't really have the religious right to opt-out of driving for reasons they find offensive.

Personally, I feel that if they own the cab in question and are independent agents, then they should be allowed great leeway into who or what they will do with that, since it's their business. If this is a company owned cab, shut up and drive, or quit and start your own halal cab company. The vast majority of Christians in the workforce have to work on their holidays at some point in their lives, or deal with sinners in some capacity, or do things that they might not otherwise do, but "for the company". So why should it be any different for Muslims?

On the one hand, I want them to feel comfortable in their jobs as much as possible, but at the same time, I don't want to be waiting for an hour at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because there's a cab shortage because all the jumpin' jihadists are on Gay-strike. Whose comfort wins in capitalism?

[Norm dePlume]

Maybe the cab company should just put a sticker inside the cab saying that the driver does not endorse whatever the rooftop placards are advertising (as if anyone doesn't already understand that).

[Lanie]

I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.

[Adam]

I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.

Burger King is not the government.

[Novaheart]

I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.

The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. Generally "religious practice" is understood to mean the normal practice of an established religion. Given that Islam has no scriptures relating to ads on taxis, then this shouldn't be covered.

[Adam]

The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. Generally "religious practice" is understood to mean the normal practice of an established religion. Given that Islam has no scriptures relating to ads on taxis, then this shouldn't be covered.

So then we'll put you down as a "yes" vote on the courts forcing these drivers to drive cars with these ads on them.

[phillygirl]

I don't think people should do what's against their religion, but something hit me yesterday. Christians have been getting told to go against their religion by the corporate world for years. Everytime a manager at a Burger King told a cashier they had to work on Sunday despite their religious beliefs, they were being inconsiderate of their religious objections.

But it's different when they do it somehow. It just is. lol.

I worked with a girl at McDonald's whose parents would not allow her to work on Sundays, then they'd come in after Church and have breakfast. Used to annoy me.

[scott]

Maybe the cab company should just put a sticker inside the cab saying that the driver does not endorse whatever the rooftop placards are advertising (as if anyone doesn't already understand that).

Would that disclaimer work for a religious monument on government land?

[Novaheart]

Soooo....

Will the court step in and force these drivers to engage in an activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs?


Lemme guess: that's different, somehow. It just is.

The cab drivers aren't refusing to drive gay people, they are refusing to drive cabs with an ad for the gay games. Big difference. Their beef is with their company at this point and of no interest to regulatory agencies.

[Adam]

The cab drivers aren't refusing to drive gay people, they are refusing to drive cabs with an ad for the gay games. Big difference. Their beef is with their company at this point and of no interest to regulatory agencies.

Just as I predicted.

[Norm dePlume]

Would that disclaimer work for a religious monument on government land?

If there were employees driving government land around, sure. The driver does not endorse any monuments on the land. He's just a driver. But the management would likely be assumed to approve of any permanent decoration. Like if a cab were painted with a green and orange plaid pattern, I wouldn't blame the driver but I would certainly hold the cab company management responsible.

[Norm dePlume]

Burger King is not the government.

Because that would be a monarchy.

[Adam]

Because that would be a monarchy.

BOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Celeste Chalfonte]

The company is within its rights to fire anyone who refuses to do their job, generally speaking. The government can enforce non-discrimination in public accommodations. The government can't force a cab company to accept ads, but if they accept ads, they can probably be compelled to accept any ad that doesn't break the law. Or if they accept only ads for events, for example, and not products, they can be compelled to accept ads for the Gay Games and the Islamic Olympics along with the Highland Games and the Special Olympics, but not Victoria's Secret ads.

The drivers are either contractors or employees. Either way, the terms of their arrangment with the company undoubtedly require them to drive any legal vehicle the company provides. If they refuse, they can be fired. The government has no interest in it.

What's so difficult?

BTW, of course I think the employer should fire them.