Naldo
10-10-2006, 12:19 PM
An interesting story reared it's head today.
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/709262.html
So muslim cabbies in the Minneapolis area are refusing to carry passengers that have alcohol on their persons.
I heard this story on the radio and apparently there are even some cabbies that are refusing to pick up blind/disabled people that have seeing-eye/assistance dogs. (apparently the Koran forbids hanging out with dogs in addition to alcohol).
So what I'm wondering is, who is more intolerant? The city that tells a cabbie he can't discriminate against those with aid animals? or the city that tells the public they can't discriminate against the muslim cabby? How far are these practices to be accommodated?
And how is this different than a christian pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for b.c.?
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/709262.html
So muslim cabbies in the Minneapolis area are refusing to carry passengers that have alcohol on their persons.
I heard this story on the radio and apparently there are even some cabbies that are refusing to pick up blind/disabled people that have seeing-eye/assistance dogs. (apparently the Koran forbids hanging out with dogs in addition to alcohol).
So what I'm wondering is, who is more intolerant? The city that tells a cabbie he can't discriminate against those with aid animals? or the city that tells the public they can't discriminate against the muslim cabby? How far are these practices to be accommodated?
And how is this different than a christian pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for b.c.?