Should cab drivers have the right to refuse costmers?

Question

Minneapolis just announced that cab companies can NOT refuse customers with use of alcohol or have a service animal. This particular cab company have refused service base on religious beliefs.

The cab company is hired by the city to provide a service. The cabs have exclusivity of this service for the city (no competition). They have the right to refuse people that pose a threat.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Sounds like their policy is on a case-by-case basis. It's probably good that they give rides to the alcohol-impaired. Certainly that's preferable to the drunk getting behind a wheel and maybe killing someone. Of course, the cabdriver runs the risk of the drunk vomiting all over the cab which he has to clean up--not the drunk. Service animals should most definitely be allowed in a cab or in any form of public transportation. A lot of people would not be able to get around if they didn't have these animals to help them.

Religious beliefs should not be an issue unless there is a riot or something dangerous going on like that and the extremist would commandeer the cab. Then it wouldn't matter whether it was religious, racial, ethnic, whatever--if there was a chance the driver or any passengers already in the cab would be in danger, then he should use his judgment to refuse service. If it's only because the person is wearing some obvious symbol of his religious beliefs (like an Orthodox Jew), then that's illegal.

It would seem obvious that you would refuse service to someone if you thought they posed a threat if you saw some type of weapon. Sounds like they have a public policy of not refusing customers, but a private one of use your own judgment--flawed as it may be. Any time there is no competition you're going to find abuses.

I'm curious--is there any other public transportation--bus system perhaps in Minneapolis? What's their policy?

Answer 2

hmmm...a cab company based in religiousness refusing people they are hired by the city to transport because they are mentally or physically inable........hmmmm....let me think.......no. Not a simple out of the way calm no...but an oh my god what they hell are you thinkin' f^ck NO!

You are a cabbie, you cab. That means you normally pick up passengers who pay you. Now in this case, the city has picked up the bill for nonpaying customers (ie clients of the city) to utilize the service the city has provided. Refusing service to the citizens becaus ethey are drunk or have a service animal is breaking the contract with the city.

Refusing service to the physically handicapped goes against federal regulations that protect physically impaired citizens rights. If a legally sanctioned business does not meet the growing demands of the physically impaired soon, they will find their business license yanked from the taxable deductible status.

Refusing assistance to the drunk or mentally imbalanced individuals may very well be setting themselves up for a city ban against that product or service. How many cities do you know of that have offered a free service for those that can not legally drive home after a night out? If you don't have an answer, the answer is many. No city likes a drunk driving accident, especially with the city's youth have been killed in that accident. This free service is a way to allow persons an alternative to driving drunk and causing an accident.

It may be allowable by federal guidelines to refuse service to drunk passengers because of possible risks....but in no way shape or form is it even conceiveable to legally refuse service to a blind individual with a seeing eye dog!

Answer 3

I don't think that they should refuse people who have been drinking or people with service animals. Neither one of these people pose a threat to them. If their worried about angry drunks, then they should get their car fitted with a divider.

If their religious beliefs keep them from doing their job, then they shouldn't be cab drivers. They should find another line of work.

Answer 4

Minneapolis should not allow that company to have a monopoly on the city.

Is the company as a whole refusing service to these people, or simply certain cab drivers?

Answer 5

I think they should be able to refuse service to anyone for just being rude, not to mention safety. Maybe if people could not get a cab to take them somewhere they might actually have manners.

Answer 6

If they're contracted by the city, then they shouldn't be able to refuse anyone (unless they can clearly argue that it was an issue of safety..ie, guy wielding a gun). But for a private cab company, they should be able to refuse anyone.

Answer 7

As sala'amu alei'kum, aziza.
[Peace and blessings be upon you, friend. Arabic]

If a man finds his religion to be the cause of his not being able to do justice to his job, then he profanes his Faith.

The Muslim cabbies who said that blasphemed since the requirement is only that they do not partake of such, but there's no reason why they shouldn't transport anyone who carries such.

The refusal to allow a "seeing" dog and a blind man was a despicable act not condoned by his Faith.

If they don't like it, they should leave the job and even the Country; not live there and say that they cannot adapt.

May Peace and Blessings be upon all of you.

Ma sala'amah, ya aziza.
[Vaya con Dios. Arabic]

Answer 8

Absolutely, but only if the driver feels threatened or as if he/she is in some type of danger. There is no reason a person should risk their life to give a ride to a potential murderer, or get robbed or stabbed because they are not allowed to refuse a passenger. However, they should never be able to refuse a person based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientaion, ect.

Answer 9

I think if it is a private company they can choose to serve whom ever they want, BUT I would suggest to cab comapnies not to deny a drunk person a ride, at least they arent driving themselves.

Answer 10

No they shouldn't have the right to refuse costmers because if they do they will probly lose their job and won't make any money.