Minneapolis cab drivers wag their fingers at your duty-free purchases
First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!
Flying internationally into Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport? Bringing in some duty free liquor? Taking a cab? Better hide the hooch, and hide it well.
A number of Somalian cabbies in the area, citing their religious beliefs, have been refusing to transport passengers who are carrying or are even suspected of carrying liquor. It’s become pervasive enough that the city is considering a system for marking cabs that are anti-booze.
Driving a taxi means transporting all kinds of people, most of whom probably have some habits that you find repulsive in some way or another. Where do you draw the line? Perhaps “cab driver” isn’t the best career choice for these particular Minnesotans.
RSS Feed / Subscribe
Subscribe to Posts by Email
September 19th, 2006 at 3:23 pm |
This is utterly absurd. Cabs are considered public accomodation; that’s the cost of getting their license. If they’re so intolerant and unhappy, go back to Somalia, where there is no liquor, not to mention the fact there’s no economy or actual functioning government.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:05 pm |
Yep, this happened to us on return from overseas in 2003- purchased duty-free wine at LAX and were refused transport by two different drivers at MSP- COmplained to airport commission but no response-
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:34 pm |
I’m surprised that the city is considering a “system” for marking such cabs. I suspect that cabbies, who are public carriers (in the legal sense) are violating the law by denying carriage to someone who is engaging in a lawful activity.
What if the cabbies denied access to people engaged in other “haram” (forbidden) activities? Such as homosexuals, unmarried couples, blind people with dogs, or menstruating women? I’ve got a feeling the city government’s politically correct attitude would change pretty quickly. But, from a matter of principle, what’s the difference?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:58 pm |
[…] Update: No kowtowing to teetotaling taxicabs Remember the cabdrivers who were refusing to transport passengers from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport if they suspected the traveler was carrying alcohol? The airports commission has wisely reversed its earlier plans to label taxis as “wet” or “dry.” If a cabbie refuses a fare for any reason, he now has to go to the back of the line. Good. If you don’t want to transport people whom you find objectionable for whatever reason, don’t be a cabdriver. Simple enough. […]
April 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm |
[…] or subscribe to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!First it was Somali taxis refusing to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol, because the drivers’ religious beliefs were […]
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 am |
[…] The rights of taxi passengers at Minneapolis Airport Remember the Minneapolis taxi drivers who were refusing to transport anyone they suspected was carrying alcohol? (Those duty-free bags were a dead giveaway.) First, the […]
May 31st, 2007 at 1:30 am |
If you have alcohol, it makes a difference if you are going to Highland or Orono.