Re: Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy
Thanks, Marie. Does anyone have a copy of the fatwa, or the alternative interpretations? On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Marie A. Failinger mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu wrote: Here is what I have learned about the Minneapolis cab controversy. According to the civil rights leader I spoke with, the controversy started because of the fatwa referred to below. After it came out and cabdrivers began to follow it, other imams in the Twin Cities came out with opinions indicating that it was not forbidden to carry passengers with alcohol. (Sounds like a federal court split-in-circuits type dustup:) Most of the cab drivers followed the other imams' opinions and kept working under the MAC must carry rules. The leader said that she had not recently heard anything regarding the legal action. Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 (work phone) 651-523-2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) Marie A. Failinger mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu 3/8/2012 9:17 AM Marty, the fatwa is described in the following Star Tribune article, http://www.startribune.com/local/11586646.html (which also reports one local well-respected imam's opinion that carrying a disability service dog should not pose a problem for Muslim cabdrivers.) Marie A. Failinger ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy
Thanks very much! This is good to know. Our piece on Muslim religious liberty in the federal courts was accepted at the Iowa Law Review on Friday, so it has a home now. Greg From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marie A. Failinger [mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 11:05 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy Here is what I have learned about the Minneapolis cab controversy. According to the civil rights leader I spoke with, the controversy started because of the fatwa referred to below. After it came out and cabdrivers began to follow it, other imams in the Twin Cities came out with opinions indicating that it was not forbidden to carry passengers with alcohol. (Sounds like a federal court split-in-circuits type dustup:) Most of the cab drivers followed the other imams' opinions and kept working under the MAC must carry rules. The leader said that she had not recently heard anything regarding the legal action. Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 (work phone) 651-523-2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) Marie A. Failinger mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu 3/8/2012 9:17 AM Marty, the fatwa is described in the following Star Tribune article, http://www.startribune.com/local/11586646.html (which also reports one local well-respected imam's opinion that carrying a disability service dog should not pose a problem for Muslim cabdrivers.) Marie A. Failinger ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy
Thanks very much, Marie. Is any or all of this documented somewhere, in addition to the state court of appeals case? On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Marie A. Failinger mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu wrote: Just to add to my previous post in response to Marty's questions: 1. Not all of the Muslim cabbies felt religiously obliged to refuse to carry passengers with open displays of al to the cohol (or dogs) as I remember. However, there was a fatwa issued by a local Muslim organization saying that they shouldn't do it. Since a fatwa is a legal opinion, it certainly provides legal authority for the cabbies' insistence that they shouldn't do it; it wasn't simply their personal view per se. 2. Airport regulation 102 now provides that taxi drivers cannot refuse to take a passenger unless he refuses to pay, is seriously intoxicated or is a physical threat. One provision of the section also prohibits drivers from refusing service based on race, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or age, or having a service dog. 3. The cabbies' appeal for an injunction was denied by the trial court and upheld by Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2008 on the basis that they had an adequate remedy at law--any license denial could be appealed and the cabbie could keep his license in the meantime. Dolal v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n, 2008 WL 4133517 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court/ I couldn't find much recently about the effect on Muslims serving the airport except this related news, in January, a major airport taxi company here fired Somali drivers who protested the refusal of the company to sit down and negotiate their working conditions http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2012/01/report_somali_cabbies_learn_pr.shtml Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 (work phone) 651-523-2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com 3/7/2012 5:35 AM Can anyone point me to a good, thorough account of what happened in Minneapolis, including (i) the explanations, if any, the cabbies offered for why the lack of the exemption burdened their religious exercise (did it mean they were unable to accept work as other forms of common carriers, such as pilots, UPS/FedEx delivery employees, bus drivers, etc.?); (ii) how the controversy was resolved as a matter of law; and (iii) what became of the Muslim drivers after the exemption was revoked. Thanks in advance. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy
Marty, the fatwa is described in the following Star Tribune article, http://www.startribune.com/local/11586646.html (which also reports one local well-respected imam's opinion that carrying a disability service dog should not pose a problem for Muslim cabdrivers.) The airport ordinance can be found on the Twin Cities Metropolitan Airports Commission website. I am trying to investigate the fallout issue with a local Muslim civil rights leader and will report back if I get any info. In fact, if anyone is interested in investigating the extreme nature of some opinions about Muslims in the U.S., I would suggest that you Google this issue and read some of the non-news postings. Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 (work phone) 651-523-2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com 3/8/2012 5:29 AM Thanks very much, Marie. Is any or all of this documented somewhere, in addition to the state court of appeals case? On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Marie A. Failinger mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu wrote: Just to add to my previous post in response to Marty's questions: 1. Not all of the Muslim cabbies felt religiously obliged to refuse to carry passengers with open displays of al to the cohol (or dogs) as I remember. However, there was a fatwa issued by a local Muslim organization saying that they shouldn't do it. Since a fatwa is a legal opinion, it certainly provides legal authority for the cabbies' insistence that they shouldn't do it; it wasn't simply their personal view per se. 2. Airport regulation 102 now provides that taxi drivers cannot refuse to take a passenger unless he refuses to pay, is seriously intoxicated or is a physical threat. One provision of the section also prohibits drivers from refusing service based on race, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or age, or having a service dog. 3. The cabbies' appeal for an injunction was denied by the trial court and upheld by Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2008 on the basis that they had an adequate remedy at law--any license denial could be appealed and the cabbie could keep his license in the meantime. Dolal v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n, 2008 WL 4133517 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court/ I couldn't find much recently about the effect on Muslims serving the airport except this related news, in January, a major airport taxi company here fired Somali drivers who protested the refusal of the company to sit down and negotiate their working conditions http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2012/01/report_somali_cabbies_learn_pr.shtml Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 ( tel:651-523-2124 ) (work phone) 651-523-2236 ( tel:651-523-2236 ) (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com 3/7/2012 5:35 AM Can anyone point me to a good, thorough account of what happened in Minneapolis, including (i) the explanations, if any, the cabbies offered for why the lack of the exemption burdened their religious exercise (did it mean they were unable to accept work as other forms of common carriers, such as pilots, UPS/FedEx delivery employees, bus drivers, etc.?); (ii) how the controversy was resolved as a matter of law; and (iii) what became of the Muslim drivers after the exemption was revoked. Thanks in advance. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy
Can anyone point me to a good, thorough account of what happened in Minneapolis, including (i) the explanations, if any, the cabbies offered for why the lack of the exemption burdened their religious exercise (did it mean they were unable to accept work as other forms of common carriers, such as pilots, UPS/FedEx delivery employees, bus drivers, etc.?); (ii) how the controversy was resolved as a matter of law; and (iii) what became of the Muslim drivers after the exemption was revoked. Thanks in advance. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy
Just to add to my previous post in response to Marty's questions: 1. Not all of the Muslim cabbies felt religiously obliged to refuse to carry passengers with open displays of alcohol (or dogs) as I remember. However, there was a fatwa issued by a local Muslim organization saying that they shouldn't do it. Since a fatwa is a legal opinion, it certainly provides legal authority for the cabbies' insistence that they shouldn't do it; it wasn't simply their personal view per se. 2. Airport regulation 102 now provides that taxi drivers cannot refuse to take a passenger unless he refuses to pay, is seriously intoxicated or is a physical threat. One provision of the section also prohibits drivers from refusing service based on race, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or age, or having a service dog. 3. The cabbies' appeal for an injunction was denied by the trial court and upheld by Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2008 on the basis that they had an adequate remedy at law--any license denial could be appealed and the cabbie could keep his license in the meantime. Dolal v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n, 2008 WL 4133517 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court/ I couldn't find much recently about the effect on Muslims serving the airport except this related news, in January, a major airport taxi company here fired Somali drivers who protested the refusal of the company to sit down and negotiate their working conditions http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2012/01/report_somali_cabbies_learn_pr.shtml Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 (work phone) 651-523-2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com 3/7/2012 5:35 AM Can anyone point me to a good, thorough account of what happened in Minneapolis, including (i) the explanations, if any, the cabbies offered for why the lack of the exemption burdened their religious exercise (did it mean they were unable to accept work as other forms of common carriers, such as pilots, UPS/FedEx delivery employees, bus drivers, etc.?); (ii) how the controversy was resolved as a matter of law; and (iii) what became of the Muslim drivers after the exemption was revoked. Thanks in advance. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
