I've never understood this issue. Don't cab drivers work for companies? Shouldn't the companies be firing people who refuse to do their job? I assume open-container law still applies in a cab. It's not like their passengers are going to be drinking. Why does the state need to get into this? Why aren't the companies taking care of it? It's bizarre to me.

And if they're owner-operators, with no company to report to, then when somebody gets refused service they should just call another cab. Eventually the owner-operator will go out of business "operating" like that. I'm bewildered why this isn't sorting itself out.

Er, should've been "it's not like their passengers are going to be drinking in front of them."

Ah, so it's a "good direction" when a government considers passing a law restricting an individual's freedom of choice, because it's a position we agree with?

The state of Minnesota only issues so many taxi licenses. If the cab drivers are refusing passengers for ridiculous reasons (and who knows, alcohol might only be the first step. Next they'll refuse a woman traveling alone, etc), they have to do something to stop that. I think they should've gone with firing, personally, but fining is moving in a "good direction".

Taxi service falls under common carrier laws, just like phone service or cable TV. Yes, the driver works for a private company, but the private company has agreed to abide by certain restrictions to get the license, as Karol pointed out.

The case I find more interesting is the supermarket checkers who refuse to scan pork products. Supermarkets don't fall under common carrier laws, so is it possible the checker could successfully sue an employer who fires them for not scanning a can of pork & beans?

Ah. Makes more sense now. Fining, possibly on the path to yanking a license. Works for me.