Where do we draw the line when one's religious convictions affect job performance? Many people are up in arms about Muslim cabbies' refusal to transport dogs or alcohol. Not too long ago, people were outraged that some Christian pharmacists refused to dispense what they considered abortifacients. I have declined to build websites that included gratuitous nudity and for religions whose doctrines conflict with my faith, and I will continue to select the clients I will deal with based on my personal religious, moral and political convictions. As a society, where do we draw the line?

The answer is easy. We don't. Any line that we draw will take away someone's freedom. A cab company or pharmacy is free to write job descriptions that include carrying dogs or dispensing anything a doctor describes, and to only hire people that will meet the job description. Cabbies and pharmacists with restrictions on what they will do can seek employment elsewhere or start their own company and compete in the marketplace.

The current plan to add lights to identify Muslim cabs is an excellent one. As for me, whether or not I am carrying alcohol or have a dog with me, I'll just refrain from using those cabs, just as some potential clients have undoubtedly not dialed my number because my business is overtly Christian - the name even references a bible verse, and if someone asks about it, I'm happy to explain. We should not attempt to force someone to violate their religious convictions, no matter how foolish we may find those convictions. To do so is not just abhorrent, it's unAmerican.

Update: Daniel Pipes thinks it's a bad idea:

But on a societal level, the proposed solution has massive and worrisome implications. Namely, the two-light plan intrudes the Shari‘a, or Islamic law, with state sanction, into a mundane commercial transaction in Minnesota. A government authority thus sanctions a signal as to who does or does not follow Islamic law.

What of taxi drivers beyond those at MSP? Other Muslims in Minneapolis-St. Paul and across the country could well demand the same privilege. Bus conductors might follow suit. The whole transport system could be divided between those Islamically observant and those not so.

Why stop with alcohol? Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals, and unmarried couples. For that matter, they could ban men wearing kippas, as well as Hindus, atheists, bartenders, croupiers, astrologers, bankers, and quarterbacks.

He's certainly right in that this could escalate, and it seems clear that this will result in bad service. But I still don't see a better solution - how can we force someone to violate their religious beliefs?