First, there is the ongoing issue of Muslim cab drivers refusing to drive customers carrying alcohol or pets at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Metropolitan Airport Commission proposed a crackdown on drivers who refuse fares for religious or other reasons, which apparently happens to about 100 customers a month.

The commission’s position was simple: If you want to drive a cab at the airport, you must serve all customers. The idea seems to make sense.

The cab drivers disagreed, contending that following these rules would deny them the right to freely practice their religion.

At a meeting to discuss the proposed crackdown, Muslim leaders claimed that asking cab drivers to accept all clients was discrimination.

Translation: Muslim cab drivers should be allowed to discriminate in choices of passengers, but no one should be able to make them do their job.

Then there is the case of the six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight last November. The imams have filed a suit against the MAC claiming they were removed from the plane because of their race and religion.

Passengers on the flight reported that the imams were praying loudly, repeatedly switching seats and using the word “Allah,” and requesting seatbelt extenders. According to the suit, the imams were humiliated when police officers used dogs to sniff and search their belongings.

Translation: Even in a post-9/11 world, Muslim passengers cannot be singled out for odd behavior that frightens other passengers. And law enforcement agents should not be allowed to follow standard search procedures in place to increase airline safety.

If the tables were turned and a Christian passenger were acting equally strange, shouldn’t Muslim passengers also be allowed to call security?

Then there is the recent incident at a Target store where a cashier refused to handle pork, eventually asking the customer to scan the product and place it in the bag. The incident set off a rash of comments on the Star Tribune blog.

The customer who was forced to scan his own product, Beryl Dsouza, said, “It made me wonder why this person took a job as a cashier.”

Legal experts cited in a Star Tribune article said that although the supermarket might be obligated to serve all customers, the individual cashier is not. The article also compared the cashier’s legal ground to a pharmacist who refuses birth control or morning-after pills.

Really?

Translation: Muslim workers should be allowed to take any job they want, despite the fact that key elements of their work might be in opposition to their religious beliefs. It’s up to the store and society to accommodate.

As a Christian, I have to be in favor of some workplace and cultural accommodations for religious beliefs that are granted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the issue gets a bit silly if we start to say that it is only American society that must accommodate Muslim, or any other religion’s, belief with no regard for the reverse impact on consumers and airline passengers.

What about the right to get a taxi at the airport, regardless of your race, religion or the contents of what you bring with you? What about the right to report perceived threats on a flight in a world where terrorists have already used planes as weapons? What about the freedom to shop at the local convenience store without having to worry about your bacon offending the store clerk?