I perceive the story as having a greater meaning. The right to refuse service is a survival issue for cab drivers everywhere. A commission who arbitrarily forces cab drivers to give up this right is unfair because it does nothing to protect the driver if they get hurt or killed by someone the commission forced them to pick up

You obviously must not be in the industry if you feel this way about it. Transporting alcohol notwithstanding, there are a lot of reasons for a cab driver to refuse service to a passenger. They should not be penalized for it. It is dangerous out here! A cab driver's life can very well depend upon whether or not he/she picks up a passenger. This right to protect themselves should not be taken away. Note! If you are not in the industry, you have no business speaking in this forum because you don't know what you are talking about

My husband and I are seasoned cab drivers from Atlanta, GA and we own a taxicab company in New Mexico. Refusal of service, for any reason, I believe is a cab driver's right. The article said nothing about dogs, however if a cab driver had a problem with them in the past, I can't blame them for refusing to carry them. If a cab driver has ethical reasons for not wanting to carry alcohol, this should not be forced upon them either. After all, cab drivers are independent contractors and a commission who forces its wlll on them does absolutely nothing to protect them if they get hurt. See article about Piano C Red, same paper.

Instead of punishing drivers for refusal to pick up passengers, why doesn't Minneapolis St Paul offer an incentive for drivers to carry alcohol and dogs?

In fact, the less restrictions a driver places on the passengers he/she picks up, the more business that driver gets. That, alone, is incentive.