What should taxi drivers and pharmacists have in common?

In the Twin Cities, we have recently had a debate over Muslim taxi drivers and their refusal to drive passengers carrying alcohol due to religious belief (found in the Qur'an). I find it fascinating that MAC (Metropolitan Airports Commission) tried to bend over nearly backwards coming up with a solution (though that didn't fly, either). Basically, of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport, 3/4 are Somali, many of whom are Muslim. If a Muslim taxi driver at the airport refuses to carry a passenger with any alcohol in their luggage (or for any other reason other than a safety issue), the taxi driver is forced to move to the end of the taxi queue (where it might be another three hours before the next fare). So, here comes MAC, trying to solve the problem. They suggested color coding the lights on cab roofs to indicate which cabs will carry whom. Now, the MAC solution is not going over too well. I gather there is fear that, eventually, religious divides would become so great that even in day-to-day levels such as tax rides, society would fail to function. However, there appears to still be momentum out there to somehow address this issue in a way that will satisfy all sides.

But it brings to mind this last legislative session here in Minnesota where legislation was introduced that was dubbed the "Pharmacist's Conscience Clause." Why is there no one bending over backwards to accommodate those pharmacists who, due to religious belief, do not want to dispense contraceptives or morning-after pills? There is the predominant thought from several legislators (Senators Lourey and Kiscaden, though now retiring, both sponsored legislation last session to this effect) that there shouldn't even be an "end of the line" for a pharmacist, but that they should be forced by threat of disciplinary action (see subdivision 3) to dispense such drugs, no matter their own personal beliefs. Let alone "color coded lights" on the pharmacy walls.

Does anyone else out there find this a little hypocritical? Christians don't matter but Muslims do? (I say this because from my perspective, those objecting to dispensing these pharmaceuticals and those sponsoring the legislation are predominantly Christian.) Are we this politically correct?

My only response - though ghastly and just as illogical as their own - is we should have a Muslim pharmacist testify in support of, if not sponsor, the pharmacist's conscience clause. We'd get better results. Or, at the very least, a discussion.