(1) The fact that we limit businesspeople's freedom of choice
when it comes to discriminating against customers based on race,
religion, sex, and so on doesn't mean that we ought to limit it as to
everything else.
(2) In particular, I don't know of any rules that bar Muslim
grocers from refusing to serve people who are carrying six packs from
other stores, nor do I see why there should be such rules.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
> Finkelman
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:45 PM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis
> refusecustomerswithalco hol
>
> Again, the employement compesation is different; this is
> about a duty of common carriers to accept all people.
> Moreover, it opens too many other exceptions -- pagan
> symbols, race mixing (Bob Jones Cab Co. won't pick up mixed
> race couples); I think we all think of many examples of how
> very religious people can find a religious reason for not
> picking up someone; can a muslim tow truck driver refuse to
> tow the broken Miller Beer Truck? Can the Muslim bus driver
> close the door on the overtly pagan kids trying to get on the
> bus; can Muslim Cabbies (or Evangelical
> Christians) refuse to carry Wickens? Where, I would ask,
> would Greg or Eugene draw the line -- on common carries and
> places of public accommodations? The Muslim grocer can close
> on Friday and refuse to carry beer; but he cannot refuse to
> sell to someone who bought beer next store and is legally
> carrying a six pack (closed of course) as he tried to by
> chips and salsa in the Muslim store. By the way, if they
> meet other criteria, would favor unemployment compensation
> for Muslin cabbies who quit because they cannot obey the law
> which requires them to take all passengers.
>
> Paul FInkelman
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/29/06 6:45 PM >>>
> It seems to me that the right question is whether the
> religious accommodation may be made in a manner that does not
> cause an unacceptable burden to others. Whether or not such
> an accommodation is compelled, in the post-Employment
> Division v. Smith period, it surely is not prohibited.
>
>
>
> Being here in Minneapolis as I am, I can report that this
> story has received significant play in the press. And,
> interestingly, this appears to be a case in which all the
> parties concerned are behaving with courtesy and respect in
> an attempt to find the right balance and live together in a
> community without being forced to surrender faith. The
> Muslim cab drivers agree that they would not inquire as to
> what a person is carrying - the Koran does not impose such a
> duty of inquiry - so any alcohol included in baggage would
> not be known to or covered by the their refusal to accept the
> carriage of alcohol. The concern is for visible carrying of
> alcohol (although not just in open containers, as Paul
> Finkelman correctly assumed).
> The Muslim cab drivers further have agreed that they would
> place a different colored light on their cabs, so that the
> attendants for the cab waiting line at the airport would
> simply direct the next passenger in line who is visibly
> carrying alcohol to the next cab in line that does not have
> the different light. In most cases, this would occur so
> unobtrusively that the passenger wouldn't even know what has
> just occurred. In this way, every passenger still will
> receive cab service in the order in which he or she appears
> in the cab waiting line, while the Muslim cab drivers may
> face a temporary wait for the next passenger without alcohol,
> a minor burden placed on and accepted by the Muslim community
> in exchange for accommodation of their deeply-held beliefs.
> Please keep in mind as well that this is Minneapolis-St. Paul
> - not New York or Washington, D.C. - so that most passengers
> arriving at the airport are not taking cabs and thus
> accommodation for the relatively few passengers who do take
> cabs is made all the easier.
>
>
>
> Eugene's point of comparison with unemployment beneficaries
> is quite apt, in light of recent events in Germany. As he
> says, drawing the comparison with the Muslim cab drivers,
> "One could equally well say that unemployment beneficiaries
> must take any job for which they're qualified, end of story,
> having been granted unemployment compensation on those
> terms." A case recently arose in Germany in which a young
> woman, a person of faith as I recall, who received
> unemployment compensation was told that her benefits would be
> terminated because she had refused to accept a job as a
> prostitute that had been posted at the unemployment office,
> prostitution being a legal form of business in Germany.
> While that ruling was overturned once public attention was
> drawn to it, it certainly confirms the serious danger to
> personal faith and values that may be posed by requiring a
> person to fall into line simply by receipt of a public benefit.
>
>
>
> Greg Sisk
>
>
>
> Gregory Sisk
>
> Professor of Law
>
> University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
>
> MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue
>
> Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005
>
> 651-962-4923
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html
> <http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html>
>
> _____
>
> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:37 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse
> customerswithalcohol
>
>
>
> Sandy: I still wonder why this isn't just assuming the
> conclusion.
> One
> could equally well say that unemployment beneficiaries must
> take any job for which they're qualified, end of story,
> having been granted unemployment compensation on those terms.
> Or one could say that a restaurant given a valuable liquor
> license must open seven days a week, end of story,
> notwithstanding the fact that its owner feels a religious
> obligation to close Saturdays or Sundays.
>
>
>
>
> The question here is whether it's proper for those who
> define the rules to come up with an exception that
> accommodates the licensee's religious beliefs, while at the
> same time avoiding inconvenience to the public.
> It's
> hard to come up with such an accommodation for the postal
> worker, but not that hard, I think, for the cab drivers (the
> color-coding being a pretty good idea). If the airport is
> willing to accommodate the drivers, why not let it do that?
>
>
>
> There is also, of course, the question whether such an
> accommodation should be constitutionally required. I think
> it shouldn't be, because I generally agree with Smith. But
> if one accepts Sherbert/Yoder -- including as to Sherbert
> herself, who is being granted a valuable public benefit
> --
> then why wouldn't the cab drivers have a very strong case?
> (As I mentioned, the Minnesota Supreme Court has accepted the
> Sherbert/Yoder approach to the Minnesota Constitution's
> religious freedom provision.) Perhaps the rule should be
> something less than strict scrutiny when it comes to
> conditions of government benefits (cf.
> http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/intermed.htm#GovernmentasEmployer
> <http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/intermed.htm#GovernmentasEmplo
> yer> for a discussion of this issue as to the government as
> employer), though I take it that this would mean less than
> strict scrutiny in Sherbert, too. But why should it be no
> scrutiny, "government wins, end of story"?
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Sanford Levinson
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:29 PM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse
> customerswithalcohol
>
> I confess I'm with Paul on this one. As someone who has
> often taught professional responsibility, I've defended the
> "cab rank" rule. To put it mildly, it is disconcerting to be
> told that the "cab rank rule" doesn't apply to cabs! They
> are common carriers, end of story, having been granted a
> valuable public license. If they want to exercise that kind
> of discretion, let them open a livery company. We've earlier
> discussed, on more than one occasion, whether a postal worker
> MUST deliver personally offensive magazines. The answer is
> yes, and I don't recall that Eugene disagreed.
>
> Sandy
> - Sanford Levinson
> (Sent from a Blackberry)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
