Can this possibly be the right analysis? (1) It seems to me that the law routinely distinguishes between X discriminating against Y based on Y’s race or Y’s religion, and X discriminating against Y based on X’s own religious beliefs that are independent of Y’s race or religion. In many states, for instance, a lawyer can’t reject a client based on the client’s race, but I take it that a lawyer could refuse to represent banks on the grounds that the lawyer believes that charging interest is evil – or for that matter could refuse to represent liquor stores on the grounds that the lawyer believes that liquor is evil. Likewise, under Title VII an employer can’t fire an employee based on the employee’s race, but it can fire an employee based on the employee’s adultery (assuming it applies this rule equally to men and women), even when the employer’s hostility to adultery stems from the employer’s religious beliefs.
There is the separate question, of course, of whether taxicab drivers should be required to take all comers, without regard to race, baggage, or anything else. But this has nothing to do with the race discrimination analogy. Rather, the issue is whether there ought to be a religious exemption to the take-all-comers rule, a very different question than whether there ought to be a religious exemption to various race discrimination bans. (2) How it could possibly be relevant, for purposes of religious accommodation law, that “a number of imams announced the cabbies were misreading the Koran”? The question, given Thomas, is what the cabbies sincerely thought, not what “a number of” religious leaders think. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:59 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Requirement that cabbies transport alcohol = "tiny burden"? Why is anger at a publicly licensed cab picking and choosing passengers according to religious belief anything like anti-Muslim animus? Cabbies can't reject passengers on race. Why should they be able to reject those with religious beliefs different from their own? If they don't want to be in the company of nonbelievers, they should find another line of work. Also-- a number of imams announced the cabbies were misreading the Koran. There was no requirement they not transport others' cases of wine. No one was asking them to drink the wine We have crossed the line from legitimate claims to accommodation into the territory where religious believers demand a "right" to exist in a culture that mirrors their views. That is called Balkanization Marci
_______________________________________________ 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.