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.
