I apologize if I was too quick to generalize. Maybe you meant that it is OK to make religious judgments about nonbelievers, but forbidden to make religious judgments about drinkers. An implicit distinction that I completely missed.
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:15:53 -0500 (EST) hamilto...@aol.com wrote: > >Doug-- This is actually hilarious. Reread my previous posts. You are not >even in the ballpark, as attested >to your notion that I was ever discussing "religious judgments about >nonbelievers." I'm almost certain that > >I was talking about believers and believers. I haven't "backed off" of >whatever you think I said, because >I never said it. > > >In any event, this horse is officially beaten in my view. > > >Marci > > > > > >I already said, in response to Sandy, that if a religious individual or group >occupies a blocking position, the balance of interests changes. Whether they >occupy such a position is a question of fact. You seem to assume axiomatically >that they always prevent people from finding cab, or whatever other service >we're talking about. > >But at least you seem to have backed off finding a problem with them making >religious judgments about nonbelievers. > > > > > >Marci A. Hamilton >Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >Yeshiva University >55 Fifth Avenue >New York, NY 10003 >(212) 790-0215 >hamilto...@aol.com > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> >To: hamilton02 <hamilto...@aol.com>; dlaycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>; >religionlaw <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 9:38 pm >Subject: Re: Cabbies vs. lawyers > > >I already said, in response to Sandy, that if a religious individual or group >occupies a blocking position, the balance of interests changes. Whether they >occupy such a position is a question of fact. You seem to assume axiomatically >that they always prevent people from finding cab, or whatever other service >we're talking about. > >But at least you seem to have backed off finding a problem with them making >religious judgments about nonbelievers. > >On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:35:11 -0500 (EST) > hamilto...@aol.com wrote: >>Doug-- I don't know who the royal "we" is in your comment, but I'm not >>making >a "complaint." I'm >>making what is surely an obvious philosophical, analytical point. The person >carrying the wine is >>not being picked up because they are carrying wine, which presumably is >permitted in their religious >>world view. If you are going to accommodate the religious cabbie, you are >going to burden the religious >>passenger with wine, assuming a finite number of cabbies. That is why a >neutral, common carrier rule is >>preferable to the religion-specific exemption from service you seem to be >advocating. I assume you favor >>the federal civil right that forbids a private employer from discriminating >>on >the basis of religion? How is this >>any different? A cab is not a religious organization. >> >> >> >> >>Marci >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Marci A. Hamilton >>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >>Yeshiva University >>55 Fifth Avenue >>New York, NY 10003 >>(212) 790-0215 >>hamilto...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> >>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; >hamilton02 <hamilto...@aol.com> >>Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 9:15 pm >>Subject: Re: Cabbies vs. lawyers >> >> >>I thought we were concerned about people getting home from he airport. >> >>Now the complaint is that the cabbie "is making a religious judgment about >>the >>passenger." >> >>A "religious judgment" is a form of belief, and I thought it was common >>ground >>that belief is protected absolutely, as the Court said in Cantwell v. >>Connecticut. Lord knows we are all making judgments about the cabbies. >> >>Those of us who drink, or who have looser standards on any other issue than >more >>morally scupulous adherents of various religions, certainly cannot have a >>right > >>for those more scuprulous souls not to make judgments about us. >> >>On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 20:52:35 -0500 (EST) >> hamilto...@aol.com wrote: >>>That is, in my view, a misstatement of the facts. The person carrying the >>alcohol holds a religious worldview that >>>permits them to drink, carry, and transport alcohol. The cabdriver refusing >to >>transport them is making a religious judgment about the passenger. The only >>passengers you can be certain this cabdriver will always transport are those >>with the same religious worldview. Discounting the religious world view of >>the > >>passenger leads to a one-sided analysis. >>> >>> >>>Again, just as in the contraception context, the contemporary discourse >>generally has discounted the religious beliefs of the >>>person who is affected by the accommodation. You aren't going to find many >>pairings of people in the US where both >>>don't have some religious beliefs/world view. Religious claimants who want >>accommodation freight their arguments >>>with claims of the "religious" vs. the "secular", but that is a rhetorical >>ruse. In fact, a religious individual demanding an accommodation more often >>than not burdens someone who does not share their religious world view but >>who >>has a competing >>>world view. >>> >>> >>>Marci >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Marci A. Hamilton >>>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >>>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >>>Yeshiva University >>>55 Fifth Avenue >>>New York, NY 10003 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>They aren’t discriminating against anyone on the basis of that person’s >>religion. The cabbies’ own religious beliefs are leading them to discriminate >>against people who are openly carrying alcoholic beverages. I’m not sure I >>know > >>of any religion that calls on its adherents to carry alcoholic beverages >openly. >>> >>> >>>Mark S. Scarberry >>>Pepperdine Univ. School of Law >>>Malibu, CA 90263 >>>(310)506-4667 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Marci A. Hamilton >>>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >>>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >>>Yeshiva University >>>55 Fifth Avenue >>>New York, NY 10003 >>>(212) 790-0215 >>>hamilto...@aol.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Scarberry, Mark <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> >>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >>>Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 8:40 pm >>>Subject: RE: Cabbies vs. lawyers >>> >>> >>> >>>They aren’t discriminating against anyone on the basis of that person’s >>religion. The cabbies’ own religious beliefs are leading them to discriminate >>against people who are openly carrying alcoholic beverages. I’m not sure I >>know > >>of any religion that calls on its adherents to carry alcoholic beverages >openly. >>> >>> >>>Mark S. Scarberry >>>Pepperdine Univ. School of Law >>>Malibu, CA 90263 >>>(310)506-4667 >>> >>> >>> >>>From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>>[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] > >>On Behalf Of Steven Jamar >>>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:18 PM >>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>>Subject: Re: Cabbies vs. lawyers >>> >>> >>> >>>Are not the cabbies discriminating against customers on the basis of >>>religion? > >>Or is the alcohol proxy enough to remove that taint? >>> >>>Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>>On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:38 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> In a sense this may be obvious, but it might be worth >>restating: One thing that is facing the cabbies is that for complex reasons >>cabbies are stripped of liberties that the rest of us take for granted. If >>we >>disapprove of alcohol – whether because we’re Muslim or Methodist, or because >>a > >>close family member is an alcoholic or was injured by a drunk driver – we are >>free to refuse to fix the plumbing in a bar, to give legal advice to Coors, >>or >>to refuse to let people carrying beer bottles onto our business property. To >be >>sure, our right to freedom of choice may have been limited in some ways by >>bans > >>on race discrimination, sex discrimination, religious discrimination, and the >>like. But whether right or wrong those bans still leave us mostly free to >>choose whom to do business with. >>> >>> The cab drivers thus want only the same kind of liberty that >>the rest of us generally have. Their argument isn’t a pure freedom of choice >>argument (which the law has rightly or wrongly denied to cabbies generally) >>but > >>a freedom of choice argument coupled with a religious freedom argument; but >that >>simply shows that this freedom of choice is even more important to them than >>it > >>generally is to the rest of us. >>> >>> This doesn’t mean that they should win. Maybe there’s a >really >>good reason for denying cabbies, including religious objectors, this freedom >>of > >>choice when it comes to transporting alcohol. But it does cast a different >>light on objections to people “choosing [clients] according to [the >>choosers’] >>religious belief,” or “demand[ing] a ‘right’ to exist in a culture that >>mirrors > >>their views.” No-one makes such objections when we as lawyers pick and >>choose >>our clients; no-one faults us for choosing them according to our religious >>beliefs (unless those beliefs require race or sex discrimination or such); >>no-one says that lawyers who refuse to work for alcohol distributors demand a >>right to exist in a culture that mirrors our views. Likewise, I don’t think >>it’s fair to condemn cabbies for seeking, in this one area that is unusually >>important to them, the same freedom that lawyers have. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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. >>> >>> >> >>Douglas Laycock >>Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law >>University of Virginia Law School >>580 Massie Road >>Charlottesville, VA 22903 >> 434-243-8546 >> >> > >Douglas Laycock >Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law >University of Virginia Law School >580 Massie Road >Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 _______________________________________________ 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.
