My sense is that the system would work better than Steve
thinks, since I suspect that it would be rare that six cabbies in a row will
have this objection. It's true that, at least according to
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/709262.html, most cabbies in Minneapolis
are Somalis, and "many of them" are Muslims (by which the story likely means
observant Muslims). But my guess is that no more than a third or so will
likely have this objection, and that most will take whatever fares they want.
This might be why the Minneapolis Metropolitan Airports Commission was indeed
planning to institute a color-coded light scheme (see the story linked to
above); it would be interesting to see if this was tried and what the results
were. I realize that it's speculation both ways, but, especially given that
Minnesota courts take a Sherbert/Yoder view of the state religious freedom
provision, I would think that the burden would be on the government to try
something and show it fails.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how one can get to the
conclusion that this is a "tiny burden" on the cabbies. Apparently the cabbies
believe their religion bars them from transporting alcohol; that may seem
unreasonable to us, but our judgment about reasonableness shouldn't matter for
substantial burden purposes. And if the claim is that the burden is "tiny"
because they can just "get a different job," I just don't see how this can be
so, especially given cases such as Sherbert: For many unskilled immigrants,
there are very well-paying jobs out there, especially in this economy. Perhaps
the burden might be justified, but how can we really say that it's "tiny"?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Israeli Postal Workers Object to Delivering New Testaments
It is hard to set up such a system for cab drivers -- think of cabbies waiting
at an airport where 6 in a row refuse passengers based on their possession of a
bottle of wine. It may be a longish wait or even a very long wait for the
non-discriminating cabbie. Or just hailing one on the street -- where would
the sign be displayed? When would the discussion take place? How?
Tiny burden on those cabbies, it seems to me. And if they can't abide by the
rules, get a different job.
Public accommodations and public services just should not allow that sort of
accommodation when the service is being denied to others -- it is burdening
others based on difference of religion -- for the provision of a public service.
Many accommodations that might seem easy from the outside turn out not to be so
easy. Of course some accommodations are in fact quite easy and not as
burdensome as some people (often employers) think they will be.
In practical areas one should not be quite confident in the ease of applying a
seemingly "principled" disctinction.
Steve
_______________________________________________
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.
