The issue of a "right" or "privilege" to employment which often pervades discussions of rights-vs-rights clashes between religious and other individuals misses the mark in this case, it seems to me, even though in other cases I think it is worthwhile considering that people have a choice of employment, e.g., as a pharmacist, a lawyer, etc. In the case of the professions, students undergo lengthy training, including into the norms of the profession. There are plenty of exit points if the person identifies a conflict with his or her religion. By contrast, the Somali cab drivers in Minnesota drive cabs because those are one of the few jobs available in the Twin Cities that pay enough to support a family and do not require training or credentials that many of them do not have and cannot obtain without difficulty because of cultural and economic barriers. That, and the networking assistance that immigrant communities often provide each other in seeking work is why there are so many of them. There was no clear "you must carry everyone" rule in place before this controversy arose as far as I know, so that they could choose not to opt into this line of work. Moreover, these taxi licenses are a big investment--they used to cost $25,000, though that may have changed recently. A driver would be giving up a huge investment (for him or his boss who paid it) to simply "leave the job." Although there may have been cases where the passengers were significantly inconvenienced (some of the news stories report a 20-minute wait), the complaints of the passengers sounded more in the nature of a "common carrier"/property right to service. A customer quote: "They're here to provide service to people. . . .We were a lawful customer, and we were denied service. That's not our way of doing things." An airports commission quote: "Our expectation is that if you're going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it." Ironically, but perhaps to be expected, it is the Somali cab drivers who recognize that there is a right to religious freedom in the U.S. in these stories:)
Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Editor, Journal of Law and Religion Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651-523-2124 (work phone) 651-523-2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) >>> Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> 3/6/2012 7:49 PM >>> Are we to do away with the common carrier rules that have prevailed for centuries? Various businesses are different from one another and have long been treated so according the law. No one has a right to be a cab driver if they cannot comply with the common carrier rules any more than people have the right to be lawyers if they cannot comply with the requirements of our profession. This is not an argument about whether those who control the cabs and make the rules should or should not try to accommodate the demand to not carry someone who has an obvious wine bottle in their possession but will carry someone who has hidden it. But it is not a right to be recognized as a constitutional one. We should not constitutionalize every demand for accommodation. We can do a lot (as indeed we do) through statutes and regulations even in the absence of a recognized constitutional right. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ "There is no cosmic law forbidding the triumph of extremism in America." Thomas McIntyre
_______________________________________________ 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.
