Eugene-- just a point of information--is there a lead MN Sup Court case that applying strict scrutiny in cases involving neutral generally applicable laws and worship conduct that is illegal?
Thanks! On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:11 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > But the Minnesota Constitution has been interpreted as > following Sherbert and Yoder, so isn’t the question indeed why the cab > drivers aren’t constitutionally entitled to an exemption? As it happens, I > oppose constitutional exemption regimes, at the state and federal levels, and > support jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction RFRAs, which means the question becomes > statutory, and trumpable by the state legislature. But the Minnesota rule is > one of constitutionally mandated exemptions, unless strict scrutiny is > satisfied, no? > > Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:22 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Requirement that cabbies transport alcohol = "tiny burden"? > > For the record, I was in favor of the accommodation attempted for the Somali > Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis and am in favor of most accommodations of > religion done by employers and public agencies and the government in general > -- even quite odd ones like this particular interpretation of the Quran by > this group of Somalis. > > But that is quite different from positing that there is a right in the > Somalis to engage in this sort of discrimination let alone a constitutional > right to do so. > > Doug is right -- sometimes hostility to religious accommodation is motivated > by a universalist thrust that we should in fact all be treated equally -- the > same sort of hostility one sees against affirmative action for Blacks. And > Doug is also right that sometimes the hostility is directed against a > religion and members of that religion -- as JWs, Muslims, Jews, and in some > settings and some times, Catholics and others have experienced (19th Century > Baptist prayer -- "God save us from the Unitarians" who at the time had > circuit riders and were quite evangelical, unlike today). > > No doubt both of these played into this event -- especially hostility to > Islam. > > But the subtextual motivation of hostility to the religion cannot make what > is otherwise lawful discrimination unlawful, or does it? Is there a > constitutionally meaningful distinction between -- "I don't like your > religion and therefor will not accommodate you" and "I don't think you are > entitled to an accommodation as a matter of constitutional right" -- where > there is in fact no constitutional right to accommodation, as here. > > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
