Of course it is a proxy -- just like a collar or burka or yarmulke -- a badge of a religion different from yours -- only in this case it is alcohol possession -- a badge of a religion different from yours. The dodge of "oh, I'm not against their religion, just against their conduct" can't be allowed can it? The person transporting the alcohol is the passenger, not the cab driver. The fact of hidden vs. open possession of the bottle of wine gives it away, doesn't it -- it is not about the action, it is about the religious nature of the action -- the violation of the religious beliefs of the driver by the religious beliefs (ok to have and transport alcohol) by the passenger.
It is action based on a difference of religious belief. That is discrimination no matter how one twists it. Maybe we should allow this discrimination, just like maybe we should allow discrimination in allowing landlords to discriminate against gays based on the landlord's religious beliefs, but that is still religious-based discrimination. You can't suddenly say that motivation doesn't matter just because the motivation is their own religious beliefs. Steve On Mar 6, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Rienzi, Mark L wrote: > I don't think it is fair to the cabbies to say that they are discriminating > on the basis of religion, or that the alcohol is a "proxy" by which they are > trying to do so. If they said they wouldn't drive anyone wearing a priest's > collar or a nun's habit, that would be discriminating on the basis of > religion, and the item would be a fair proxy for religious discrimination. > But it seems entirely more likely here that they are not discriminating at > all based on the religious beliefs of their passengers--presumably they are > willing to drive Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and anyone in between. > Rather, their request is simply to not be forced to personally participate in > an activity (the transporting of alcohol) which, for them, would be illicit. > I don't think the fact that they consult their own religious beliefs in that > decision can make their request into religious discrimination. > > > > Mark > > > > ________________________________ > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] > on behalf of Steven Jamar [stevenja...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 8:18 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<mailto: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> > [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<mailto: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. -- 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/ “Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realize they were the big things.” Robert Brault
_______________________________________________ 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.
