Thanks Eugene for taking us back to the facts. I received many emails and calls regarding the situation and there were people who had to wait an hour for a cab because of the objection. None of them were anti-Muslim. They did have the sense that the cabbies were discriminating against them because they did not share their religious affiliation.
I raised earlier the fact that the imams had intervened saying there was no rule about transporting alcohol because that is why the issue died away and did not resurface. Marci On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:28 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
