Eugene,
My email keeps bouncing; From: Paul Diamond [mailto:pauldiam...@btconnect.com] Sent: 09 March 2012 15:08 To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their actions With great hesitation, I enter this debate as a practitioner from the UK. 1. Whilst Eugene is correct that a religious adherent cannot have less protection that a person motivated by secular values, I would have thought that 'motive' should be relevant. Why shouldn't the religiously motivated restaurant owner have greater protection under the First Amendment. 2. Under discrimination laws, 'motive' appears irrelevant (as the focus is on the effect), but I think this is wrong. To describe a Muslim taxi driver as committing the 'sin' of discrimination appears dis-respectful to religious as protected by the First Amendment. A court finding of discrimination based on religious belief is very damaging. 3. I would also have thought that the Muslim cabbies would have received First Amendment/ State law protection for 'reasonable accommodation' for their refusal to transport alcohol carriers, because if i) ' motive' is irrelevant, ii) unless the public accommodation law protect those who are discriminated on grounds of 'carrying open alcohol' (like a category such as sexual orientation)- why can't the cabbies lawfully discriminate? Paul Paul Diamond, barrister PO Box 1041 Barton Cambridge CB23 7WY United Kingdom +44 (0) 7979 837714 www.pauldiamond.com
_______________________________________________ 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.
