Marci -
Just 4 hours ago, I thought you agreed that "If it's 5 to 10 minutes
[delay], and the system does not have to bear additional cost of hiring
additional drivers to accommodate this one, it seems like a good
accommodation." Now you say that accommodation is "inappropriate in certain
circums
Amen, Mark, on the God help us part. We differ on what is needed to get
along. You think apparently that believers should have the world around
them shaped to their beliefs. I believe that oftentimes believers must adjust
to the world around them.
The law against polygamy was a good
Eugene -- I was agreeing with you, I believe. I wasn't describing Title
VII law, but rather what it should be. It should recognize the principle
that accommodation is unnecessary and even inappropriate in certain
circumstances, and one of them is transportation. Right now, the secular
I appreciate Sandy’s point, but I ask again: Doesn’t this
counsel against a Title VII duty of reasonable accommodation? After all, once
you put a jury in a position of applying a standard as mushy as “reasonable
accommodation” or “undue hardship” of religion, wouldn’t it be espe
It seems to me that Marci's argument really is a full-on attack
on much of Title VII religious accommodation law. An employee wants Saturdays
off - but what if everyone wanted Saturdays off? A nurse doesn't want to
participate in abortions - but what if all the nurses want that?
I'm puzzled about the analogy Marci is drawing in the post
quoted below. Alan wrote, in the post to which Marci is referring:
In many situations, the rationale for not doing something that by itself is not
technically wrongful is the idea one's conduct may be misperceived by o
But we have achieved Balkinization! I even read it from time to time! See
http://balkin.blogspot.com/.
Mark
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Arthur Spitzer
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:04 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Ac
Marci’s view has become more nuanced as the discussion has continued, but I
still need to comment on this post (in addition for thanking her for her kind
and respectful first line).
The Court has recognized that the government may take mild steps to discourage
abortion, and need not subsidize i
Yes, and if we allow one conscientious objector to be excused from the
draft, pretty soon we won't be able to get anyone to serve in the Army.
Your crystal ball was manufactured at a different factory from mine. TWA v.
Hardison was decided 34 years ago, and we have not yet achieved Balkanization.
If it's 5 to 10 minutes, and the system does not have to bear additional
cost of hiring additional drivers to accommodate this one, it seems like a
good accommodation. But it will only work if you have only a small number
of drivers who need accommodation, and I don't think you can keep t
So, Marci, do you think it does harm to the women who want to go to Planned
Parenthood, or harm to the public interest, if the women have to wait an
extra 5 or 10 minutes for driver #2 to pick them up? I'm not asking about 2
or 3 hours.
Art
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM, wrote:
> Thanks t
Thanks to Paul for his thoughtful response to my longer post from this
morning. I'm not sure we are on different pages given his example below.
For those who have not read my work, I have frequently said that
accommodation that does not harm others is appropriate and desirable. I have
Art is certainly on to something, but I would emphasize the extreme
unlikelihood that most Texas communities would make the same settlement if the
plaintiff had put a pro-choice message on his/her desk. To put it mildly,
"neutral principles" does not seem to be the mantra of most Texas politicos
Marci,
Yesterday you said, "In a word, extortion." But I'm delighted to hear that
you now think the bus driver's settlement was only wrong, and not
extortionate.
Art
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, wrote:
> Actually, Art, that is about as wrong a description as there could be of my
> views.
Off-topic--I'm glad that Alan raised his first point. This is much like the
reasoning behind the canon law against scandal in the Catholic Church. The
reasoning has been that the sins of the clergy need to be kept secret so as not
to influence believers to do the wrong thing.
The ironic resu
I think Eugene's analysis is extremely helpful and thoughtful. I would add just
three points.
1. In many situations, the rationale for not doing something that by
itself is not technically wrongful is the idea one's conduct may be
misperceived by others as participating in or acquiescin
Actually, Art, that is about as wrong a description as there could be of my
views.
Sandy started us w/ an either/or choice. Extortion is strong. I'm content w/
wrong.
Marci
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Spitzer
Sender: religionlaw-boun.
Eugene asks, "What is it about this particular case that triggers people not
just to complain about the plaintiff’s position, but to call his and his
lawyers’ actions 'extortion?'"
I think the actual answer is quite simple, and has nothng to do with legal
theories. People are not upset when peopl
Sandy: It sounds like we agree on much here, and I'm glad about
that. But let me ask you: What do you think this should mean for religious
accommodation more generally? After all, the same problem can easily come up -
and, I'm sure, does come up - in lots of other cases as wel
I think Eugene is correct that it is fruitless to discuss the driver's views in
the language of "reasonableness-unreasonableness." His example of kashruth and
the prohibition of mixing chicken and milk is dispositive! So it really does
boil down to a utilitarian calculus of the costs to the st
In many religious accommodation controversies, the claimants
object to doing something because they think such an act would make them
accomplices to sin. The bus driver / Planned Parenthood case is one example;
another is some landlords' objection to renting to unmarried couples
I've read this long thread with interest. Marci's post evokes some questions
from me, as do some of the broader questions raised by the thread.
With respect to Marci's post, I confess I am uncertain why this case is
presented as an example of men imposing their religious views on the freedom of
Indeed: Not everyone who goes into Planned Parenthood goes in
for an abortion; in fact, most don't. But I'm not sure how this is relevant to
the Title VII question, or the still-undefined "settlement or extortion?"
issue. Religious accommodation rules protect "ludicrous" religi
Here’s one thing that has puzzled me about the “settlement or
extortion?” thread. Many critics of tort law and employment law – largely
conservatives and libertarians – have long argued that our legal system often
leads to unmeritorious claims being settled to avoid risk and to sav
I have to say that I do not "get" this conversation, if we really want
people in our communities to be "in relationship" to one another, even
if they have opposing views of morality.
A driver is apparently conscientiously worried that he might be
contributing to (what he considers) a death by m
Extortion.
FWIW--I do volunteer work at the local PP clinic. The idea that anyone who
comes in is there for an abortion is ludicrous.
Judy
_
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of artspit...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 25, 20
Mark-- Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I do respect
your position and understand that it is shared by others.
As I suppose is no surprise to anyone on this list, I take a different
view. I think the two men are identically situated, because they are both
intent on im
27 matches
Mail list logo
