steps to accommodate someone else's religious needs.
This distinction is why I think it is a mistake to talk about exemptions as
accommodations. One who seeks only an exemption is merely asking to be left
alone, unregulated in some way. There may be reasons not to leave him alone,
if he
Doug's distinction between exemptions and accommodations is helpful, but the
cause of the problem isn't limited to free exercise cases. If we are talking
about freedom of speech, for example, many people would describe the decision
of a bookstore to reject a request to carry particular books
exemptions as
accommodations. One who seeks only an exemption is merely asking to be left
alone, unregulated in some way. There may be reasons not to leave him alone, if
he is harming those around him. But to be left alone is all he is asking for.
One who seeks affirmative conduct by others to enable
I wonder whether this further shows the value of distinguishing
not just exemptions and accommodations, but discriminatory action and
nondiscriminatory action. For instance, I expect that few people would view a
bookstore owner's decision to close the store as censorship
someone else’s religious needs.
This distinction is why I think it is a mistake to talk about exemptions as
accommodations. One who seeks only an exemption is merely asking to be left
alone, unregulated in some way. There may be reasons not to leave him alone,
if he is harming those
and a the institution taking affirmative
steps to accommodate someone else's religious needs.
This distinction is why I think it is a mistake to talk about exemptions as
accommodations. One who seeks only an exemption is merely asking to be left
alone, unregulated in some way. There may be reasons not to leave
