Accommodation and fairness to others

[Volokh, Eugene]

Marty writes:

> Thus, courts could, and will, assess "Where will this end?" 
> questions.  None of which helps to answer your question about 
> the deadlines and sabbatarians.  On that question, I'm 
> curious, Eugene:  Assuming arguendo a "substantial burden" on 
> religious exercise (and I realize it's a major assumption), 
> how would you describe the the compelling state interest in 
> *not* giving the sabbatarians an extra day, at least in cases 
> where the exemption regime would not be an administrative nightmare?

	I'm not sure there would be such a compelling interest.  Still,
I take it that one possible candidate is fairness to others:  While
having 5 days to do a project may be worse than 6 days, having 6 days
plus a day of rest may be better than 6 days without a day of rest.  The
question would then be:  Should the fact that the accommodation will
give the claimants a modest benefit compared to others justify denying
the accommodation, given that otherwise the claimants would probably
laber under a substantially greater detriment burden compared to others?