FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalcohol

[Volokh, Eugene]

    I appreciate Sandy's thoughtful and gracious response, and I
understand the appeal to history and tradition.  Yet wouldn't many
religious accommodations involve some departures from history?  It
sounds like a pretty common story:  Historically, there's a flat rule
mandating X (you must serve everybody, you may not use certain
hallucinogens, you may not wear headgear).  But along comes a religious
group -- perhaps one that's quite new to the jurisdiction or the
profession -- that seeks an accommodation.  It certainly makes sense to
ask whether the group's accommodation will unfairly interfere with
others' interests (e.g., cab riders in this case, taxpayers and
employers in Sherbert, and such).  But does it make sense to be
"reluctant to push for such acommodations in what historically have been
recognized to be [flat rules]," given that the very nature of many such
accommodations is a novel exception to a historical flat rule?
 
    Eugene


________________________________

	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford
Levinson
	Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:20 PM
	To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: Re: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse
customerswithalcohol
	
	

	I actually agree with much of the thrust of Eugene's post with
regard to putting one's thumb on the side of granting accommodations,
whether or not they are constitutionally divided.  (Thus I believe that
the Court was probably correct in upholding what I also believe to be a
quite dubious Washington policy in Locke.). That being said, I'm
reluctant to push for such accommodations in what historically have been
recognized to be common carriers.  But perhaps I was too flippant in
saying "End of story."
	
	Sandy
	- Sanford Levinson
	(Sent from a Blackberry) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060929/d4d8d42a/attachment.htm