Cabbies vs. lawyers
Douglas Laycock
dlaycock at virginia.edu
Tue Mar 6 19:29:51 PST 2012
I apologize if I was too quick to generalize. Maybe you meant that it is OK to make religious judgments about nonbelievers, but forbidden to make religious judgments about drinkers. An implicit distinction that I completely missed.
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:15:53 -0500 (EST)
hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
>
>Doug-- This is actually hilarious. Reread my previous posts. You are not even in the ballpark, as attested
>to your notion that I was ever discussing "religious judgments about nonbelievers." I'm almost certain that
>
>I was talking about believers and believers. I haven't "backed off" of whatever you think I said, because
>I never said it.
>
>
>In any event, this horse is officially beaten in my view.
>
>
>Marci
>
>
>
>
>
>I already said, in response to Sandy, that if a religious individual or group
>occupies a blocking position, the balance of interests changes. Whether they
>occupy such a position is a question of fact. You seem to assume axiomatically
>that they always prevent people from finding cab, or whatever other service
>we're talking about.
>
>But at least you seem to have backed off finding a problem with them making
>religious judgments about nonbelievers.
>
>
>
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>hamilton02 at aol.com
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Douglas Laycock <dlaycock at virginia.edu>
>To: hamilton02 <hamilton02 at aol.com>; dlaycock <dlaycock at virginia.edu>; religionlaw <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 9:38 pm
>Subject: Re: Cabbies vs. lawyers
>
>
>I already said, in response to Sandy, that if a religious individual or group
>occupies a blocking position, the balance of interests changes. Whether they
>occupy such a position is a question of fact. You seem to assume axiomatically
>that they always prevent people from finding cab, or whatever other service
>we're talking about.
>
>But at least you seem to have backed off finding a problem with them making
>religious judgments about nonbelievers.
>
>On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:35:11 -0500 (EST)
> hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
>>Doug-- I don't know who the royal "we" is in your comment, but I'm not making
>a "complaint." I'm
>>making what is surely an obvious philosophical, analytical point. The person
>carrying the wine is
>>not being picked up because they are carrying wine, which presumably is
>permitted in their religious
>>world view. If you are going to accommodate the religious cabbie, you are
>going to burden the religious
>>passenger with wine, assuming a finite number of cabbies. That is why a
>neutral, common carrier rule is
>>preferable to the religion-specific exemption from service you seem to be
>advocating. I assume you favor
>>the federal civil right that forbids a private employer from discriminating on
>the basis of religion? How is this
>>any different? A cab is not a religious organization.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Marci
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Marci A. Hamilton
>>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>>Yeshiva University
>>55 Fifth Avenue
>>New York, NY 10003
>>(212) 790-0215
>>hamilton02 at aol.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Douglas Laycock <dlaycock at virginia.edu>
>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>;
>hamilton02 <hamilton02 at aol.com>
>>Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 9:15 pm
>>Subject: Re: Cabbies vs. lawyers
>>
>>
>>I thought we were concerned about people getting home from he airport.
>>
>>Now the complaint is that the cabbie "is making a religious judgment about the
>>passenger."
>>
>>A "religious judgment" is a form of belief, and I thought it was common ground
>>that belief is protected absolutely, as the Court said in Cantwell v.
>>Connecticut. Lord knows we are all making judgments about the cabbies.
>>
>>Those of us who drink, or who have looser standards on any other issue than
>more
>>morally scupulous adherents of various religions, certainly cannot have a right
>
>>for those more scuprulous souls not to make judgments about us.
>>
>>On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 20:52:35 -0500 (EST)
>> hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
>>>That is, in my view, a misstatement of the facts. The person carrying the
>>alcohol holds a religious worldview that
>>>permits them to drink, carry, and transport alcohol. The cabdriver refusing
>to
>>transport them is making a religious judgment about the passenger. The only
>>passengers you can be certain this cabdriver will always transport are those
>>with the same religious worldview. Discounting the religious world view of the
>
>>passenger leads to a one-sided analysis.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, just as in the contraception context, the contemporary discourse
>>generally has discounted the religious beliefs of the
>>>person who is affected by the accommodation. You aren't going to find many
>>pairings of people in the US where both
>>>don't have some religious beliefs/world view. Religious claimants who want
>>accommodation freight their arguments
>>>with claims of the "religious" vs. the "secular", but that is a rhetorical
>>ruse. In fact, a religious individual demanding an accommodation more often
>>than not burdens someone who does not share their religious world view but who
>>has a competing
>>>world view.
>>>
>>>
>>>Marci
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Marci A. Hamilton
>>>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>>>Yeshiva University
>>>55 Fifth Avenue
>>>New York, NY 10003
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>They aren’t discriminating against anyone on the basis of that person’s
>>religion. The cabbies’ own religious beliefs are leading them to discriminate
>>against people who are openly carrying alcoholic beverages. I’m not sure I know
>
>>of any religion that calls on its adherents to carry alcoholic beverages
>openly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark S. Scarberry
>>>Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>>>Malibu, CA 90263
>>>(310)506-4667
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Marci A. Hamilton
>>>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>>>Yeshiva University
>>>55 Fifth Avenue
>>>New York, NY 10003
>>>(212) 790-0215
>>>hamilton02 at aol.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
>>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>>>Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 8:40 pm
>>>Subject: RE: Cabbies vs. lawyers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>They aren’t discriminating against anyone on the basis of that person’s
>>religion. The cabbies’ own religious beliefs are leading them to discriminate
>>against people who are openly carrying alcoholic beverages. I’m not sure I know
>
>>of any religion that calls on its adherents to carry alcoholic beverages
>openly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark S. Scarberry
>>>Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>>>Malibu, CA 90263
>>>(310)506-4667
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]
>
>>On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:18 PM
>>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>>Subject: Re: Cabbies vs. lawyers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are not the cabbies discriminating against customers on the basis of religion?
>
>>Or is the alcohol proxy enough to remove that taint?
>>>
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:38 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In a sense this may be obvious, but it might be worth
>>restating: One thing that is facing the cabbies is that for complex reasons
>>cabbies are stripped of liberties that the rest of us take for granted. If we
>>disapprove of alcohol – whether because we’re Muslim or Methodist, or because a
>
>>close family member is an alcoholic or was injured by a drunk driver – we are
>>free to refuse to fix the plumbing in a bar, to give legal advice to Coors, or
>>to refuse to let people carrying beer bottles onto our business property. To
>be
>>sure, our right to freedom of choice may have been limited in some ways by bans
>
>>on race discrimination, sex discrimination, religious discrimination, and the
>>like. But whether right or wrong those bans still leave us mostly free to
>>choose whom to do business with.
>>>
>>> The cab drivers thus want only the same kind of liberty that
>>the rest of us generally have. Their argument isn’t a pure freedom of choice
>>argument (which the law has rightly or wrongly denied to cabbies generally) but
>
>>a freedom of choice argument coupled with a religious freedom argument; but
>that
>>simply shows that this freedom of choice is even more important to them than it
>
>>generally is to the rest of us.
>>>
>>> This doesn’t mean that they should win. Maybe there’s a
>really
>>good reason for denying cabbies, including religious objectors, this freedom of
>
>>choice when it comes to transporting alcohol. But it does cast a different
>>light on objections to people “choosing [clients] according to [the choosers’]
>>religious belief,” or “demand[ing] a ‘right’ to exist in a culture that mirrors
>
>>their views.” No-one makes such objections when we as lawyers pick and choose
>>our clients; no-one faults us for choosing them according to our religious
>>beliefs (unless those beliefs require race or sex discrimination or such);
>>no-one says that lawyers who refuse to work for alcohol distributors demand a
>>right to exist in a culture that mirrors our views. Likewise, I don’t think
>>it’s fair to condemn cabbies for seeking, in this one area that is unusually
>>important to them, the same freedom that lawyers have.
>>>
>>> Eugene
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]
>
>>On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:59 PM
>>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>>Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>>Subject: Re: Requirement that cabbies transport alcohol = "tiny burden"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why is anger at a publicly licensed cab picking and choosing passengers
>>according to religious belief anything like anti-Muslim animus? Cabbies can't
>
>>reject passengers on race. Why should they be able to reject those with
>>religious beliefs different from their own? If they don't want to be in the
>>company of nonbelievers, they should find another line of work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Also-- a number of imams announced the cabbies were misreading the Koran.
>>There was no requirement they not transport others' cases of wine. No one was
>>asking them to drink the wine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>We have crossed the line from legitimate claims to accommodation into the
>>territory where religious believers demand a "right" to exist in a culture that
>
>>mirrors their views. That is called Balkanization
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Marci
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Douglas Laycock
>>Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>>University of Virginia Law School
>>580 Massie Road
>>Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> 434-243-8546
>>
>>
>
>Douglas Laycock
>Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>University of Virginia Law School
>580 Massie Road
>Charlottesville, VA 22903
> 434-243-8546
>
>
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
More information about the Religionlaw
mailing list