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. Perhaps it's worth trying accommodation for another couple of generations, and then see where we are? Art On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:46 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > 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 the > numbers small. > > Obviously, I have been skeptical throughout this thread that such an > accommodation is either affordable or feasible for a transit system. I > stand by that. Back to my slippery slope: there is no principled basis on > which to give this driver accommodation but not the driver who believes > contraception is a sin and so refuses to drive to Planned Parenthood > *and*every pharmacy. Or who believes that unmarried pregnant women are a > sin, so > refuse to drive such a woman to the store or the doctor (note the similarity > to the claims by landlords that their religious beliefs require them to > discriminate against unmarried mothers). Or who believe that homosexuality > is a sin and so refuse to transport two men or two women for a dinner date, > or to a chapel to be married. Or who don't believe in the death penalty > and, therefore, refuse to drive a prosecuting attorney to the sentencing > phase of a capital case. Every one of these passengers is seeking to be > transported to a legal activity, and there are no limits to the number of > religious objections to every activity on earth. That is why in this > settlement, he had to agree not to be employed by the transportation agency > in the future. It cannot work. > > The better rule in this scenario is one that requires the > government/employer to be neutral and generally applicable with respect to > all of their drivers and passengers, and requires the driver to be neutral > and generally applicable with respect to all of his or her passengers. > Eugene did not ask me, but I would argue in favor of no Title VII or > constitutionally-based right for a driver of public transportation. > > To put my ultimate view in a nutshell--The destination and intent of the > passenger should be none of the government's or the driver's business. Once > it becomes the driver's business, we are sliding toward Balkanization, which > is captured as follows: "I will not be associated with you if you are going > to engage in religious conduct in conflict with my religious beliefs." Or, > worse, "You are impure and sinful, and, therefore, I cannot have you in my > vehicle." > > Marci > > > In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:26:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > artspit...@gmail.com writes: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@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. > -- Arthur B. Spitzer Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital 1400 20th Street, N.W., Suite 119 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel. 202-457-0800 Fax 202-452-1868 www.aclu-nca.org a...@aclu-nca.org artspit...@gmail.com *Confidentiality Notice*** ** * *This message is being sent by a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise legally protected from disclosure. If you are not a named addressee then you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of this message. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@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.
