(1) Can you say a bit more about the circumstances of the
hour-long delays, given that it seems that many cab drivers were happy to
transport anyone who is willing to pay? Were they at the airport, with
dispatches cabs, or with cabs hailed on the street?
(2) Can you also please say a bit more about the cabbies’
reactions to the imams’ statements – is it just that they all said “OK, no
problem then”? Or did some continue to insist on their own interpretation of
the religious doctrine? If a few did persist in their “it’s sinful for us to
transport alcohol” view, then I would think their position would be
constitutionally protected – and the fact that there were so few would cut in
favor of an exemption, because it would reduce the likelihood of the hour-long
delays that are being discussed, no?
Marci Hamilton writes:
Thanks Eugene for taking us back to the facts. I received many emails and
calls regarding the situation and there were people who had to wait an hour for
a cab because of the objection. None of them were anti-Muslim. They did have
the sense that the cabbies were discriminating against them because they did
not share their religious affiliation.
I raised earlier the fact that the imams had intervened saying there was no
rule about transporting alcohol because that is why the issue died away and did
not resurface.
Marci
_______________________________________________
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.
