Eugene,
The validity or ridiculousness of the accomplice theory seems to depend not on
the theory but (1) the claim and (2) the viewer.
Can a cabbie justifiably refuse to take a customer a grocery store where meats
can be purchased (assuming the cabbie has a sincerely held belief that it is
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of b...@jmcenter.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:06 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Religious accommodation and accomplice objections
Eugene,
The validity or ridiculousness of the accomplice theory seems
I think Eugene is correct that it is fruitless to discuss the driver's views in
the language of reasonableness-unreasonableness. His example of kashruth and
the prohibition of mixing chicken and milk is dispositive! So it really does
boil down to a utilitarian calculus of the costs to the
I think Eugene's analysis is extremely helpful and thoughtful. I would add just
three points.
1. In many situations, the rationale for not doing something that by
itself is not technically wrongful is the idea one's conduct may be
misperceived by others as participating in or
...@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:25:52
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academicsreligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Religious accommodation and accomplice objections
...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Religious accommodation and accomplice objections
Off-topic--I'm glad that Alan raised his first
