Anyone care to comment?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in the Shepp v.
Shepp case:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-97-2004mo.pdf
Pa.
Court: Dad Can Teach Daughter Polygamy
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=localid=4607786
6abc.com WPVI-TV/DT
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_viewnewsId=20060929005125newsLang=en
http://www.law.ucla.edu
September 29, 2006 10:23 AM Eastern Time
UCLA Law Expert Available to Discuss Pennsylvania Supreme
Court Ruling Allowing a Father to Teach His Child
The color coding sounds like a pretty good accommodation to me.
http://www.startribune.com/789/story/709262.html ...
About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport are Somalis, many of them Muslim. And about three
times each day, would-be
Sounds like Plessy v. Ferguson to me. Separate but equal cabs. No
way.
How far are we willing to take this: what if they say they won't carry
people who wear a cross a necklace with the Buddha (a pagan symbol for a
devout Muslim); what about a Chistian cab driver who won't pick up
someone with
Hmm; isn't this a bit overwrought? It's hard to see how this
is racist; and of course outside race and some other grounds for
distinction, separate but equal is hardly always (or generally) wrong.
To say that the taxi cab driver is a common carrier is, I think, to
assume the conclusion:
Question. In many states it is illegal to ride in a vehicle with an open
container, and some (many?) of those statutes prohibit openly
displaying alcohol. Assuming for a moment that all of the cab drivers
in question are like the fellow who is quoted (no questions asked about
what is in a
Carrying alcohol generally doesn't create a protected class or
constitutionally protected activity, communion or kosher wine
notwithstanding. On the other hand, all of the examples listed below do
(Buddha necklace, Sikh garb, etc.) and create important competing values.
This seems akin to the
I had assumed that this was not an open container issue. Rather, I
imagine someone getting off a plane from California with a box of wine
or someone getting off an international flight with liquor or wine from
duty free (or special Kosher wine) in an obvious bottle, box, bag, ec.
I assume ALL
Title: Re: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalcohol
I confess I'm with Paul on this one. As someone who has often taught professional responsibility, I've defended the cab rank rule. To put it mildly, it is disconcerting to be told that the cab rank rule doesn't
Title: Re: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalcohol
Sandy: I still wonder why this isn't just
assuming the conclusion. One could equally well say that unemployment
beneficiaries must take any job for which they're qualified, end of story,
having been granted
Locke is a mystery to me. It seems to be a triumph of Chief Justice Rehnquist's quest for a wide deference in the name of states' rights.
On the other hand,WHR's analysis of discrimination is impossible to support. He seems to say that discrimination (a plain and open disparate treatment) is
A copy of my statement to the Press.
Re: PA SUPREME COURT DECISION OF 9/27/2006
The York Daily Record headline of Nov.
19, 2003, said it best A Fight Kaylynne Can't
Win. If Kaylynne couldnt win this fight, then neither could
I. This custody case should have been settled in mediation
Title: 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
Title: Re: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalcohol
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
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Paul Finkelman wrote:
Sounds like Plessy v. Ferguson to me. Separate but equal cabs. No
way.
How far are we willing to take this: what if they say they won't carry
people who wear a cross a necklace with the Buddha (a pagan symbol for a
devout Muslim); what about a
we should not force someone to take a job if they must break religious
beliefs, that is too coercive; but surely we cannot run a society if
people who have an obligation to do a job (pick up fares) refuse to do
that job. COnsider this. What if all 75% of the Muslim cabbies took this
position, and
Again, the employement compesation is different; this is about a duty of
common carriers to accept all people. Moreover, it opens too many other
exceptions -- pagan symbols, race mixing (Bob Jones Cab Co. won't pick
up mixed race couples); I think we all think of many examples of how
very
17 matches
Mail list logo
