Human beings are not generic round pegs that are carefully shaved down to a uniform size on a lathe so as to fit perfectly into every round hole. When society, through the force of law, demands that everyone be the same and behave the same, demanding that people surrender their deeply-held religious beliefs so as to be an efficient cog in the societal machine, then we have lost our liberty. Instead, being part of a diverse community means making reasonable accommodations for religious views, thus making it possible, within reasonable parameters, for people from every faith to fully participate in our public and economic life.
The question is finding that right balance between reasonable accommodation for persons with deeply held religious beliefs and the need for effective performance of the job at hand. If it is impossible to make an accommodation and the requirement is an important part of the task at hand, then accommodation would not be required. Thus, for example, if every flight attendant were Muslim, allowing all flight attendants to refuse to serve alcohol to passengers might be an unreasonable accommodation (although we certainly could as a society then discuss whether accommodation was a sufficiently important and respectful measure as to justify removing service of alcohol from airplane transportation, as being able to imbibe alcohol while sitting on a plane is hardly a civil right (although it is a privilege that I admit to enjoying).) But if a one flight attendant out of four on a plane was a Muslim and were to ask to be the person who hands out pillows or food or soft drinks, rather than be the one who fills drink orders, that would be a simple accommodation that inconveniences no one and respects the dignity and individuality of the person involved. That these questions require a case-by-case analysis -- rather than imposition of absolutist rules -- simply reflects that we are human beings and not cattle. In any event, I think the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport and the Muslim cab drivers should be commended for seeking to find a balance in a way that addresses all concerns and shows respect for all persons. That we can imagine another set of circumstances in which reasonable accommodation would not be possible is no argument to refuse to accommodate in circumstances where it can be accomplished with little inconvenience. We ought to be grateful that we still live in a society where, at least in some regions and in some circumstances, reasonable people of good faith are wiling to look for a solution that doesn't involve excluding people's whose views are not our own or imposing a rigid and exclusive bureaucratic rule by the majority upon a minority group. Greg Sisk Gregory Sisk Professor of Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html -----Original Message----- From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalcohol 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 then, over time, 95% of the cabbies were Muslims who would not pick up certain fares? And if 25% of all flight attendants are Muslim and refuse to serve drinks on planes, do we "color code" our planes; or our amtrack trains? Can the conductor on the train refuse to sell a ticket to the passenger who is legally drinking on the train? Paul Finkelman Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/29/06 5:37 PM >>> 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 unemployment compensation on those terms. Or one could say that a restaurant given a valuable liquor license must open seven days a week, end of story, notwithstanding the fact that its owner feels a religious obligation to close Saturdays or Sundays. The question here is whether it's proper for those who define the rules to come up with an exception that accommodates the licensee's religious beliefs, while at the same time avoiding inconvenience to the public. It's hard to come up with such an accommodation for the postal worker, but not that hard, I think, for the cab drivers (the color-coding being a pretty good idea). If the airport is willing to accommodate the drivers, why not let it do that? There is also, of course, the question whether such an accommodation should be constitutionally required. I think it shouldn't be, because I generally agree with Smith. But if one accepts Sherbert/Yoder -- including as to Sherbert herself, who is being granted a valuable public benefit -- then why wouldn't the cab drivers have a very strong case? (As I mentioned, the Minnesota Supreme Court has accepted the Sherbert/Yoder approach to the Minnesota Constitution's religious freedom provision.) Perhaps the rule should be something less than strict scrutiny when it comes to conditions of government benefits (cf. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/intermed.htm#GovernmentasEmployer for a discussion of this issue as to the government as employer), though I take it that this would mean less than strict scrutiny in Sherbert, too. But why should it be no scrutiny, "government wins, end of story"? Eugene ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:29 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: 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 apply to cabs! They are common carriers, end of story, having been granted a valuable public license. If they want to exercise that kind of discretion, let them open a livery company. We've earlier discussed, on more than one occasion, whether a postal worker MUST deliver personally offensive magazines. The answer is yes, and I don't recall that Eugene disagreed. Sandy - Sanford Levinson (Sent from a Blackberry) _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
