I had thought that, where constitutional accommodations are
involved, Thomas v. Review Bd. had settled the matter: It's not up to
the government to decide whether beliefs are internally consistent, or
whether they are shared by all of the claimant's ostensible
coreligionists. Nor is it up to the government to question the line the
claimants draw. ("We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is
not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.")
Now it doesn't follow that the cab drivers ought to have a
constitutional entitlement to the accommodation; since I agree with
Smith, I think that they shouldn't, and even under the Minnesota
Constitution's provision, which Minnesota courts have interpreted as
following Sherbert and Yoder, it's possible that one might reject the
accommodation claim (though it's interesting to see just how this could
be done). I just think that their claim cant be rejected on the grounds
that their interpretation of Islamic law is arbitrary, idiosyncratic, or
inconsistent.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 6:42 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse
> customerswithalco hol
>
> The state may well choose to accommodate things for which
> the constitution does not compel accommodation.
>
> Is it the religious motive of the driver that matters? Or
> the conduct of the passenger? Can these taxi drivers
> discriminate against all those who drink alcohol? For that
> matter, why don't they, if that is the basis for the action.
>
> This is an arbitrary, idiosyncratic interpretation of the
> dictates of Islam with so many internal inconsistencies as to
> not be the sort of thing that needs be granted the hammer of
> constitutionalizing the accommodation. Of course the fact
> that it is so idiosyncratic doesn't really matter (much)
> except insofar as it can be shown to really be non-genuine --
> because how do they (logically) distinguish between those who
> had wine on the plane, those carrying bottles in luggage,
> those carrying bottles in bags, those carrying bottles in the "open"?
>
> As to color coding by this or that passenger -- is that not a
> form of discrimination against passengers too? You can only
> take green cabs, but others can take either green or purple?
>
> Curious to me how this little aberrant understanding of Islam
> in practice would get started and then grow as it did.
> Interesting demonstration of group-think.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
> Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
> 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Washington, DC 20008 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
>
> "In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about
> life: It goes on."
>
> Robert Frost
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
