RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol
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
RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol
Hard to imagine how telling a cab driver to pick up a passenger shaves down the person's faith. Let's try it another way: suppose devoutly Muslim (or Jewish) men drave susbtantial numbers of cabs and refuse to pick up fares of women who are not modestly dressed. No shorts or short skirts? Are you prepared to say that their first amendment rights to dress as they wish should be trumped by the religious beliefs of someone who holds a licence that says he must pick up all passsengers? I do not know when Greg last flew, but my sense is that flight attendants are pretty busy and can't divide up jobs according to religous preference. Hard to imagine how you would run that business. I am not suggesting that we exclude anyone from the society on the basis of religion; just that people hired to do a job, should do it 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] 09/30 1:42 PM 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
RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol
It's only hard to imagine that telling a Muslim cab driver to knowingly assist someone in transporting alcohol could be a burden on faith if you're unwilling to put yourself, even for a moment, in that person's shoes and consider the matter from the point of view of the believer involved, rather than insisting upon evaluating by one's own worldview. The sincerity of the Muslim cab drivers is denied by no one who is familiar with the situation here in the Twin Cities. They sincerely believe that they are directly assisting evil if they knowingly participate in the transportation of an illicit substance. That's not my worldview either, but I have no difficulty understanding it and see no reason not to respect and accommodate to it. Paul's absolutist standard of if you're hired to do a job, just do it is so rigid that it would lead to innumerable instances of injustice and disrespect for diversity in our society, as well as create situations in which certain elements of the economy and public life would be closed to people of certain faiths, not for reasons of necessity but merely of efficiency and convenience. By effectively saying that cab driving is off limits to Muslims or being a physician is off limits to Catholics (by reason of rules requiring training or assistance in abortion) is to make people of certain faiths second-class citizens and alienated from society. That is not a healthy road down which to travel. Nor should we forget that the majority makes the rules, and often are less than willing to consider the effect imposed on the minority. Of course, we cannot allow police officers or fire fighters to decide whether to respond to a particular location on religious grounds. Likewise, we cannot allow military servicemembers to refuse commands to participate in military action because of religious pacifism. But most situations don't require such strict rules or refusal to accommodate. A person should be able to practice medicine, without being required to participate in abortions or assisted suicide. A religiously-affiliated hospital should be able to provide medical services and employ hundreds, without being required to make its facilities available for abortions. A lawyer should be able to practice law, without being forcibly appointed by a court to represent someone seeking an abortion or the right to kill themselves. The owner of a commercial building should be able to participate in the commercial leasing market, without being required to accept the lease of the adult bookstore or the strip club. A bank loan officer should be able to hold a job, without being assigned to the account of the local pornography industry (assuming another employee could be so assigned). A Jewish person should be able to obtain most jobs, without being required to work on the Sabbath (when such accommodation is reasonable). A traditional Muslim woman should be permitted to hold a job, without being required to remove her veil, at least for other than safety reasons. By making such accommodations, we ensure that our society remains open to people from all faiths and we avoid the incalculable harm of damaging a person of faith for no reason other than custom, bureaucracy, the arrogance of a majority, or mere convenience. As for Paul's other hypotheticals, once again, each requires a case-by-case analysis as reasonableness, rather than strict and broad rules just for the sake of efficiency and uniformity. And in fact we do in many sectors of society allow people to make judgments based on modesty of clothing. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Does that impinge on people's preferences for lighter clothing, particular along a beach or during the summer? Yes. Should we deny the store that prerogative? Can we allow the same accommodation for cab drivers, perhaps not. I am comfortable living with a vibrant and healthy and diverse society in which things are not the same everywhere and in every circumstance. That's the human condition. Greg 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: Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol Hard to imagine how telling a cab driver to pick up a passenger shaves down the person's faith. Let's try it another way: suppose devoutly Muslim (or Jewish) men drave susbtantial numbers of cabs and refuse to pick up fares of women who are not modestly dressed. No shorts or short skirts? Are you prepared to say that their first amendment rights to dress as they wish should be trumped by the religious beliefs of someone who holds a licence that says he must pick up all passsengers? I
RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol
Greg's analysis seems entirely right to me. To add just one item, would we respond to religious requests for days off with You were hired to do a job Tuesday to Saturday, do it? Say that taxicabs were expected to be on duty Monday through Friday until 10 pm, and someone asked for an exemption for Friday evenings. Should we just reject such a request, on the theory that there may be other such requests that would be too burdensome? Or should we see if we can accommodate the person (for instance, because there are enough other cab drivers who are willing to work Friday evenings)? The question here, recall, isn't even whether the airport authority has a state constitutional obligation to accommodate the religious objection -- only whether it's proper for it to do so if it wants to. Eugene -Original Message- From: Sisk, Gregory C. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 11:20 AM To: 'Paul Finkelman'; Volokh, Eugene; 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol It's only hard to imagine that telling a Muslim cab driver to knowingly assist someone in transporting alcohol could be a burden on faith if you're unwilling to put yourself, even for a moment, in that person's shoes and consider the matter from the point of view of the believer involved, rather than insisting upon evaluating by one's own worldview. The sincerity of the Muslim cab drivers is denied by no one who is familiar with the situation here in the Twin Cities. They sincerely believe that they are directly assisting evil if they knowingly participate in the transportation of an illicit substance. That's not my worldview either, but I have no difficulty understanding it and see no reason not to respect and accommodate to it. Paul's absolutist standard of if you're hired to do a job, just do it is so rigid that it would lead to innumerable instances of injustice and disrespect for diversity in our society, as well as create situations in which certain elements of the economy and public life would be closed to people of certain faiths, not for reasons of necessity but merely of efficiency and convenience. By effectively saying that cab driving is off limits to Muslims or being a physician is off limits to Catholics (by reason of rules requiring training or assistance in abortion) is to make people of certain faiths second-class citizens and alienated from society. That is not a healthy road down which to travel. Nor should we forget that the majority makes the rules, and often are less than willing to consider the effect imposed on the minority. Of course, we cannot allow police officers or fire fighters to decide whether to respond to a particular location on religious grounds. Likewise, we cannot allow military servicemembers to refuse commands to participate in military action because of religious pacifism. But most situations don't require such strict rules or refusal to accommodate. A person should be able to practice medicine, without being required to participate in abortions or assisted suicide. A religiously-affiliated hospital should be able to provide medical services and employ hundreds, without being required to make its facilities available for abortions. A lawyer should be able to practice law, without being forcibly appointed by a court to represent someone seeking an abortion or the right to kill themselves. The owner of a commercial building should be able to participate in the commercial leasing market, without being required to accept the lease of the adult bookstore or the strip club. A bank loan officer should be able to hold a job, without being assigned to the account of the local pornography industry (assuming another employee could be so assigned). A Jewish person should be able to obtain most jobs, without being required to work on the Sabbath (when such accommodation is reasonable). A traditional Muslim woman should be permitted to hold a job, without being required to remove her veil, at least for other than safety reasons. By making such accommodations, we ensure that our society remains open to people from all faiths and we avoid the incalculable harm of damaging a person of faith for no reason other than custom, bureaucracy, the arrogance of a majority, or mere convenience. As for Paul's other hypotheticals, once again, each requires a case-by-case analysis as reasonableness, rather than strict and broad rules just for the sake of efficiency and uniformity. And in fact we do in many sectors of society allow people to make judgments based on modesty of clothing. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Does that impinge on people's preferences for lighter clothing, particular along a beach or during the summer? Yes. Should we deny the store that prerogative
RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol
Paul's distinction doesn't hold up. Part of doing the job is doing it on the days assigned to work. It is just as sensible to define the job of being a cab driver as accepting assignments on equal terms with other employees to work on Saturday, as it is to define it as picking up every fare at the airport. If an accommodation is appropriate for a Sabbath observer (and I gather that Paul agrees it is), which means of course that someone else may be inconvenienced by having to work on Saturday or Sunday (or by the employer in having to pay more to get someone to work on the weekend), then a reasonable accommodation is appropriate for other incidents of the employment, such as how the task is undertaken, adjustments made to the way it is performed, or assignments within the employee pool of different elements of the task. These elements of the job are no more or less part of the employment than the days of work that are assigned. Greg 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: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:19 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol not about days off, but about doing the job on the days you work; one is an accommodation to religious needs but it gets the job done and leaves NO discretion to the employee to decide who to serve and who not to serve; this system means some people won't get picked up and won't know why and sets the stage for discrimination. the day off does not exempt workers from doing the job when they are at work; the Minn. program does. 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] 09/30/06 4:09 PM Greg's analysis seems entirely right to me. To add just one item, would we respond to religious requests for days off with You were hired to do a job Tuesday to Saturday, do it? Say that taxicabs were expected to be on duty Monday through Friday until 10 pm, and someone asked for an exemption for Friday evenings. Should we just reject such a request, on the theory that there may be other such requests that would be too burdensome? Or should we see if we can accommodate the person (for instance, because there are enough other cab drivers who are willing to work Friday evenings)? The question here, recall, isn't even whether the airport authority has a state constitutional obligation to accommodate the religious objection -- only whether it's proper for it to do so if it wants to. Eugene -Original Message- From: Sisk, Gregory C. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 11:20 AM To: 'Paul Finkelman'; Volokh, Eugene; 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol It's only hard to imagine that telling a Muslim cab driver to knowingly assist someone in transporting alcohol could be a burden on faith if you're unwilling to put yourself, even for a moment, in that person's shoes and consider the matter from the point of view of the believer involved, rather than insisting upon evaluating by one's own worldview. The sincerity of the Muslim cab drivers is denied by no one who is familiar with the situation here in the Twin Cities. They sincerely believe that they are directly assisting evil if they knowingly participate in the transportation of an illicit substance. That's not my worldview either, but I have no difficulty understanding it and see no reason not to respect and accommodate to it. Paul's absolutist standard of if you're hired to do a job, just do it is so rigid that it would lead to innumerable instances of injustice and disrespect for diversity in our society, as well as create situations in which certain elements of the economy and public life would be closed to people of certain faiths, not for reasons of necessity but merely of efficiency and convenience. By effectively saying that cab driving is off limits to Muslims or being a physician is off limits to Catholics (by reason of rules requiring training or assistance in abortion) is to make people of certain faiths second-class citizens and alienated from society. That is not a healthy road down which to travel. Nor should we forget that the majority makes the rules, and often are less than willing to consider the effect imposed on the minority. Of course, we cannot allow police officers or fire fighters to decide whether to respond to a particular location on religious grounds. Likewise, we cannot allow military servicemembers
RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalco hol
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 religious people can find a religious reason for not picking up someone; can a muslim tow truck driver refuse to tow the broken Miller Beer Truck? Can the Muslim bus driver close the door on the overtly pagan kids trying to get on the bus; can Muslim Cabbies (or Evangelical Christians) refuse to carry Wickens? Where, I would ask, would Greg or Eugene draw the line -- on common carries and places of public accommodations? The Muslim grocer can close on Friday and refuse to carry beer; but he cannot refuse to sell to someone who bought beer next store and is legally carrying a six pack (closed of course) as he tried to by chips and salsa in the Muslim store. By the way, if they meet other criteria, would favor unemployment compensation for Muslin cabbies who quit because they cannot obey the law which requires them to take all passengers. 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 6:45 PM It seems to me that the right question is whether the religious accommodation may be made in a manner that does not cause an unacceptable burden to others. Whether or not such an accommodation is compelled, in the post-Employment Division v. Smith period, it surely is not prohibited. Being here in Minneapolis as I am, I can report that this story has received significant play in the press. And, interestingly, this appears to be a case in which all the parties concerned are behaving with courtesy and respect in an attempt to find the right balance and live together in a community without being forced to surrender faith. The Muslim cab drivers agree that they would not inquire as to what a person is carrying - the Koran does not impose such a duty of inquiry - so any alcohol included in baggage would not be known to or covered by the their refusal to accept the carriage of alcohol. The concern is for visible carrying of alcohol (although not just in open containers, as Paul Finkelman correctly assumed). The Muslim cab drivers further have agreed that they would place a different colored light on their cabs, so that the attendants for the cab waiting line at the airport would simply direct the next passenger in line who is visibly carrying alcohol to the next cab in line that does not have the different light. In most cases, this would occur so unobtrusively that the passenger wouldn't even know what has just occurred. In this way, every passenger still will receive cab service in the order in which he or she appears in the cab waiting line, while the Muslim cab drivers may face a temporary wait for the next passenger without alcohol, a minor burden placed on and accepted by the Muslim community in exchange for accommodation of their deeply-held beliefs. Please keep in mind as well that this is Minneapolis-St. Paul - not New York or Washington, D.C. - so that most passengers arriving at the airport are not taking cabs and thus accommodation for the relatively few passengers who do take cabs is made all the easier. Eugene's point of comparison with unemployment beneficaries is quite apt, in light of recent events in Germany. As he says, drawing the comparison with the Muslim cab drivers, 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. A case recently arose in Germany in which a young woman, a person of faith as I recall, who received unemployment compensation was told that her benefits would be terminated because she had refused to accept a job as a prostitute that had been posted at the unemployment office, prostitution being a legal form of business in Germany. While that ruling was overturned once public attention was drawn to it, it certainly confirms the serious danger to personal faith and values that may be posed by requiring a person to fall into line simply by receipt of a public benefit. 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 http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html _ From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:37 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customerswithalcohol Sandy: I still wonder why this isn't just assuming the conclusion. One could
