[cross-posted from Overlawyered]
Age of accommodation, cont’d: “in Reedy v. Schneider National, Inc. (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 15, 2010). Vasant Reddy says that he has ‘a sincerely held religious belief that he cannot consume, possess, or transport alcohol or tobacco,’ and that he informed Schneider National of this. …Nonetheless, he says, he was ordered to transport a load with alcohol, and was fired because he refused to transport it.” [Eugene Volokh]
P.S. In the original post, I purposely did not mention the complainant’s religion (Muslim, per the report.) One may surmise that some other devout persons might also sincerely object to transporting alcohol, and the law’s response should be consistent regardless of which system of religious belief undergirds the objection. Right?
“One may surmise that some other devout persons might also sincerely object to transporting alcohol, and the law’s response should be consistent regardless of which system of religious belief undergirds the objection. ”
Yes, but there is only one religion (some would say religion/political ideology rolled in one) is aggressive enough to always probe the system for the weakness. That same ideology attempts to punish any and all critics, they succeed in most cases, just ask Juan Williams.
So, one may surmise, Mr Olson, that you are afraid of Muslims and that is why you try not to mention them.
You are in a good company, the ruling class is ready to surrender to Islam. Just ask Bloomberg or GW Bush.
Mick, that’s false on the face of it. Of course the individual here it attempting special pleading on the basis of his religion, but that’s hardly unique to Muslims even in the limited context of what you are and are not obligated to do as part of your job. How about the Christian pharmacists refusing to supply the morning-after pill? Bus drivers refusing to drive busses bearing atheist messages?
(Indeed, you don’t even need religion. There are plenty of non-religious reasons for principled objections to performing certain types of work – dock workers refusing to unload arms destined for certain markets, for example.)
These cases arise pretty often; they go to court, if no prior agreement is reached; and there the principle of the law gets tested. And that’s how the system is supposed to work.
This issue was hashed out in Minneapolis a few years ago. There is a large Somali refugee community there and many of the men work as cab drivers, especially at the airport. They began refusing to transport alcohol and pork (!) in their cabs, even in the trunk, because of religious objections. The city responded by saying that any cab driver who could not provide full legal service to any customer would lose his license. The city went one step further and sent several outreach professionals into the Somali neighborhoods to explain that adaptation is a necessary part of immigration. The issue was resolved.
One may surmise that some other devout persons might also sincerely object to transporting alcohol…
Yes, one may surmise that, but one has to be in serious denial to think that any religion save one would be taken seriously by our system in such an attempt.
The issue was resolved.
No. The issue was deferred until they have more numbers on their side. We’ll see this issue popping again and again all over the country until we wise up and stop letting these people come over here en masse.
@Polichinello
“Yes, one may surmise that, but one has to be in serious denial to think that any religion save one would be taken seriously by our system in such an attempt.”
You’re just flat wrong, see Does Trucking Company Have a Legal Duty to Accommodate Muslim Employee’s Religious Objections to Transporting Alcohol or Tobacco? and also,
County Clerk’s Office May Have Duty to Accommodate Employee With Religious Objections to Processing Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships
The County Clerk’s office is a government office. Christianity is a native religion, and “gay marriage” is a recent invention. This is not on the same level as Mohammedans trying to impose burdens on their private employers (via the government) to suit themselves, a far more obnoxious intrusion.
A better parallel might be Christians refusing to dispense birth control or abortion pills and attempting to carve out exceptions, but those complaints are usually laughed at by the usual chatterati who s*** themselves in outrage when they see a Baptist preacher.
Oh, that reminds me, the other faith that likes to impose its private morality on others through government fiat is the Holy Church of the Homosexual. Ridiculous discrimination suits and complaints have been filed against landlords, photographers and dating sites.