How Tolerant?

When Somali cab drivers began to refuse alcohol-toting fares at the airport rather than violate their religious beliefs, my first reaction was, “Well good for them. How many people are willing to practice what they preach?” If they refuse a ride, they lose their place in line and must go back to the end where it can take three hours to get to the front again. Wasn’t this fair? They were willing to pay the consequences in order to practice what they believe. Weren’t there other drivers available to take their place?

In today’s paper, we learn that a bus driver was accommodated, given another bus to drive, because he objected on religious grounds to advertisements for "Lavender", a magazine for gays, in the vehicles to which he is assigned.

Recently, also at the airport, an elderly Arab woman who could not speak English was being helped by an airline employee when the cab driver refused to accept the passenger because she was a Muslim but had not had her face covered by a veil. He finally relented and took the woman but only after the argumentative intervention of the employee.

When a pharmacist refused to fill a proscription for the morning after pill or for contraceptives because of religious convictions, I, at first blush, thought, “Well, good for him, standing up for what he believes at some financial inconvenience.”

Some drivers in other cities refused to transport blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs whom “they say their religion considers unclean.” ( Kersten, StarTribune, Oct. 16, p. B1)

Americans are a tolerant group as a whole. But are there limits to religious tolerance? How far should we bend to accommodate the religious beliefs of others? Should we have saved the Native American’s “Sacred Oaks” of Minnehaha Park in Minneapolis that protesters tried to protect from the light-rail construction a few years ago?

Should we accommodate not at all? Eliminate the Christmas holiday for example? Should we allow prayer in the classroom? Muslim prayer? Hindu prayer? Catholic prayer? Should Muslims have the right to break from their work and pray several times a day? What if they work on an assembly line? Should we ban head-covering of female students in public schools as France has done?

Deciding these issues is not as easy as going with your first reaction..

In researching this topic A good beginning would be to look to what is happening in Holland, one of the most tolerant societies in todays world.I believe that a society , by consensus ,defines the limits of what behavior they will accept. What I fear is if we accept too much that is counter to our norms, eventually ther will be a backlash.

Although it was merely for factual reference I'd have to caution you against using Katherine Kersten as a source for anything. This is a woman who once claimed players can earn points in videogames by raping women (which, as someone who plays far too many videogames, I can assure you is not true).

In the humble opinion of this observer there is nothing wrong with companies giving their employees the opportunity for acting in accordance to their faith. Where I think the line needs to be drawn is forcing companies to do so. If I own a cab company I should have the right to decide if my drivers may refuse customers on religious grounds and I should also reserve the right to decide otherwise. The government as an entity Constitutionally free from religion has no right to tell me I must or must not respect the religious practices of my employees.

Thanks, Tim, for your comments.
Let me pose this question: What if the company serves food at a lunch counter and the employee refuses to serve Jews, for example, because they are nonbelievers or the employee refuses to serve Blacks because he believes the bible says that Whites and Blacks should not mix?
Does not the public have some rights here? What about the blind person with the seeing-eye dog who is perceived as unclean? What if he is away in some dangerous neighborhood and another cab in not around? The employer or the cabbie may suffer inconsequentially by refusing the ride. Does not the government that issues licenses have some responsibility to protect its citizens from discrimination?

Jim,

The answer to all of that is the company has the right to allow the person that right as much as the person has the right to not buy from that company.

Odds are if a company refused to server blacks or jews they would go out of business very fast. Even the smallest perception to that nature in these days makes businesses lose money.

The government was established for defense of the nation, not to be a nanny.

Ken,
Then you and the Supreme Court disagree.

Hey Ken, ever been to a country club that wouldn't allow blacks to become members?

It is easy enough to debate the issue and decide that companies need to make as many accommodations as there are religions, or arrive at the conclusion that companies are under no obligation to accommodate based on religion.

The reality is that we live in a country where our strongest conviction, our loudest voice, our most important vote, is the one we show with our dollars. This is the forum in which a profit-driven corporation must decide and act.

Certainly there are costs associated with making accommodations based on the individual religious preferences of every employee, but of course there are costs of not making these accommodations as well. I have a lot of respect for someone who can give up their next fare and wait three hours in the line of cabs because of what they believe.

This is a matter of personal values and integrity. This is not the way that corporate America weighs in on the issue. The first question asked in the boardroom is likely to be, “What is this going to cost us?” It is up to us to decide if they are right or wrong.

In a country that worships personal freedom, we must constantly be drawing and redrawing the line that keeps one person’s freedom from infringing upon another person’s freedom. This is the danger of democracy, it ostensibly protects the masses from suffering the whims of the few, but too often the will of the many is inflicted upon the minority.

We have a Bill of Rights to guard against this and I think it is no small thing that America has the world’s oldest working Constitution. But the issue of an ad for Lavender Magazine on the side of a bus reminds us that it is merely a working Constitution. It is not finished. It is likely that we will never finish our government. The lines will continue be drawn in sand and the rising tides will force us to continually redraw the lines.

The Somali cab drivers should be allowed to give up their place in line. Metro Transit should be allowed to supply their employees with different buses. Therein lies the rub.

A corporate entity must not be compelled by government to incur the costs of accommodation. This burden must be carried by those of us that choose to require accommodation. America’s Bill of Rights provides for the free choice of religion. It does not impose one person’s choice on another. This is where we draw the line.

Legislating that Metro Transit must accommodate its religious bus drivers forces that company to incur the modest costs of insuring that a Lavender-free bus is always available for drivers who find this advertising offensive. It raises the questions of whether or not this type of advertising is worth the costs.

It forces the company to avoid accepting an amount of similar advertising that would prevent Metro Transit from always having a “clean” bus available. The company’s cost of finding advertising increases and the price that it can command drops, because it is forced to reduce the amount of competition for its advertising space.

Perhaps this is an extreme example, but it illustrates some of the burdens of taking accommodation too far. In this example, it will be the bus riders who pay a higher cost as the advertising decline fails to offset the fares. Government will, in effect, be forcing bus riders to pay for the religious choice of bus drivers. This is backwards.

Government provides for the freedom of choice. It does not, and cannot, then pay for every possible choice that its free public may devise. It is those of us that choose a religious belief that should be responsible for the cost of that belief.

Just like the cab driver, the bus driver should be allowed to choose the source of his/her income. In the case of the cabbie, this means the personal sacrifice of three hours without a fare, a burden that a person of integrity takes upon him or herself. In the case of the bus driver, when seeking an agreeable employer, the following question should come to mind, “What is this going to cost us?”

Granted, this may not be the same question asked in the boardroom, but rest assured that even if government does not make religious accommodation the law, a citizenry with integrity will still force the boardroom to deal with the answer.

Jim,

I disagree with a lot of the Supreme Court, including using other nations law to supplement our own.

TW, No I have not.

Seth's arguments basically sum up what would be my response, save for that I have very little to no respect for someone that would not take a cab fare for a religious belief.