We have previously discussed violence and legal measures targeting dogs by some Muslims who view canines as “unclean.” Even postcards with dogs and service dogs (and here) have raised the ire of some Muslim groups. Now this issue is getting some long-needed attention in Iran after a short film that showed stray dogs being tortured and killed by having acid injected into them.
The video was taken an industrial area of Shiraz, 900 kilometres south of Tehran. The animal activists claimed that those responsible paid $4 for each dog. As with environmentalists in China, I have always had overwhelming respect and admiration for secularists and animal (particularly dog) advocates in Muslim countries. This is more than an impressive commitment to principle but putting your actual life on the line for those principles.
The good news is that the Iranian government is acting on the video. While there was an effort to criminalize the ownership of dogs under Sharia law (and subject dog owners to up to 74 lashed last year), Vice President Masoumeh Ebtekar has called for an investigation into the video. While she referred rather mildly to the practice as “an immediate end to unconventional population control method[] for stray dogs,” she did call upon the interior ministry to “deal with the criminals responsible”.
Some Iranian celebrities like Ali Karimi, once a star on Iran’s national football team, posted a picture with his two dogs on Instagram and the message “Dogs are the kindest domestic animals. I hope those who, under any excuse, did this to these animals get what they deserve.”
Different religions are all going to claim their “Significant religious belief” is worthy of protection by RFRA. They all have a “sincere” belief. Who is to say one religion’s beliefs are more sincerely held than any other?
Squeeky:
The problem with your suggestion is the Establishment Clause, which prohibits a court from doing precisely what you envision. That is why a tension exists within the Religion Clauses. In the course of attempting to accommodate religious beliefs under the Free Exercise Clause, courts cannot make judgments regarding whether a particular religious doctrine is “half-baked” without running afoul of the Establishment Clause. The phrase “significant religious overtones,” whatever it may mean, is defined by the religious adherent demanding the accommodation.
No I don’t equate the two. I do believe that denying a handicapped person with a dog a ride by a Muslim cabbie is not only despicable, but dangerous. However refusing a wedding cake based on religious belief is simply silly and discriminatory. Neither should be protected from lawsuit by RFRA.
Plus, with cabbies, you are getting more into the concept of “common carriers”, who by well-established and very old law are required to treat all persons using their services in the same way. For simplicity’s sake, all businesses in these discussions are treated like “public accommodations”, but there are different areas of law that may apply as you get deeper into the issue.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ingannie
I do not equate the two actions, as you appear to do.
Denying a ride to a handicapped individual, whose very handicap necessitates the need for the service animal, is not the same as a devoutly religious person refusing to participate in a ceremony which is so antithetical to his/her beliefs. Cabbies are informed, in no uncertain terms, that they are not allowed to deny fares, so this regulation is well-known prior to them accepting these positions. If they have a problem with that rule, due to religious reasons, then they should not take these jobs, since this line of work exposes them to transporting individuals carrying cases of liquor and/or service animals. The denial of a ride, to a handicapped person, by its very nature, falls into the realm of creating a potentially dangerous situation for that compromised individual. The denial of a wedding cake, on the other hand, does not. A significant difference.
Your efforts to equate the two just don’t jive.
on 1, April 21, 2015 at 5:46 pmSqueeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
@Mike Appleton.
I think by writing RMTs into the laws, Courts would have more wiggle room and could actually delve more into the practical aspects of religious claims. Because I think religious exemptions should be pretty narrow and restricted to items with “significant religious overtones” and not every half-baked religious claim out there.
******************
Hoorah! Now that sounds more reasonable.
@Mike Appleton.
True. But you will notice that I used the term, “de facto” and not “de jure.” I believe that such a standard is already baked into current decisions, just not in an overt form. Note that I proposed that my “reasonable man test” (RMTs) be written into the new RFRA laws. This would be necessary step for the exact reasons you stated.
I think by writing RMTs into the laws, Courts would have more wiggle room and could actually delve more into the practical aspects of religious claims. Because I think religious exemptions should be pretty narrow and restricted to items with “significant religious overtones” and not every half-baked religious claim out there.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
BamBam,
Excuse me? I believe you didn’t read my comment here.
on 1, April 21, 2015 at 5:04 pmIngannie
I think Muslim cabbies should be fined or lose their liscense if they refuse a fare with a dog, I think their company should be sued.
******************
I most certainly do think it’s despicable for Muslim cabbies to refuse fares with dogs, same as I think it’s despicable to refuse a gay couple a wedding cake.
Squeeky:
I haven’t gotten to it yet, but your comment needs to take into account the fact that the reasonable person test does not apply to religious exemption claims. The reason for that is that under the First Amendment, courts are not permitted to inquire into the theology of a religious claim. In other words, the courts are not concerned with the reasonableness of a religious belief, but only with whether it is “sincerely” held.
Squeeky
I will tell you what it is most ironic of all. Doesn’t Ingannie claim to be some type of health-related professional? Not that it makes that much difference, but of all people, for her not to view the Muslim cabbies refusing rides to BLIND individuals as the despicable and unconscionable act that it is–often leaving people stranded and without the benefit of transportation–is irony at its best. I assume that the article that I posted was too long for her too read. After all, she could actually learn something. Maybe another day. One would tend to believe that a medical background just might, perhaps, give one a little better insight and perspective into the physical limitations and challenges of others. So much for theories.
Gay.
Squeeky, you have an unreasonable phobia against gay people. Every single argument against them having equal rights is based on unreasonable fear and loathing. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a guy couple is HARDLY reasonable. Stick to poo poo poems.
If you are in favor of RFRA, you are simply going to have to accept that it’s going to protect people you have phobias against. Can’t have it both ways.
@Ingannie
And, if you had ever bothered to read anything I wrote with an open mind, you would remember that little test I put in my proposal, the “reasonable person” test. Whether or not a reasonable person would think that the subject action or sale has significant religious overtones to the person claiming the protection.
Such tests are routinely used by courts in determining whether or not a defense would be available, and in jury instructions. I submit that a court would find that simply hauling a ham sandwich around in the backseat of a cab would not have significant religious overtones. Whereas, forcing a Halal deli to carry ham products, and handle them, and sell them, probably would.
Not all people are as unreasonable as you, sooo quit projecting your intellectual inabilities onto them. OK???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Muslim cabbies are claiming a religious exemption Pogo. Apartment owners are not. Why are Muslim cabbies being punished for refusing fares with dogs? Is this fair to them, when apartment owners are not being fined? See how that works?
Inga – as the owner of rental property there is nothing that requires me to rent to people with pets.
Muslim cabbies are being forced to engage in the filthyness of the dog and the dog owners by having them in close proximity in their cab. RFRA protects them too, or does it? From what I heard they are being fined or made to go to the end of the line of cabs if they refuse a fare with a dog. You can’t be credible with a blatant double standard.
“I think Muslim cabbies should be fined or lose their license if they refuse a fare with a dog, I think their company should be sued.”
Then how can apartment owners decline to rent to people with dogs?
“Either you are for RFRA for everyone or you are a complete hypocrite. I”
False choice. False premise.
Muslims are also claiming “significant religious overtones” in their discrimination, Squeeky.
THANKYOU to RFRA. Why is is wrong for the Muslim cabbie to discriminate based on religious belief, when it’s not wrong for Christian bakers to refuse wedding cakes to gay couples? Either you are for RFRA for everyone or you are a complete hypocrite. I think Muslim cabbies should be fined or lose their liscense if they refuse a fare with a dog, I think their company should be sued.
@ingannie
Again, you pretend NOT to understand that a concept of “significant religious overtones” could be expressly written into RFRA, even though courts routinely exercise that as a de facto matter. Therefore, “carrying a ham sandwich” in a cab, is not the same thing as being “forced to participate as photographer” in a gay marriage. Sheeesh. But then again, gays are usually a little overly dramatic. I guess it’s contagious.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“No hijab, no service. Ham eaters, no service.”
It’s weird that you think this isn’t happening now.
How about this:
Go to your local Halal store and tell them you live nearby and you demand that they start selling ham.
See what happens.