Religious Discrimination Roundabout

Professor Bainbridge has replied to Cathy Young with the exact same argument I made yesterday. She has replied in turn. Reactions are breaking down along Pro-Choice/Pro-Life lines. I side with Bainbridge obviously and I find the reaction of Instapundit and Eugene Volokh disheartening. You would think two lawyers would know discrimination law better.

Young's first argues that Abortion policy is inherently job related. Now she has a point and I made the same one in my previous post. However it isn't trivial to say that abortion policy is inherently job related. A judge's job is interpreting the law and statutes, not making or enforcing policy. It could be argued that a job interview of a judge should weigh much more heavily on constitutional construction than end policy goals. But you can bet that won't happen.

Young's second argument is far more specious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't conservatives supposed to be against nebulous standards like "disparate impact"?

The standards are not nebulous, they are statistical and fairly concrete. 80% is not nebulous. The question, once disparate impact is established, is whether this measure is justifiable in terms of job performance.