Muslim Truck drivers awarded 240k for refusing to deliver beer

[satimy]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/2...ards-them-240k

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sport-alcohol/

So 2 muslims refuse to deliver beer and are fired and sue on religious grounds. The Obama administration defended them and won 240k in damages.


Yet remember the bakery in Oregon that got fined and shut down for refusing to cater gay weddings?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0L703320150203


There are some differences, employee rights vs employer rights and it wasnt the same judge.

How do you view the cases, and do you consider there to be any similarities.

[Underverse]

I think the idea of religious freedom is intrinsically irrational, and one we need to move past in order to become a more integrated and peaceful society.

[Azadina]

Personally, I think they should have lost. If you refuse to do your job, you can find another, or deserve to get fired otherwise.

[Xtin]

Doesnt make sence to me that both are in the same country , so 1 religion can behave as it wants and another one must change ?

If you are so muslim /christian / unicorn that it makes you unable to do your job that you signed into willingly - then maybe go do something else ? But well. religious ppl are hard to reason with .

[Underverse]

More to the point, it's hypocritical. I support the Obama administration, having voted for him twice with no regrets whatsoever, but if you can't do your job because you're living in a fairy tale, it's on you to find another job. End of story.

[Rukh]

A wild article that's sole purpose isn't to convince you that the Muslims are hiding under your bed appears!: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."


As opposed to the company refusing to provide a service based on religion/sexual orientation/race.


Ok, we're done.

[satimy]

Personally, I think they should have lost. If you refuse to do your job, you can find another, or deserve to get fired otherwise.

The court believed that the company could have made a reasonable accommodation

[obdigore]

Yea, this company refused to abide by federal law, and even admitted in court that it wouldn't have been much of a hassle to have done so, according to the Washignton Post article.

The cake thing you cite is based on a different law (state) which states businesses that are not religious institutions cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Why did you even make this thread? Do you not understand how the laws and cases are different?

What are you looking for here, Satimy?

[satimy]

A wild article that's sole purpose isn't to convince you that the Muslims are hiding under your bed appears!: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."


As opposed to the company refusing to provide a service based on religion/sexual orientation/race.


Ok, we're done.

How is the article anti-muslim? I dont know how one could even reach that conclusion

[Underverse]

This is also encouraging people to position themselves in certain jobs and then bring court cases on the basis of religious freedom for extra cash. Not a good idea.

[satimy]

Yea, this company refused to abide by federal law, and even admitted in court that it wouldn't have been much of a hassle to have done so, according to the Washignton Post article.

The cake thing you cite is based on a different article which states businesses that are not religious institutions cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Why did you even make this thread? Do you not understand how the laws and cases are different?

What are you looking for here, Satimy?

intelligent discourse, you should probably not post if you feel dont want to partake

[Bakis]

Curious, where do Obama come into play?

[Endus]

This has nothing to do with them being Muslim, in particular. This had to do with their employer refusing to give them a religious accomodation, when their employer freely admitted they easily could have done so. It's no different than forcing your devout Christian employees to work Sunday mornings so they miss their church worship, when you could easily have scheduled them on other days instead, despite their request that you do so.

Religious accomodations are pretty bog-standard human rights.

It isn't remotely comparable to the Oregon bakery case, because the Oregon bakery was a public accomodation, and isn't allowed to discriminate like that.

Conflating the two issues is pretty darned ridiculous. The drivers should have had their human rights protected. So should the gay customers. There's no discrepancy.

[Azadina]

The court believed that the company could have made a reasonable accommodation

What would that have been? Keep them employed, and hire 2 new guys to do the job those 2 refused?

[obdigore]

What intelligent discourse can be had? The rulings are based on different laws and different situations. Just because they both revolve around religious rights doesn't mean that one should cancel the other out.

[s_bushido]

rofl

What does "the Obama administration" have to do with this?

The article you linked said that their employers admitted that swapping the loads they were delivering wouldn't be that big a deal, meaning that they fired those guys for nothing.

Yet remember the bakery in Oregon that got fined and shut down for refusing to cater gay weddings?

The one that raised something like $400,000 because of it? Looks like Muslims aren't the only ones getting paydays for being idiots.

[Underverse]

What would that have been? Keep them employed, and hire 2 new guys to do the job those 2 refused?

Put them on a shipment that doesn't contain alcohol perhaps.

[Endus]

What would that have been? Keep them employed, and hire 2 new guys to do the job those 2 refused?

Give them any of a myriad other non-beer deliveries, and have one of their other drivers handle the beer delivery. The company admitted they could have easily done so.

[Orange Joe]

Yet remember the bakery in Oregon that got fined and shut down for refusing to cater gay weddings?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0L703320150203


There are some differences, employee rights vs employer rights and it wasnt the same judge.

How do you view the cases, and do you consider there to be any similarities.

How can you not see the difference here. They did not refuse to service a customer based on that customers sexuality. They refused to do a task for their boss based on their religious beliefs.

Also the company even said they could have had someone else haul the load without any issues.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit on their behalf (EEOC v. Star Transport Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill.)), arguing that the employer had failed to provide “reasonable accommodations” to the employees — i.e., accommodations (including an exemption from job duties) that could be provided without “undue hardship” to the employer or others. The court noted that Star Transport had indeed often “swap[ped]’ loads between drivers,” and Star Transport conceded that it could have easily accommodated this request, too

[Bakis]

Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., Civil Action No. 13 C 01240-JES-BGC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, assigned to U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief.

'
1964. Where do Obama get into the picture?