It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sharia in America: EEOC Sues Transport Company for “failing to accommodate” Muslim Truck Drivers

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Sharia in America: EEOC Sues Transport Company for “failing to accommodate” Muslim Truck Drivers who Refused to Deliver Alcohol



pamelageller.com...


The sharia administration strikes again. The EEOC is suing Star Transport for rightfully terminating two Muslims who refused to do their job. If these Muslim truck drivers don't want to deliver alcohol, then they shouldn't have taken a job in which part of their duties would be to deliver alcohol. It's that simple.


I found this story interesting in light of the recent debates about faith-based businesses and their issues with homosexuality.

As in the linked story. . .


Consider the contrast: Catholics in the Obama regime have no right to refuse to provide abortions at Catholic hospitals. No accommodation for that religious belief. Only Islam gets accommodation from Barack Obama.


This is interesting.

Do you agree with the business?
Do you agree with the Muslims who were fired?

An interesting debate, to be sure.

As always, read, ignore, reply, report me to the mods and get a cookie. . . . . it's all up to you.

edit on 1-3-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Upon reading the thread title, I was fully prepared to support employees who wanted to pray or observe the commitments of Ramadan. That is typically the kind of thing Muslim related EEOC claims deal with.

But this? Hell no. They work for a company delivering alcohol. Either deliver it, or work for a place that is in business with things more to your liking.

They are paid with money gained from transporting alcohol. Seems that their moral dilemma begins there, not at the point taht they are actually doing the delivering. Drawing the distinction they are drawing would be like me being ok working for a guy who gets his money from graft as well as legitimate means. So long as I wanted involved in his scams directly.


+7 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
This argument is so bloody stupid. So if a Muslim gets their way into a pig farm they just have to sit on the property and get paid? Since they can't touch anything…

Here's an idea, when you go look for a job, you find one that suits you… You can't force a business to your will.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
If they refuse to do the job of course you can fire them. Companies have their duty to get cargo in its destination in certain time, they are paid for doing this. Those who refuse to do their job, puts the company they "work" for quite unpleasant situation.. company loses money.
If its not ok to muslims to deliver the goods or just deliver what they want maybe they shouldn´t be hired at all.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I agree with you, if they didn't like what they were delivering the should have worked for a company that did not deliver it.

Quit.. or do not become employed there, but no... you cannot make the company you work for jump through hoops of.. "omg he cannot deliver half the load".. lol...

stupidity strikes again...



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Hey Beez , I am gonna give you a heart attack. No the trucking company is in the right here. If the trucking company was insisting that they consume the alcohol they would have a case. As the religious prohibition to the best of my understanding is that it is on consumption not production, transportation or sales.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
But as we've seen recently, businesses cannot decide how they do business, with whom they do business.

On the other hand, should exemptions be made for religious issues?

Is it right to force a religious person to do something that is against their faith? In this case, the government says you cannot fire them because of an issue that goes towards their faith.
Yet, the government also says that you cannot conduct your business based on your faith.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


No, here you are wrong. The religious prohibition is clear, you cannot sell, serve, have in your home, handle, or in any way contribute to others consumption.

But here is my thing, they knew the law BEFORE they got the job. When you take a job you state you can fulfill the obligations of your job. If one of your obligations involved breaking a religious law, and you felt like you could not do that, then they lied when they took the job stating that they could fulfill the jobs obligations.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
This is something that needs to be brought up the day of hiring. Them "Excuse me but in this job will I ever have to deliver or transport alcohol?" Boss..."Yes...there is a possibility." Them "Well I can't work here then. Thanks for the offer though. " Three sentences. How easy was that?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
If a person gets hired to do a job, and that person refuses to said job ?

Hit the road jack, and don't come back.

People need to get it through their heads that business owners do not have to cater to everyone's little whim.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
May I ask the room then why is the government fighting/supporting the religious rights of these men?

You all provide very sensible arguments for the business.

The government is fighting to protect the religious integrity of these men. Shouldn't we support the government in this?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


Yeah, you cannot do that AFTER you get the job. Anything that could prevent you from doing the job needs stated before you are hired.

When you accept a job, you state you can fulfill all of that jobs obligations, unless you made stipulations on that prior to gaining employment, then you lied, and your word is binding.

That employer hired them in full faith that they could fulfill their obligations to their job, and they lied prior to employment by not mentioning they could not do this.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

neo96
If a person gets hired to do a job, and that person refuses to said job ?

Hit the road jack, and don't come back.

People need to get it through their heads that business owners do not have to cater to everyone's little whim.



But business owners HAVE to cater to every little whim.

Look at how faith-based businesses HAVE to cater to anyone that comes into their place of business!



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Anyone who says this company is in the wrong, is literally an idiot.

It's just that simple. What next, muslims working at pizza hut, not delivering pizza because it has bacon on it?

Seriously, does it not highlight the mentality of some people? they cannot foresee an aspect of their job requirement?

"No it's ok, just put this vest on... I'll call you tomorrow."



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I wonder if this was brought up during the hiring process by either party? My thought is no. Someone is being deceitful here. Perhaps both sides.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by amazing
 


Yeah, you cannot do that AFTER you get the job. Anything that could prevent you from doing the job needs stated before you are hired.

When you accept a job, you state you can fulfill all of that jobs obligations, unless you made stipulations on that prior to gaining employment, then you lied, and your word is binding.

That employer hired them in full faith that they could fulfill their obligations to their job, and they lied prior to employment by not mentioning they could not do this.


But what if they converted to Islam AFTER being hired?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't know why the government would support this, as supporting it seems insane. That I would have to think on, because what is good for the goose must then be good for the gander. So what would this benefit the government, other than some crazy appearance of being "accommodating" to all people when the reality is they are not.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Then they should quit there job.

Let me find some hadith... Islam states you should quit a job if you are able to find another, and if you are unable to find another job, and that job means starvation, then you can do the haram until which time as you can find another job.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Tough, get a different job.
Your religion is private and personal and if you do not want to handle booze or whatever else, then swap routes or get another job.
If these guys, or any people from any religion, refuse to do their job, then give their jobs to people who need and want them
Religion has far too much real world impact.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





But business owners HAVE to cater to every little whim.


Because a bunch of people have a crap load of cognitive dissonance about business owners 'rights'.




Look at how faith-based businesses HAVE to cater to anyone that comes into their place of business!


Oh I have looked at how Christians, and Muslims get treated in this country.

That's some more epic cognitive dissonance.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join