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: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

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


If company does transportations its more than obvious that they also transport alcohol or even transport dangerous goods ( chemicals ) when drivers are required to have special licences to drive them tho. Competition is hard. When companies are registered they need to tell what kind of business they are into it doesn´t require to be specific like transportation of meat, sugar or alcohol.

Business and faith should not be get mixed together at all. Business is Business unless its a religious business.
edit on 1-3-2014 by dollukka because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

beezzer

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?


Good point, but I don't think that's what happened. Good question though.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





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.


That right there is all the 'law' employers need.

They lied ?

They get fired.

They can't cry foul after intentionally lying.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm conflicted here. (Which is why I thought it an interesting topic)

I support the idea that a business has the right to run it's business any way it seems fit. If they do it poorly, with bad choices/views/actions then the free market will cull it, naturally.

But I'm also on the side of religious freedoms. I think that regardless of your faith, you should have the right to practice it, as long as it is not infringing on the rights of others.

I applaud the governments move to protect an individuals religious freedoms and tenets of his/her faith. But I don't see consistency here with the governments actions.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Why shouldn't Christians be running to defend these men?

Their faith is under attack! They are being forced to do something that goes against the tenets of their faith!



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

If they converted after shouldn´t have an impact on company´s policies not more than before. Companies shouldn´t be responsable of their workers belief systems, sure religious holidays are ok as its their right but workers know what company delivers and if its not ok for them, when they know they cannot meet the expectations they should resign.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm conflicted here. (Which is why I thought it an interesting topic)

I support the idea that a business has the right to run it's business any way it seems fit. If they do it poorly, with bad choices/views/actions then the free market will cull it, naturally.

But I'm also on the side of religious freedoms. I think that regardless of your faith, you should have the right to practice it, as long as it is not infringing on the rights of others.

I applaud the governments move to protect an individuals religious freedoms and tenets of his/her faith. But I don't see consistency here with the governments actions.


By the above, the employees are infringing on the rights of the business owners to conduct their business any way it sees fit.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





But I'm also on the side of religious freedoms. I think that regardless of your faith, you should have the right to practice it, as long as it is not infringing on the rights of others.


I wouldn't be.

If they are 'religious' as they claim to be they don't lie, and they sure the hell don't sue for their pound of flesh.
edit on 1-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

beezzer
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm conflicted here. (Which is why I thought it an interesting topic)

I support the idea that a business has the right to run it's business any way it seems fit. If they do it poorly, with bad choices/views/actions then the free market will cull it, naturally.

But I'm also on the side of religious freedoms. I think that regardless of your faith, you should have the right to practice it, as long as it is not infringing on the rights of others.

I applaud the governments move to protect an individuals religious freedoms and tenets of his/her faith. But I don't see consistency here with the governments actions.


By the above, the employees are infringing on the rights of the business owners to conduct their business any way it sees fit.


But businesses DO accomidate for religious beliefs.

We see it all the time. Religious practices for ANY religion are protected. Aren't they? (ie; religious holidays)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Religion and economical growth doesn´t really walk hand in hand. If your goverment decides to go religious freedoms even in work places, this would compromise whole economical system in a long run.. when this happens SHTF



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm conflicted here. (Which is why I thought it an interesting topic)

I support the idea that a business has the right to run it's business any way it seems fit. If they do it poorly, with bad choices/views/actions then the free market will cull it, naturally.

But I'm also on the side of religious freedoms. I think that regardless of your faith, you should have the right to practice it, as long as it is not infringing on the rights of others.

I applaud the governments move to protect an individuals religious freedoms and tenets of his/her faith. But I don't see consistency here with the governments actions.


Here is Al-Sistani on the topic. He is an Ayatollah for the Shia and these are questions asked as well as his answers. I do not have the ahadith right this second, but I can find them still. But we are not allowed to take jobs that deal in forbidden things, not force the employer to change!


Question: A Muslim calligrapher is approached for preparing a billboard promoting intoxicanting drinks, or for an all-night dance party, or for a restaurant that serves pork. Is it permissible for him to accept these jobs?

Answer: It is not permissible because it involves advertising indecent acts and promoting immorality
www.sistani.org...

Here, it is not permissible to take the job in the first place.


Question: Is it permissible to work at a store that sells pork in the sense that the Muslim supervisor asks one of his employees to give pork to the customer?

Answer: It is not permissible to sell pork, even to those who consider it lawful, be it directly or through an intermediary. As for handling pork for those who consider it lawful, there is [no] problem in it; however, based on obligatory precaution, one should refrain from it.
www.sistani.org...

Here, the answer means it is not permissible to work in a store where you sell pork.

We cannot take such jobs in the first place. These men they broke Islamic law in order to force a corporation to bend to their will, and this is forbidden behavior!

They were in the wrong, both Islamicly for taking the job in the first place, and for lying and say they could fulfill the obligations of the job.
edit on 1-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Religious holidays, prayer time, yes... but even these things are made known before you take the job.

You sit and you say, I cannot work on Eid, or I cannot work on Sundays, or I cannot work on Christmas.. and you also say things like I do pray 2 times during the work day, is it okay if I take my breaks during these times.

That is what religious people do BEFORE they take a job, they make certain that the accommodations are able to be had with this employer. Not all employers can accommodate... some employers will say one of those times a day you wish to pray is a busy time, and there will never be a day you can pray during that time...

Then you make the choice, do I wish to bend and accommodate the new job prospect? Or is what I believe important enough to look elsewhere for a job? Employers cannot discriminate against you... but they don't have to accommodate you either if there business doesn't allow it.
edit on 1-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I'm a driver of twenty years. I've hauled alcohol, firearms, explosives,
and cow dung...you name it, I've hauled it.

Star Transport is a big company and they haul of types of goods.
It may very well be that these men did not know that they would be
required to haul alcohol...

My point is only this...If they took the job knowing full well
that they would be required to haul alcohol then tough on them.

But it could be that they simple refused one of MANY loads (lord
knows I've refused a few myself--though not out of any religious
conviction). If that's the case then this might not be as cut-and-dried
as the OP's source makes it appear.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


May I ask, then, WHY is the government defending these men and suing the company under the guise of religious persecution?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't understand it.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


I doubt this is one case only..
I wonder if goverment messing up with these is just one another way to create chaos and civil unrest. This doesn´t make sense why goverment tries to destroy the base its build on.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The employer has the right to terminate employment due to failure to comply with the job description.

The employees representatives (The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) have the right to sue for unfair dismissal based upon apparent religious discrimination.

I have the right to call it how I see it - absurd waste of time and money with just a hint of ulterior motive.

Consider....United Emirates Airline (owned by the Government of Dubai "Investment Corporation of Dubai") has no problem serving me as much alcohol as I can effectively consume. Talking to one of the hosties last month, who is a Muslim, and she obviously saw no conflict of interest in transporting alcohol all over the planet for the purpose of consumption.

Horses for courses.

Again, ulterior motive me thinks.

The EEOC should be sued for intolerance towards American customs and traditions - of course, that does not make sense either, but you get my point.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Well, I for one, support the efforts of the EEOC. I hope they sue this business right out of existence.


Let that serve as a lesson to those who would hire 'anyone' practicing a faith which dictates what can or can't be done on the job.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


This is why I am so confused.

The government tells Catholics; "Get over it"
The government tells Muslims; "We got your back".


About the only consistant thing I can find is that business cannot run it's business as it sees fit.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Quite an interesting take from the EEOC. From their site and presumably, their stance; they have claimed that "Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol."

First question out of the gate is, what was their terms for employment? Does Star Transport only transport alcohol? Did they purposefully assign the two employees that workload? There are many questions that the Government must prove (and yes, the Government in this case holds all the burden of proof; don't let the media tell you otherwise) that will be near impossible unless there is a well documented assignment ledger that can point to Star Transport intentionally assigning the alcohol load to the Muslim employees.

Another question is, upon hire, there was probably some paper work that there two employees signed that stated they will at times transport "blah, blah, and blah".

I am trying to find the filed documents to see the basis of the argument by the EEOC. This one should be interesting to follow.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join