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

reply to post by beezzer


From what I read this has not had its day in court but when t does the claimants will need to prove that the company/employer could have reasonably accommodated the employee's religious practice without an undue hardship to the company. They claim it would have been easy enough to assign the employees routs that didn't involve them delivering alcohol.

That is the what the employees claim if that is true or not will make the difference in if they have a case that can be won in court.

reply to post by beezzer


As others have mentioned, perhaps it is just a way to create civil unrest and division. It is the only thing that makes sense.

reply to post by Grimpachi


That is true Grim. The only point I would highlight is that the accommodation rule is fuzzy at best. It is, as the Bunny has pointed out, held strictly when it is in favor of the Government and allowed to be loose and fast when they don't want it to apply.

Given that, the EEOC and by extension, the two employees, will have to prove that the company purposefully was only assigning transports of this kind.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Many things seems better on the paper than what reality is. I feel pity for the one who makes the routes.. quite often if not everyday there are changes in routes, people are sick someone/s needs to cover, maybe not all cargos were delivered day before and maybe there is new assignments during a day. We need to keep in mind that companies do not have extra staff to assign as its not work efficienct. So basicly driver who is there should be able to do any assignment they are asked to.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


You are probably right.

I have a feeling that those guys got fired and were pissed so they went down to the Gov agency threw a huge fit maybe even blew it out of proportion. Once the complaint was filed whichever ABC agency it was had no other choice, but to file a suit.


It will be interesting to see what happens with this if it even makes it to court.

edit

I support whichever side is telling the truth and legally correct. I don't have a dog in this fight.

But as we know already.

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
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!

This was my thought.

The AZ situation, forcing a photographer to photograph a gay wedding in violation of his religious beliefs.

Isnt that similar to forcing a driver to deliver alcohol if it violets his religious beliefs?

1st World problems.

reply to post by beezzer


Alcohol isn't considered illegal, and it isn't even really immoral except when abused.. (I suppose that other thing is similar) Some think any use of alcohol is abuse of it, but not me.. I don't actually drink myself though.

I don't think abortion and Catholic beliefs are, or should even be remotely considered as comparable to these Muslim's complaint about alcohol.

For one thing, the government has tried to make people perform the abortions regardless of religions, so in light of this, these Muslims are full of baloney..

They should have addressed this issue upon being hired. It looks like they said "Let's wait till after we get hired, and THEN complain, so we can keep our job, and get away with it" "And maybe get some free money through the "infidel" court system"..

Grimpachi
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

edit

I support whichever side is telling the truth and legally correct. I don't have a dog in this fight.

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

I have a dog in it, in a way, and I support these men's right to quit their job. I do not support them to sue over something they have no right to sue over.

They were not once discriminated against.

If these Muslim truck drivers don't want to deliver alcohol

reply to post by beezzer


Well, thats the job. If they don't want to do it then they should quit/be fired. This lawsuit is going nowhere....cases like this have come up before.

This isn't even close to the same thing as the recent proposed law in Arizona.

beezzer
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!

It isn't their faith under attack at all, since the company has been delivering booze for a long time.

I think looking at what you mention, then their faith has been attacked ever since any other religion came into existence. haha

They are simply doing the fall down under a car routine and pretending to get injured to get some free dough, and using their own religion as a way to cry foul..
If this was so important to them about not violating their beliefs, I wonder why they would even consider that job?

This proves they are full of Mohammed's questionable Turkish uncle.. (Not meaning to insult people from Turkey)

The trucking company was correct to fire them and should have won the claim against them.
In Islam muslims are forbidden from DRINKING alcohol ( though met a few over the years who have the occasional drink ) not from transporting , handling or selling alcohol.
Sounds like they took advantage of the lack of knowledge of Islam and of the make a fast buck lawsuit happy american legal system.

The company had every right to fire them. You don't go and apply for a job and expect the business to cater to your religious beliefs. It would be the same thing if a Muslim female applied for a job in a machine shop that had safety regulations against wearing scarves or other loose clothing.

I don't get how Muslims think they can leave a country whose government was rooted in Muslim law and traditions, can expect another country to bend over backwards and alter their laws to accommodate their religion. What do they think, the world revolves around their wishes? When women from the west visit Saudi Arabia, aren't they required by muslim law to cover their hair with a scarf? It's funny how they expect us to conform to their laws, but don't do the same when becoming citizens in the U.S..

reply to post by beezzer


I agree with the business. You're hired to do a job and you know what that job is when you start. Firing them was the right call, but I would raise the bar, if they want to play employment games send 'em back and they can take Obummer with them.

Cheers - Dave

I just had this crazy notion of what a porno would look like if a hasidic jew demanded that he'd be starring, but that it respected his religious views...



Chances are… Not a best seller!

beezzer

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)

I presume that the law protects things like religious holidays. I have a policy of supporting the important things in my employees life, and have made concessions for things like Ramadan and prayer time for muslim employees (when I ran a call center). I also like getting employees who work evening shifts to be able to attend their kids baseball games and such. Work is important, but home is more important.

Star Transport is a truck i see all the time. I would guess that they are a large company.

I do not think that hauling alcohol violates their religious tenets. If it does, I would also suspect that making money working for a company that transports alcohol would be the same.

I do suspect that the company could reassign them to other runs. I know that drivers make those kinds of requests frequently. Perhaps it was a "day run" that gets them home each night, and there was nothing else available. Local routes may be something a company hires limited staff to handle, depending on local demand. I don't know.

I guess that is the real problem: i know nothing other than the most basic of details in this story. It could be that the two employees are schmucks and were fired for schmuck behavior. Or it could be that the management in charge of their distribution region are religiously bigoted. Or maybe they are just not religiously sensitive, and really are screwing them over but not for bigoted reasons.

stargatetravels
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.

Far too much real world respect? I think you are confusing "respect" with "obsequiousness". There is a difference. I can respect someone without being obsequious to them - if they require me to be obsequious, it's no longer respect, as they are then disrespecting ME.

Religion doesn't get ENOUGH respect, but it sure gets a lot of forelock tugging. The problem is, people seem to have forgotten where one ends and the other begins. I respect nearly all religions, but bow to none.

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.

I think the issue here is governmental interference where the government has no business interfering, in all cases. The First Amendment guarantees the free practice of one's religion, and prohibits governmental interference therein, either for or against. It states specifically "congress shall make no laws...", and does not allow for making laws whether for or against. Government has no say in the matter, according to the First Amendment. It then falls to a business decision, and the results of that decision as they impact the business.

In the case of, for example, a Christian cake baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple, the government oversteps it's bounds by entering the fray and compelling them to. It goes against the free exercise of their religion. If they refuse to do so, then the proper remedy is the loss of business, not governmental compulsion.

In the case of refusing to do the job you were hired to do, whether it's a Muslim refusing to deliver alcohol or a Christian refusing to deliver pentagrams, the practice of their own religion is not in jeopardy. They can practice it as much as they like, but would have to find another employer - one who doesn't deliver alcohol or pentagrams. It's not a governmental matter. In both cases it falls out to a matter of personal choice, and the results thereof. The proper remedy is unemployment, not governmental interference. If you refuse to do a job, then there is no reason you should remain employed in it.

If I start a business, and someone comes along and tries to run it THEIR way, I will burn that business to the ground and go fishing before I allow someone else to dictate how MY business runs, whether government or religion or any other special interest group. It's MY business to run, not theirs.

When this trucking company started, there was no law against delivering alcohol apparently. They are within the law to do so, and NO ONE should be allowed to impact that. The business had no reasonable expectation of trouble with the government over the legitimate pursuit of a legal business. There is supposed to be one law for all, not one law for this group and another law for the other. That leads to religion interfering with the free exercise of the pursuit of happiness by others. A Muslim truck driver has no right to interfere with the consumption of an otherwise legal product by others, and a Christian has no right to prevent a gay couple from finding a baker for their wedding cake. The Christian doesn't have to bake it, as someone, somewhere WILL, and the Muslim doesn't have to deliver it, as there are people standing in line ready to do that job, too.

beezzer
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!

They are not being forced to violate their religion. There are other jobs to work, and no reason they should have to stay at that one. They are employees, not slaves. They are not being forced to do anything. As free men, the can walk away at will, and pursue employment more to their liking.

For example, they could work for a devout Christian. There is nothing there that violates their religion. Maybe they should learn to bake wedding cakes.

It doesn't seem like the EEOC has much ground to stand on and the suit will probably be tossed out on day 1... unless the drivers contract stated that they would not be expected to transport alcohol or anything else that violated their religious beliefs and the trucking company later demanded they do so and then fired them for not.

The title is WAY misleading. It implies Sharia LAW without a RULING.

Anyone natural or legal entity, can sue any other for anything.. and they often do

Sues? It would have more bearing if Ruling is in the title