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: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

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!


If the business was owned and operated by Muslims and they made the decision not to transport alcohol and the government was forcing them to do so against their faith, that's closer to the Christian/gay wedding issue. However, this is the employees of a business that does not conduct itself in an orthodox Muslim manner trying to get the government to compel the business to do so. That's the difference.

If the Muslims want to be employed as truck drivers who do not transport alcohol, then they need to either find a company that operated that way or start one that does so themselves, and as soon as someone comes along and tries to compel that business to operate otherwise, I'll be on their side.




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

beezzer
 




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)


No. That's part of the business model and the hiring negotiations. For example, at one of the jobs I work, Christians work Sundays, Muslims work Fridays, and Jews work Saturdays if they are needed to work by the job. They either work, or they walk. If I couldn't work on a particular day, then I would have had to specify that during the hiring process, and had it built into the employment contract so that both parties were aware of the limitations, and had a chance to back out BEFORE trouble reared it's head.




edit on 2014/3/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Okay Beezzer... Creepy Avatar change. (shivers)

I think that the drivers have a point IF they were led to believe they wouldn't have to deliver alcohol when they were hired and they asked about it, being that it was a major concern to them.

However, if they went into the driving job with a "we'll see about that" attitude after being told alcohol would be part of it...then buyer beware and they bought their own problem. Tough cookies....



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

rival
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.


What are legitimate grounds to refuse a load?

Is "religious conviction" among them?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

beezzer
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?


My best guess is the drive for more government control, not any concern for the drivers' "religious rights". I'd say they don't give a flying backflip about the drivers' religion or their religious rights (the government, of ALL people, ought to be well aware of the prohibition against either governmental support or denial of any one religion), but they see a chance to seize more control, insinuate themselves even deeper.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

gardener
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


T&C states that if I am referencing a specific article, the article title and source has to go into the OP.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Thank you for your insight.

I brought up this topic because I hoped that it would stir debate.

Religion, business practice, government interference. . . . .

It's all a muddled mess.

What I see is some use religion as a bludgeon. Others use government as a bludgeon.

Why can't we simply stop beating each other over the head?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by beezzer
 


Okay Beezzer... Creepy Avatar change. (shivers)

I think that the drivers have a point IF they were led to believe they wouldn't have to deliver alcohol when they were hired and they asked about it, being that it was a major concern to them.

However, if they went into the driving job with a "we'll see about that" attitude after being told alcohol would be part of it...then buyer beware and they bought their own problem. Tough cookies....


Why I think this is relevant is that there is an inconsistency to government behavior towards religious practice and the workplace.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Snarl
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.


That, also, would be a governmental interference in the free practice of a religion. It would effectively make anyone of any religion unemployable, and tie employer's hands in the matter.

Better to let individuals decide for themselves. No reason government has to think for them. At some point as we grow up, we have to cut the apron strings and begin to think for ourselves.

I don't need a nanny. I'm truly sorry that you think you do, but just because you do doesn't mean we ALL do.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe that you need a government to force you to have value to an employer? Can't you make yourself valuable on your own?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

beezzer
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.


Bingo!

Go to the head of the class!

Government is just trying to dig itself into private life even deeper, and trying to maintain it's relevancy as an overgrown and overfed monstrosity. It wants us to think it's needed, and has to make rules to do so, because that's what government does.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

gladtobehere
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.


edit on 1-3-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording


No. It's not the same. In one case it's the government doing the compulsion, in violation of the First Amendment, and in the other case, it's a private business making a business decision, which is not covered by the First Amendment. The Constitution binds and constrains the government, not private citizens or private companies. If this were a government owned and run business, it would be different, and they would be in violation. The Constitution is there to keep the government in check, and to guarantee the citizens' rights, not limit them. It's purpose is to limit the government, and insure against governmental violation of citizens' rights.

This started running off the rails during the sixties, with the concept of "civil rights". Civil rights are, by definition, rights issued by government ("civil"), and therefore subject to revocation at the government's whim, since they issued them to begin with.

"Rights" cannot be revoked by a government, but adding the word "civil" to them make them government-issue, and under government control. It's a great scam... for the government, that is. The idea is to convince people that they only have the rights government gives them, and no longer have the ones government takes away from them. Those are not really "rights", they are mere "privileges".

There is no such thing as "civil rights".

The right to practice a religion is a right, not a privilege. It's not issued nor revoked by government... but neither is that practice guaranteed against job loss. One may still practice that religion - but find another , more accommodating, job.

Governmental interference mucks all that up, and attempts to convert a right to a civil right, and then the government can take away what it gave. Don't fall for it.



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

bigfatfurrytexan

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.



That is correct. If they retain their jobs, then under Sharia law they cannot donate to Muslim charities, or give gifts to friends and family, as the money itself is "tainted". "unclean", "haram", and all the fruits of it likewise.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Kali74, that was a first, I think. I'm pretty sure it's the first time I've EVER had to give you a star for a post.

Will wonders never cease?



edit on 2014/3/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The function of government is as a bludgeon. It rules by threat of force. When an individual tries to use the government as their own private army, hilarity sometimes ensues, and tragedy sometimes ensues, but it's never good thing, either way. The government isn't there to be any private individual's private army.

The government, I believe, just sees this as a way to enhance their power, for all power blooms from the mind of the individuals being herded. If they don't recognize the power, it's not there - for them. They will do as they will until such time as they cannot. The objective appears to me to be a governmental attempt to instill a notion of their "power" in the minds of individuals, causing them to just say "oh well, they've got the power" and roll over, and play dead.

When people use religion as a bludgeon, they're doing it wrong. That has never stopped certain misguided individuals from throughout history using it in just such a manner - but that still doesn't make it right, nor does it make their religion legitimate - it just makes it a tool, a weapon, something to be directed by men rather than their god, whomever that may be in any particular case.

An interesting trend, although not a new one, is the practice of some people to use BOTH religion and government as a bludgeon - one for each hand I suppose. That happened with Christianity during the middle ages, and we all saw the results. It wasn't pretty, and it wasn't religion. It was politics masquerading as religion to hoodwink the ignorant. It was wrong, and it was ugly.

Some people never learn, and would apparently like to do it all over again. Oddly perhaps, Atheists, of all people, are in the forefront of that attempt, trying to use their religion as a bludgeon, and when that doesn't work, trying to grasp the government as a bludgeon.

I'm with you, though - why do they (including some Atheists and some "religious" folk in that "they") have to beat everyone else over the head at all? I personally think it's insecurity - insecurity in themselves, in their beliefs, and insecurity in their god (or "not god" belief system) to be able to stand on it's own.

Until they get over it, the rest of us just need a shield to thwart the bludgeoning.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's like suing a restaurant who fires you from your waiter position after you refuse to serve customers that order pork.

No one is making them drink, do the job or find another one.

As far as the Catholics hospitals go .. it would be like forcing a Muslim trucking company to take contracts for delivering alcohol. That should be illegal.

If you are a nurse who is against abortions take a job where doing them is not part of your job. Catholic Hospitals should not be forced though.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:43 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.


This is not protecting religious freedoms. They were FREE to not take that work. Why is that missing from the logic?



that is what I see and hear when I read about this. exactly this.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

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)


Would you accept it if a muslim taxi driver were to deny a blind customer because they had a dog? and under their religious beliefs, they do not accept dogs?

If so, that is not religious freedom, that is intolerance. They opt in to work in a business that they know might deal with things they are not allowed to deal with. yet they still choose to do it.

They CHOSE that work. it is not a halal business, so they do not get to dictate their terms.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

beezzer
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?


Because you'd not see it is they were christian or any other religion.

nuff said.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   

beezzer
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.


But you can't apply the rule both sides when debating a set standard within politics.
That's unfair...and probably means you are a nazi...or an independent.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Sorry I disappoint you all the rest of the time?




new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join