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: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

The Connecticut statute, by providing Sabbath observers with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on their chosen Sabbath, violates the Establishment Clause. To meet constitutional requirements under that Clause, a statute must not only have a secular purpose and not foster excessive entanglement of government with religion, its primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 . The Connecticut statute imposes on employers and employees an absolute duty to conform their business practices to the particular religious practices of an employee by enforcing observance of the Sabbath that the latter unilaterally designates. The State thus commands that Sabbath religious concerns automatically control over all secular interests at the workplace; the statute takes no account of the convenience or interests of the employer or those of other employees who do not observe a Sabbath. In granting unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests, the statute has a [472 U.S. 703, 704] primary effect that impermissibly advances a particular religious practice. Pp. 708-711.




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

buster2010

ketsuko
reply to post by buster2010
 


It is the business owner's prerogative to hire and fire. If the employee won't do the job as required, he can be fired. End of statement.

All of this about religion is a smokescreen.

Think about it this way - If you were a regular employee of Star and you just up and refused to haul the assigned load, how do you think they would react? You are an employee who basically said, "No, I won't do my job."

It doesn't matter what your reasons are. Why should they be special?


You are right and wrong at the same time. They have a right to hire and fire as they choose. Let me point out where they screwed up. When the drivers told them we refuse to carry these loads because it is against our religion that is when Star screwed up. You cannot fire a person for not wanting to do something that is against their faith. People have the right to exercise their religion.


You do realize that what you wrote is inherently contradictory, right?

Either a company has a right to hire and fire as they see fit or they don't.

You are only discriminated against for your religion, race, gender, orientation, etc., if you can prove that was the only reason you were fired. In this case, it is not the reason. In this case, the truckers demanded that the central operation of the entire company be ordered to suit them. That is not reasonable accommodation.

The two in question knew what kind of company they were being employed by when they signed on, and if that was going to bring their faith into conflict, then they should not have accepted the job.

This is sort of like the Muslim woman who filed suit because she could not have a factory job because her traditional dress was dangerous on the factory floor. She claimed discrimination when they wouldn't hire her when she refused to change her clothing. But they couldn't let her wear her long, loose clothing around the machines - it's dangerous. Only in this case, they want a logistics company to re-arrange their logistics to suit them.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


In making case law in this case, the government oversteps by either advancing or inhibiting religious practice or either advances or inhibits the secular over the religious.

In other words, this is not a government case.... if the government rules either way, they have violated the 1st amendment by establishing case law which advances one over the other, where both have rights.

This is where the whole free country comes into play.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


As with so many other issues today, this really should be solved by simple freedom of association. Let them sort it out amongst themselves. No one was fired because of their beliefs specifically, so the government should have no compelling interest to step in.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I agree with you 100%




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


No, that's not how it works for most companies. You send your empty call, and they send you a load to pick up. Even as an Owner/Operator you don't get a list to pick from, except for one or two companies that do that.

Most companies, if you are a company driver, then it's forced dispatch. Once they send you a load you have to accept it and run it. You sign the agreement with them that in return for hiring you, you will run whatever load they send you, regardless of what it is, unless it's not legal for you to run it (ie Hazmat and you don't have an endorsement). Even if you don't have the hours to get it there on time, you have to accept the load.

An Owner/Operator has the right to refuse any load they want, with most companies, but if you refuse a load they're going to badger you until you either agree to accept it, or come up with a damn good reason to not take it. Landstar, and certain Schneider drivers are some of the few non-independent truck drivers that get to pick and choose their own loads off a DAT board.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Sorry I disappoint you all the rest of the time?



No ma'am, not "disappoint". At times you frustrate, maybe even infuriate, but never disappoint! You always have a good argument, and make me think, keep me sharp and examining my position, but never disappoint!


You make debate interesting, and that's never a disappointment!

I'm only shocked that in this case there's really no debate to be had between us. That may be a first.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by stargatetravels
 


My apologies. I'm old, was born with a cheap set of eyes to begin with, and it was late. I misread.

Mea culpa.

Disregard.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   


Pamela Geller the Islamophobe queen has it wrong again.


Guess that makes Christian bashers 'Christianophobe's'

Lot of them running around these days.

But it is not either Muslims, and Christians people have to worry about it's these people:



What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel.


en.wikiquote.org...

Those who try to kill god to become god.

Ya know those people who worship at the alter of statolatry.

Anyone who has taken a good look at American politics knows for some the party has become the 'church'



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

FlyersFan

Idiots like them will just make it harder for other muslims to get employment.



Essentially correct, but too narrow. Think more broadly. Once precedent is set, it can be used by the government against any religion, not just Islam. Islam is only being used as a "test bed" to set that precedent - it will undoubtedly be used against everyone else once set by the hated Muslims.

So what happens when it's used to move against the Catholics or Baptists?

It's really pretty Machiavellian, appearing to be for Muslims and supportive of their religious freedoms, while actually setting precedent against all religion, including Islam, and in favor of government interference in ALL religions.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

buster2010

So companies having to follow the law is forcing Sharia on Americans the Founding Fathers would ask Geller if she had ever read the Constitution. Her answer of course would be what's the Constitution.



I've read it. I know very precisely what's in it.


buster2010

Seeing how Star is not crying we are Christian so it isn't one religion against another but Star is violating the First amendment because it is violating the drivers right to exercise freedom of religion. So the government is not overstepping it's authority it's following the law unlike Star.



Star cannot violate the First Amendment. It's not possible, because Star is not a governmental entity. The First amendment prohibits governmental interference in freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

It's really odd to see you trying to "defend" the first amendment (or more properly, government ignoring it), and doing so very dismally. Perhaps it's YOU who have not read the Constitution. The government has no authority at all in the matter. It's hands are tied by the First Amendment. Therefore, it IS overstepping it's authority, AND breaking the law in doing so, not "following the law".

Star is not bound by the First Amendment - but the government IS.

I know nothing of Ms. Geller, nor do I care to know anything about her. She is only the messenger - it's the message being debated, not the messenger.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

buster2010

They have a right to hire and fire as they choose. Let me point out where they screwed up. When the drivers told them we refuse to carry these loads because it is against our religion that is when Star screwed up. You cannot fire a person for not wanting to do something that is against their faith. People have the right to exercise their religion.



They have a right to exercise their religion. They do NOT have a right to force you, or Star, to exercise their religion. That is the entire reason for the First Amendment - to prevent government from interfering either way in that exercise.

In most of the states in which I have worked, an employer can fire an employee for ANY reason, or no reason at all. That is as it should be. They have a business to run, and cannot run it if the employees are running it, too, and deciding when they will and won't work.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I'm noticing an attempt by the same people (not necessarily here, but in the wider world in general) to use the US Constitution to support one religion - Islam, and trying to use the same constitution to refute another religion - Christianity. You can't have it both ways. Either government interferes in ALL religions (which is what it appears to be after), or it interferes in NONE of them (which is what the Constitution actually specifies).

One cannot support one religion using the First Amendment and excoriate another religion using the same amendment - especially when that amendment clearly states "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". When you open that door for one, you open it for all, including "none". Atheists are not immune to interference in their own personal affairs when they insist on interference in the affairs of others. "Interference" can include both "support" and "denial" - it's ALL "interference".

When they come after me, or Larry or Curly or Moe, they will also be coming after YOU, eventually.











edit on 2014/3/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


An underlying premise, if I understand correctly, is that the government is trying to set precedent for future encroachment on religious freedoms?

Here's a link to the EEO's website on religious discrimination
www.eeoc.gov...

This is why I started this thread. All the smart people here, might even teach me something.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


If Star looses the case, this would mean that the government promotes discrimination in favor of religion over non-religion if a non-religious person can be fired for refusing a load. It is the very definition of discrimination based on religion.

However, if Star wins the case, this means the we open a door for the government to decide religious matters - which are of a personal nature - in the workplace. Since 1964 the government has been pushing harder and harder for case law in this direction.

So the only proper thing that the government can do in this case is dismiss it and not rule on it at all. Either way, if the government makes any decision at all it is neither of the parties that win, its the government that wins because they have successfully asserted authority in religious matters that defines a merger of church and state rather than a separation.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Allow me to play devil's advocate, then.

What would be so terrible if Star lost the case? We should value religious freedoms. The 1st Amendment clearly states. . .


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Any precedent set by the government would be in clear violation.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


As I was speaking of earlier, If Star wins the case, this possibly opens the door to the government having legal precedent to force hospitals to perform abortions because it says that the government gets to decide what your religious convictions are, or should be in the workplace.

If Star looses the case, this means that businesses have no say over their employee's. Period. That would mean I could get a job in a pork plant and then force them to quit processing pork, or pay me to sit on my hands and do nothing.

This is unfair to the business and the other employees who work there, the case law I cited at the top of this page, states just that. That the employer has an expectation of running their business and religion cannot override their rights.


In granting unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests, the statute has a [472 U.S. 703, 704] primary effect that impermissibly advances a particular religious practice. Pp. 708-711.



edit on 2-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Well In that case... not so fast lol. I missed the press release issued by the EEOC in which it claims:


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.


Press Release

Star Transport must feel they have solid footing here to let it go to court. Maybe there's some fine print the former employee's missed, or maybe Star truly couldn't accommodate without undue hardship. I'm interested to follow the case if only to learn the relevant details that the blogger made massive assumptions before knowing.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


reply to post by beezzer
 


There's no precedent to set with this case, the laws already exist. Either the company intentionally didn't accommodate or they couldn't. If they could accommodate, the former employees were wrongfully terminated. If they couldn't accommodate without undue hardship, then the former employees were rightfully terminated.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


So either way, it's not good.

Dang.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join