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: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

getso
Surely this could have been resolved at the job interview stage with a simple question to the Muslim potential employee. " Do you have any religious objections to delivering alcohol, as this is part of your work requirement ? " If the Muslim says that he has a problem with that, then he is simply unsuitable for that job. It's not fecking Rocket Science !



edit on 2-3-2014 by getso because: none


Suppose you were in Human Resources and tasked with hiring or rejecting a Jain applicant. Further suppose that your company delivers thousands of loads for all sorts of clients, hundreds of thousands of different sorts of geegaws being hauled by your drivers. Would YOU know what Jains are prohibited to interact with on religious grounds? Probably not - it's the job of the applicant to draw the line, since he is most familiar with the tenets of his own religion, not the job of the interviewer to take a few days and nights listing potential loads and asking if the applicant would have a problem with each item.

The only question the interviewer needs to ask is "will there be any problems with you performing the job?" That is a simple yes or no answer, and it's up to the applicant to find where the line is drawn.




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
What a bunch of lazy hypocrites, they have no problem selling booze to the public when they walk into their stores that sell liqueur and pork rinds.

I miss the old America.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

getso
Surely this could have been resolved at the job interview stage with a simple question to the Muslim potential employee. " Do you have any religious objections to delivering alcohol, as this is part of your work requirement ? " If the Muslim says that he has a problem with that, then he is simply unsuitable for that job. It's not fecking Rocket Science !



edit on 2-3-2014 by getso because: none


I've been out here a year and a half this time, and between this time, and the last job I've had as a driver, I've pulled exactly one alcohol load. This despite us having a dedicated contract with the last company, and having several contracts with breweries with this one. Unless you are in the right place, at the right time, to get an alcohol load you can go your entire career and never pull an alcohol load. Not hiring someone because they might one day get a load that goes against their beliefs would mean quite a few people don't get hired.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

vkey08

A BAN ON BACON!!!!!!!



SACRILEGE!

You're trampling on my First Amendment rights to glut myself on bacon as a free expression of the observation of my religion!

My missus is entirely disgusted by bacon (and sardines), but even SHE won't prevent me from partaking... the government simply CAN'T! THEY do not have the power SHE wields!

There are, of course, certain accommodations... for example, I had to throw away my bar of bacon-scented soap!



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:20 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?

then they quit their job. The company did not convert to Islam and so does not need to do anything.

Your argument is nonsense anyway (although I know you are playing devils advocate but..). If I was working as a wine taster for a company and then converted to Islam it has absolutley nothing to do with company. It is myself who has changed and therefore the job is no longer applicable to me. I therefore resign.

This whole thing is nothing to do with respecting rights. It is all to do with running scared of the "bigotry" card.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Obviously I disagree. You are choosing to interpret something in a way in which law does not. Creating a law that prohibits an employer from not respecting a person's religiously held beliefs is not violating the Establishment Clause. The law hasn't ruled on a religion but on actions/reactions employers can have to a person of religion.

You would be right if a new law were made that stated that Muslims cannot transport alcohol under any circumstances therefor cannot be fired or not hired because of this aspect of their faith. That would violate the 1st Amendment.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I understand that, but I don't think there is a precedent to be set here. The company either violated reasonable accommodation or they didn't.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree with you that we have to support eachother, but as I have said before, I feel like we (Muslims) are being used as useful idiots, and I distinctly do not like that feeling...

I am starting to feel like a rabbit that needs to freeze lest the motion be noticeable, and I dislike that feeling.

It is not the government that gives us rights, these are natural and inalienable rights. If religious people would like to practice our faith, it is we who should support each other, not asking the government to step in at every turn. I could work for you, or your could work for me, and find amicability faster than getting anything just from a government entity, which has neither one of us at heart, but only themselves.

If you want a job that supports your religion better, or if I want a job that is more agreeable to my religion, it is better for the religious to find sympathy with one another, even ones from different faiths, rather than to beg for more laws from the government, an entity who has no rights over our natural rights.

I am beginning to feel as if where we may be messing up to begin with is going to the government for anything..
edit on 2-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Obviously I disagree.



Obviously. You wouldn't be you if you didn't, and I would have cause for alarm. Thankfully, this demonstrates that all is still right with the world!




You are choosing to interpret something in a way in which law does not.



Point of order: law does not interpret anything, it is interpreted. However, I get your drift here.




Creating a law that prohibits an employer from not respecting a person's religiously held beliefs is not violating the Establishment Clause. The law hasn't ruled on a religion but on actions/reactions employers can have to a person of religion.



I must disagree here, out of ignorance perhaps. I fail to see how creating a law concerning religion is not creating a law concerning religion. It does not establish the individuals right to religion, true enough, nor does it prohibit them from exercising their religion, but it DOES establish the requirement for someone else to observe a religion not theirs. The Constitution guarantees the right of the individual to practice his or her own religion, but it does not guarantee the right to force that religion on another, nor does it establish a requirement for anyone to respect anything, nor does it establish a requirement to not offend, nor does it guarantee a right not to be offended. It's sole purpose is to establish the boundaries which government cannot cross in encroaching on rights, and to specify how government is to function and be structured. "Shall make no law" does not allow for making laws to either support or deny any religion, nor does it allow for making laws requiring any citizen to do so, or prohibiting them from doing so.




You would be right if a new law were made that stated that Muslims cannot transport alcohol under any circumstances therefor cannot be fired or not hired because of this aspect of their faith. That would violate the 1st Amendment.



But that is precisely what this case attempts - to establish that they cannot be fired for this aspect of their faith. From the business perspective, they weren't fired for this aspect of their faith - they were fired for refusal to do the job for which they were hired. Their reasoning for refusing to perform the job is irrelevant. they refused. that's enough. It's only a religious issue in the minds of the Muslims involved (not even all Muslims, as I can affirm), and apparently the government, who appear to have a vested interest in establishing their authority in religious matters - otherwise, the case could not have arisen. If heard on a purely secular basis, without allowing religion to enter the courtroom or be admitted as evidence, the only outcome is affirmation of the firing, for cause, but even that establishes or affirms governmental authority in matters of religion, since that is what the government is basing it's case upon. Therefore, it IS a case based upon religion, and religion alone, and therefore falls under the First Amendment. Without ruling on religion, the case crumbles into dust.




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



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I understand that, but I don't think there is a precedent to be set here. The company either violated reasonable accommodation or they didn't.


True, but does the government have the right to determine what is "reasonable accommodation" in religious matters when it is barred from making determinations in religious matters?

That's my gripe with it. The government is creating special classes and establishing their own "protected classes" under the guise of Civil Rights, whereas the Constitution grants the same "protection class" to all, without favor. Then, the government is further enforcing this "protected class" scheme on the citizenry, in violation of their rights.

That's why I've never had a company with more than one employee - myself. I can then do business with whomever I will, and refuse to do business with whomever I will... although it appears that in some cases and places, the government is even beginning to target that sort of arrangement for "civil rights" actions. My case is special, however. They could conceivably force me to take a job I didn't want, but they couldn't force me to do that job to it's utmost. I could, for example, "fall asleep" just as the barbarians are storming the gates, and no one, anywhere, could do a thing about that other than fire me - posthumously. It's not in anyone's best interests to force me to take a job, but as I said, I'm a special case in that regard. Star Transportation is not, and so they should get equal protection under the law, so that they are not forced to hire people who won't work when the work is available and needs to be done.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




I fail to see how creating a law concerning religion is not creating a law concerning religion. It does not establish the individuals right to religion, true enough, but it DOES establish the requirement for someone else to observe a religion not theirs.


The law doesn't address religion or a religious right it addresses an action or reaction. It doesn't require a person observe a religion just simply respect it. Ahhh if only people could do this on their own.



But that is precisely what this case attempts - to establish that they cannot be fired for this aspect of their faith.


No it doesn't. A law already exists that states reasonable accommodation must be made unless it causes undue distress. To demonstrate let's say the two drivers have never been required to take a load of alcohol before, their religious beliefs being known, other drivers have been available to deal with those. But the flu has been going around and they are the only two that are available to take this load, the boss has called every driver with no luck (remember the policy to pay customers for late deliveries). Now the boss has made every effort to accommodate the two drivers religious beliefs about alcohol, now he is fully within his right to fire the drivers because them not taking the load is going to cause undue stress.

Different scenario... A lot of drivers are out sick with the flu, a few have routine deliveries that gets them home an hour earlier than taking this alcohol load would so they say no and go off on the regular runs leaving the two Muslims and the boss says well you either take this load or you're fired. Reasonable accommodation hasn't been met, he could have told the other drivers they had to switch for that day and that's the end of it.



That's why I've never had a company with more than one employee - myself. I can then do business with whomever I will, and refuse to do business with whomever I will... although it appears that in some cases and places, the government is even beginning to target that sort of arrangement for "civil rights" actions.


Unless your business isn't open to the public. If it is, the government has always done so, the public just didn't use to include blacks, women, gays, witches etc, etc. Now it does.
edit on 3/2/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
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.


not AFAIK - eg this link says no drinking or selling, another site says avoidance means even small amounts such as in cooking - where any would boil off anyway, another talks only about consumption...I can't find any reference to transporting it as part of employment.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The law doesn't address religion or a religious right it addresses an action or reaction. It doesn't require a person observe a religion just simply respect it. Ahhh if only people could do this on their own.



If it does not address religion, or a religious right, then "religion as a protected class" cannot be admitted as evidence in the case. The case then becomes "we told them to do a job, and they refused to do that job, so we fired them for refusal. Is that wrong?" So you see, introducing religion as a cause IS addressing religion and religious rights. If they don't, their case melts like a snowball in sunshine. "Respecting religion" does not involve continually paying a person when they refuse to work. I can respect your religion, but if you don't do your job, we'll be discussing it over dinner, never again at work.




No it doesn't. A law already exists that states reasonable accommodation must be made unless it causes undue distress. To demonstrate let's say the two drivers have never been required to take a load of alcohol before, their religious beliefs being known, other drivers have been available to deal with those. But the flu has been going around and they are the only two that are available to take this load, the boss has called every driver with no luck (remember the policy to pay customers for late deliveries). Now the boss has made every effort to accommodate the two drivers religious beliefs about alcohol, now he is fully within his right to fire the drivers because them not taking the load is going to cause undue stress.

Different scenario... A lot of drivers are out sick with the flu, a few have routine deliveries that gets them home an hour earlier than taking this alcohol load would so they say no and go off on the regular runs leaving the two Muslims and the boss says well you either take this load or you're fired. Reasonable accommodation hasn't been met, he could have told the other drivers they had to switch for that day and that's the end of it.



But "reasonable accommodation" for religion is not a governmental concern. There are many legitimate "protected classes", legitimate in that they do not violate the Constitution by their creation. Religion is not one of them. It's very observation as a governmentally "protected class" violates the First Amendment. I do note that didn't stop them from creating it, only that it is not a legitimate creation, since that creation is in violation. If certain classes of folk want "civil rights", and "protected status", more power to them, but don't come crying when the issuing agency of those rights suddenly revokes them and the protection - they asked for it. I personally have no civil rights, nor do I want any, because I don't recognize the government's authority to "grant rights". All the rights I have are the ones I was born with, regardless of what the government wants to bestow or remove.




Unless your business isn't open to the public. If it is the government has always done so the public just didn't use to include blacks, women, gays, witches etc, etc. Now it does.



Always done what? They have not always forced people to do business with people they don't want to - that's a recent innovation. No older than I am, I can recall when businesses reserved the right to reject service to anyone, for no reason. Now it's true that I never saw a business reject service to a black, or a woman, or a gay, or a witch based upon those criteria, but I HAVE seen them reject service, and I do know that there were days, and lived during a few of them, when those criteria were considered "legitimate", but never saw it happen, other than in movies. In the real world, the money was always the same color and ideology, so they took it. I used to live in Greensboro, NC, where the "Woolworth's Counter" was a big deal - so big that they turned it into an international museum, so it apparently happened, but never within my observation. The fact that it DID happen shows that the government has not always "done that". people are not included in "the public" by governmental edict. No governmental ruling suddenly makes a person a person.






edit on 2014/3/2 by nenothtu because: fixed quote tags



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

OpinionatedB
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.


not AFAIK - eg this link says no drinking or selling, another site says avoidance means even small amounts such as in cooking - where any would boil off anyway, another talks only about consumption...I can't find any reference to transporting it as part of employment.


She's a Muslim, and so probably doesn't get her information from web links. She's asleep right now, but I'll point out that she DID post a link to the specific prohibition, in this post, which I will reiterate here:


OpinionatedB

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.



I'll also point out that in c0oking with alcohol, when it boils off that means there are alcohol molecules floating around and permeating the air in the house, so that consumption is unavoidable if one continues breathing. It doesn't matter whether one gets intoxicated from them or not, the prohibition is against consumption. In the link, al-Sistani includes "promotion" in the prohibition, which delivery is certainly a part of.

She also pointed out that not all Muslims are that fastidious in their observations, and so there was no way of knowing on the part of the Human Resources folk just which sort of Muslim they were hiring - that would have been on the applicants to reveal.



edit on 2014/3/2 by nenothtu because: spelling



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


There are alcohol molecules in every breath you take.

Islam does not actually have a single source of law other than the holy books - which have to be interpreted - and one Islamic scholar can disagree with another - so while perhaps your source says advertising is harum, another might say that transporting is not.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Public Accommodation came with the British and remained through the Revolution, Civil War (was a bit of a big deal after the Civil War when Yankees refused business to former Confederates) and lives with us to this day. Generally though it's such common sense that it barely is ever mentioned... until recently now that people want to use their religion in order to discriminate against gays. If you are open to the public, it must be the entire public, you don't have the authority to declare another person as not being a member of the public. The only time you have the right to refuse service is if someone is being disruptive to your business.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by buster2010
 


And it is a free country. They were not slaves being forced to do anything. The fact they were hired proves they were not being discriminated against based upon their religion.

The government can have NO say in this matter if the first amendment is to be followed, otherwise, the government oversteps the bounds of their own authority by either favoring or not favoring one's rights over another's.

They both have rights, both star and the men... the problem arises when you tell the government to take authority where they have none. The men are free to be Muslim in this country, and free to work wherever is agreeable to them. Star has rights in this country to practice their business how they see fit, which means hiring and firing according to the needs of their business.

If the government steps in, they violate the first amendment.


No Star does not have rights. The rights given in the constitution is for the citizens of this country not the companies they own. Laws and rights are two different things and Star broke both the law and denied these drivers of their rights. Star may not have discriminated against them by hiring but they sure did when they fired them.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

ketsuko

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.


You have the right to hire or fire people as you choose but you cannot bring race, religion, gender or sexual preference when making those decisions. That is what I meant when I said you were both right and wrong Sorry you missed that.

This is what the Quran says about women's clothing.

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not harassed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
—Sura 33 (Al-Ahzab), ayah 59, Qur'an

It says nothing about long loose clothing. So her long loose clothing really doesn't fit with her faith so the woman was in the wrong. Her choice of clothing sounds like it was more regional based instead of religious based.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


No, they didn't. When you sign the paperwork to get hired by a trucking company, it specifically states in it (all of them that I've seen), that they have the right to fire you for any reason. They were hired to do the job, and didn't tell anyone that it would be a problem, and then refused to do the job. That's grounds for a rightful termination according to the contract they signed.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Right you are Zaph, In a right to work state you have the right to lose your job if you do not do your job. just another adjust the rules for your agenda ploy...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join