Secular+Other Religions vs. Christianity

Another thread was going a few days ago on the topic of a USAF official posting info supporting a Christmas toy drive put on by a local Christian charity. After many comments by athiests I proposed the idea that it wasn't Secular vs Christian, but it was actually Secular+Other Religions vs. Christian. A recent news article adds some weight to my point...
Fox
EEOC Government Link
Long story short, a government organization supported the rights of muslims to not haul alcohol as part of their occupation, forcing the employer to accommodate their religious beliefs. My two cents...This is good.

Now, this contrasts with recent cases involving Christians (ie. bakers in private business wanting to honour their religious beliefs by not baking cakes for gay weddings). Note that I fully believe that Kim Davis - as a representative of the government - should have been issuing marriage licenses.

So my point is...
Muslim employee of a private business wants a religious exemption? Government steps in and makes it happen.
Christian employees and owner of a private business want a religious exemption? Nope. Government steps in and penalizes them.

There's more and more cases like his occurring and it's offensive. I support freedom to practice your religious beliefs, and your freedom to run your business your way. I also support people who choose not to believe religion. But...why aren't we treating all religions the same?

a reply to: stolencar18

This is from the US EEOC report.

"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

Then it goes on to say this:

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.

Finally, it says this:

John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

I notice that your Fox News link doesn't mention any of that. Instead it opts to quote Judge Andrew Napolitano from an interview from a show on its own network because he agrees with Fox's position. Interesting... I'd call that propaganda at work.

a reply to: stolencar18

In the case of the cab, it's not the PERSON being discriminated against, it's alcohol. They will take ANYONE into the cab, but they won't transport alcohol for anyone. They treat all customers the same.

In the case of making a cake, the baker makes wedding cakes for everyone else and discriminates against a PERSON who is gay.

It's like businesses not allowing guns. They're not discriminating against the PERSON, they're not allowing GUNS. If the gun owner left his gun outside (or the cab rider left his alcohol outside) that would be fine. A gay person cannot leave their "gay" outside.

Keep in mind that each state has its own discrimination and religious exemption laws, so there will be times when a Muslim cake baker (or Christian, or anyone) refuses to sell a wedding cake to gay people and that's legal, because the state law allows it.

First of all, there are rules against proselytizing messages in official military communications, except when it's coming from the chaplain. That was the problem with the email about the toy drive. It wouldn't have mattered what religion was being proselytized.

Second, the Muslims not wanting to haul alcohol weren't discriminating against any other race, religion or sexual orientation. The bakers who were willing to sell a wedding cake to everyone except "the gays" WERE actually discriminating. Same with Kim Davis not wanting to provide wedding licenses to gay couples.

Do you see the difference?

The muslims weren't discriminating against anyone per se, but their choices in religious beliefs were causing an impact on the business and (most likely) other drivers (possibly even customers...who knows). If that trucking company hired a non-religious guy off the street and he happily did his job (that he signed up for...) the trucking company would be in a different position, but these muslims came in and imposed their beliefs onto their employer causing them to change things up from business as usual. Sure, it may have been an easy change, but why? Why is it necessary? Do your job and shut up or find a new job - trucking companies are hiring like crazy and a new route would not have been hard to find. Instead, they dug in their feet and insisted someone else change to suit them.

Christian bakers? They could have baked a cake, but they chose not to. The gay people could have gone to another bakery and let the Christian bakery run into the ground.

Either way the point is the same - one religious belief was imposed on someone else and held up, and another religious belief was upheld by someone else and they're demonized and the second point is that we rarely see athiests jumping up and down over muslims the same way.

Finally, let's not pretend that my examples are the only instances in recent times of muslims getting special treatment and/or recognition and protection while Christians don't. Shia muslim parades in Canada lately (post-election), NYC mosques, etc. Muslims across North America and Europe are expanding their belief system and it's considered racist or offensive to question it while Christianity is pushed further back. I'm not saying there's some global muslim conspiracy - I'm saying that the two are not treated equally and its bs.

*please note that I am note anti-muslim. I am pro-"believe whatever you want". I frankly don't care if you worship a kiwi fruit, just don't try and feed it to me.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did you read the story? No cabbies. It's truckers who demanded that they get someone elses route because they didn't want to do their own (because of religious beliefs).

And Krazy...we've disagreed lots before but I respect your opinions. I know your political views but I ask that if you're going to respond you address the issue and not the source. I also cited the EEOC source for fairness. My point remains the same. The concept behind both sources - Fox and EEOC - are the same. Muslims don't want to do something because of religious beliefs so the employer is penalized.

I wonder if you spend so much time on this site attacking sources that sometimes you forget to think about the issues...

a reply to: stolencar18

But you're the one ignoring the actual laws that are involved here. You're basically presenting feelings & opinions while Krazy presented laws & facts. The laws are clear cut on this issue, but your articles are ignoring them to push an emotional response which has nothing to do with the actual laws.

a reply to: stolencar18

The point I was making is that your Fox source is presenting a sensationalized account of the events and the EOCC is giving a factual account of what happened, including the legal precedent that was cited for the ruling in the case. What was presented in the Fox account is a distorted version of events intended to resonate with a (likely) Christian conservative reader by alarming certain things a Christian conservative in America has been conditioned to fear from the right wing media. But if you look at the factual account and read that, you can see that there are more details to the case that were left out of the article. Where's the part in the Fox article talking about "undue hardship"? Why didn't the article mention the legal precedent that was used to rule in favor of the Muslims? Why focus on a known conservative judge who disagrees with the ruling instead? He doesn't even mention WHY he thinks that ruling is wrong. Just that it is.

So to get back to your thread. You are basing the premises of your OP on an identified propaganda piece as your evidence. This makes your thread look overly biased and like you are regurgitating propaganda. I mean to be honest, all I have to do to refute your thread is bring up the Hobby Lobby ruling. There you have a ruling that allows a company to dictate its health compensation to its employees based on the company's owner's religious beliefs. If that is alright, what is wrong with an employee getting compensation because he was fired from a company that didn't attempt to work with him to account for his beliefs in any way?

a reply to: stolencar18
3 members have already explained why you're comparing apples to oranges, so I'm not going to explain it a fourth time. It sounds to me, as if you don't like it that Muslims are receiving the same consideration(and privilege) under the law that Christians have enjoyed for centuries. Everything you point at the Muslims for, Christians have done, and are doing 100 times over. Read the OP in my signature, and tell me Christianity doesn't have privileged status in the U.S. I don't see Muslims getting that kind of red carpet treatment to this point. But even if they did, it would be no different than Christians have been getting for a very long time.

a reply to: stolencar18

the key words in the whole thing is:4

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so.

and the courts generally are quite lenient towards the business owners. in the case of the little country court clerk that every one was griping about, I have a hard time not seeing the legislature getting called into session to find another avenue for the people in a few countries as an undue hardship for the taxpayers, and I see having people travel to adjoining counties as also being not an undue hardship for those taxpayers who are wanting the marriage license, not to mention to the adjoining counties who had to handle the extra workload.
as far as bakeries making cakes, first, I would like to point out that business owner's rights are not the same a employee rights, especially in the modern world where so many of the businesses are really franchises of larger corporations. the gov't is by the people, for the people, not by the business, for the business and those constitutional rights were given to the people!! So, one could also say that any business who demanded that their employees refuse to make a gay wedding cake might also have a moral problem with carrying out their employer's wished because they see the action as mean and hateful, couldn't we?

ya know around the country, I bet on a daily basis, there are many bosses telling their secretaries to lie to their wives about their whereabouts, or to their clients, ect. I have yet to hear of any courtcases where the christian have challenged this behavior as going against their religious freedom. Wonder why that is???

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did you read the story?

Man, I'm really sorry. I didn't read the story. I have now. And I have read the law.

In cases like this, if an accommodation can be easily made, I support that 100%. For example, if someone else could have hauled the alcohol, I'm FINE with that. If someone else can make the cake or issue the marriage license, that's FINE (that's how it should work, IMO).

Now, if another truck driver wasn't willing, or if it would have been a hardship on the trucking company to make an accommodation, I would side with them. (like the stewardess who became a Muslim and refused to serve drinks. Her co-workers weren't willing to do that part of her job, so she was suspended.) www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the case of the baker AND the Kim Davis, there was no one else to do the job. The baker just told the gay people he couldn't help them and Kim Davis ordered her deputies not to issue licenses. There was no one else available to do the job.

The EEOC information that Krazy posted makes it completely clear. An accommodation could have been easily made, but the employer refused.

As far as the county clerk goes, I fully agree with the statements saying she was wrong. She held a public office position representing a government, not her own business, and she should do it. My OP states as much.

As far as the two examples stated go, I still think I disagree. You guys have given me a bit to chew on, and I fully understand the legal position, but let's look at it more broadly. We look at a million other issues on here outside the scope of the law but when it comes to religion everyone resorts to "What does the law say?" Of course, people will come up with excuses for that statement as well...

Point is...the law, or interpretation of the law by others, doesn't always affect different religions in the same way. My broad view of things, based on various media source, this website, and life experience, is that I see a very clear effort to remove Christian stuff (phrases, symbols, acts, etc) but similar efforts to mute other religions are called racist or discriminatory. There's cases (I couldn't be bothered to look them up for links right now...) of Christian people not wanting to do something based on religious beliefs (including employees, not just employers) that aren't treated the same as the muslim one.

Anyways..opinions noted.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did you read the story?

Man, I'm really sorry. I didn't read the story. I have now. And I have read the law.

In cases like this, if an accommodation can be easily made, I support that 100%. For example, if someone else could have hauled the alcohol, I'm FINE with that. If someone else can make the cake or issue the marriage license, that's FINE (that's how it should work, IMO).

Now, if another truck driver wasn't willing, or if it would have been a hardship on the trucking company to make an accommodation, I would side with them. (like the stewardess who became a Muslim and refused to serve drinks. Her co-workers weren't willing to do that part of her job, so she was suspended.) www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the case of the baker AND the Kim Davis, there was no one else to do the job. The baker just told the gay people he couldn't help them and Kim Davis ordered her deputies not to issue licenses. There was no one else available to do the job.

The EEOC information that Krazy posted makes it completely clear. An accommodation could have been easily made, but the employer refused.

WHAT? There were no other bakeries available to bake them a cake? Are you 100% sure about that?

originally posted by: stolencar18
I see a very clear effort to remove Christian stuff (phrases, symbols, acts, etc) but similar efforts to mute other religions are called racist or discriminatory. There's cases (I couldn't be bothered to look them up for links right now...) of Christian people not wanting to do something based on religious beliefs (including employees, not just employers) that aren't treated the same as the muslim one.

It all depends on the law. That's what it's there for.

The reason we see so many efforts to restrain Christian imposition is that they are the ones who have been doing all the imposing over the years. No one every complained about it because most of the nation understood and wasn't bothered by it.

Today, we are much more diverse, not only in religion, but culturally and racially, and in our views of what a secular nation really is. If it had been Muslims in the majority all along, we'd have the star and crescent symbol on our currency and the pledge of allegiance would read, "One nation, under Allah". And you'd see people working to extricate Islam from the legal side of things, with an occasional Christian issue.

If you want to make your point that Christians are treated unfairly, as compared to Muslims, then you need to provide situations where that is the case. I showed you a case of a Muslim woman being suspended because the airline couldn't easily accommodate her. Maybe if you have time later, you can look up the cases you're talking about and present them here.

originally posted by: stolencar18
As far as the county clerk goes, I fully agree with the statements saying she was wrong. She held a public office position representing a government, not her own business, and she should do it. My OP states as much.

As far as the two examples stated go, I still think I disagree. You guys have given me a bit to chew on, and I fully understand the legal position, but let's look at it more broadly. We look at a million other issues on here outside the scope of the law but when it comes to religion everyone resorts to "What does the law say?" Of course, people will come up with excuses for that statement as well...

Point is...the law, or interpretation of the law by others, doesn't always affect different religions in the same way. My broad view of things, based on various media source, this website, and life experience, is that I see a very clear effort to remove Christian stuff (phrases, symbols, acts, etc) but similar efforts to mute other religions are called racist or discriminatory. There's cases (I couldn't be bothered to look them up for links right now...) of Christian people not wanting to do something based on religious beliefs (including employees, not just employers) that aren't treated the same as the muslim one.

Anyways..opinions noted.

You'll have to cite each event where you think christians are being treated unfairly and not just a blanket statement that you feel this way or that.

a reply to: jjkenobi

That's not what I said. A customer has the right to obtain goods and services from ANY company that offers them to the public. A customer doesn't have to shop around to find someone who is willing to serve them.

a reply to: stolencar18

Point is...the law, or interpretation of the law by others, doesn't always affect different religions in the same way. My broad view of things, based on various media source, this website, and life experience, is that I see a very clear effort to remove Christian stuff (phrases, symbols, acts, etc) but similar efforts to mute other religions are called racist or discriminatory. There's cases (I couldn't be bothered to look them up for links right now...) of Christian people not wanting to do something based on religious beliefs (including employees, not just employers) that aren't treated the same as the muslim one.

But the facts don't support your hypothesis. Which is the reason I did the thread in my signature. Christianity enjoys a privileged status in the U.S. and any perceived threat to that status is met with cries of persecution. I'm not saying there's never been a legal case where the verdict was wrong. I'm saying the legal privilege Christianity has in this country FAR outweighs any perceived threat to that status. Not to mention that at least 3/4 of the population identify as Christian. You're a majority! Legally, the only thing that has happened is that non-Christians have challenged the majority, and the constitution has supported that challenge. No rights have been lost. Only a few privileges that shouldn't have existed to start with.

Apart from the legal structure, sure there are challenges from the non-religious, but that's to be expected in a changing society that is drifting away from religion, Christianity especially. There are those who see Christianity, and other religions, as being too heavily vested in laws and societal norms in this country. As well as being too heavy handed and controlling. They see it as antiquated, and a deterrent to our growth as a society. That doesn't mean they want to eradicate it. But they are throwing off the grip its had on this country.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did you read the story? No cabbies. It's truckers who demanded that they get someone elses route because they didn't want to do their own (because of religious beliefs).

The key point in this is: "Easily Accommodated".

Apparently, there were enough employees that it would not be a hardship to respect the religious belief.

-------------------------

I personally Do Not agree with someone not doing the job they were hired to do. I do not support exemptions for Cab Drivers, Truck Drivers, Grocery Baggers, etc.

Handling alcohol is not drinking it.

Religious dress I support, as long as it doesn't interfere with the job.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The company may have been able to accommodate them, but the other employees shouldn't be forced to change routes because of anothers religious beliefs.

By protecting one person you are violating another person. This is not what these laws are for.

If a convenience store with no hat/hair policy tried to prevent a female from wearing a hijab or a male from wearing a turban this would be religious discrimination. Wearing a religious hair covering causes no inconvenience to other employees, nor does it violate pre-existing company policy.

This is an example for the reason behind the law. Religious tolerance does not mean you get special treatment that directly effects other employees.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The company may have been able to accommodate them, but the other employees shouldn't be forced to change routes because of anothers religious beliefs.

Agreed. But they were not forced.

Religious tolerance does not mean you get special treatment that directly effects other employees.

Unless those other employees volunteer or agree. Is there any indication they were "forced" to take another route?