EEOC wins $240,000 damages for Muslim truckers fired for not delivering beer

a reply to: deadeyedick

Ok this confirms it. Benevolent Heretic is right. You ARE trolling your own thread. I was going to respond seriously to this, but then I realized it would get me infracted. If you want to talk about this. Find me in the other thread. This thread is going nowhere.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reality is simple. This company delivers alcohol. If you don't support the delivery of alcohol you shouldn't work for a company that delivers alcohol.

Once they took,the job they should be required to deliver whatever products the company delivers. These laws were not intended to cater to religious beliefs in this way.

I agree. If you are hired as a delivery driver - - your job is to deliver whatever is on your truck.

Alcohol is a very big part of American Society and Culture. I'm assuming this is about packaged, unopened alcohol. They need to get over handling unopened alcohol. Religious belief or not.

I would question, is this their regular route? Is the dispatcher deliberately assigning them to deliver alcohol? Could be an asshole dispatcher forcing them to deliver alcohol to make a point.

If it was opened and/or they were forced to serve it at a company party - - well, then, that would definitely be a violation of their religious rights.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you are twisting things to mean something else


as far as the link used for the op I choose it from the top of results from google and was not aware that it was jihad watch until later

it does not matter though because the reporting is accurate

if the thread is going nowhere then it looks like the two of you done your job well while pointing to the op as trolling

JIHAD in action

a reply to: deadeyedick

do you know what an "undue burden" is?
it means that if an accommodation can be easily made, it should be, but if it would cost the business money or cause the business some other kind of real hardship, then that business is exempt and don't have to accommodate the employee.
if a reasonable accommodation is offered and refused, well then the employer is off the hook.

now, you tell me,
do you think dragging the legislature back into session (which would cost the taxpayers a rather large sum of money) just so they can rewrite the laws for those few counties that have county clerks who feel like kimmy does would be an "undue burden". It this company would have had to hire another trucker for the sole purpose of running the alchohol, you would be rightfully having a fit over it!!
do you think that it was an undue burden to have the residents of this county have to travel to adjacent counties to obtain their marriage licenses? what about the counties that had to handle this extra workload, would it be considered an undue burden to them and the taxpayers of those counties if they had to hire another employee to help handle the extra workload?

a reply to: Annee

If it was opened and/or they were forced to serve it at a company party - - well, then, that would definitely be a violation of their religious rights.

You mean forced with a gun or just serve this drink or loose your job?
You maybe right but maybe wrong too if they were hired to fill any roles that was needed


I just do not see how a free market can withstand the amount of abuse this case opens up for the future. The islam and Christian religions are pretty well known but the lesser known religions could have a legal field day with such rulings.


There are past threads on this site that covered the story yrs ago but I have not found them yet.


Does this ruling now mean that I can discriminate in hiring based on religion???

I think it most certainly does.

a reply to: dawnstar
no

kim was hired before the changes were made

she gave months of notice

these clowns were hired to do a job that included running booze

they waited until they had the job to refuse the work

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It really makes you mad that your article in the OP is considered a racist/bigoted site.

It's a site run by Robert Spencer. He is a racist on the level of Pamela Geller so of course it's going to be a racist site.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

You hold the leaders responsible for what they are ACTUALLY responsible for. Since when does this country blame the Executive Branch for the actions of the Judicial Branch? What happened to Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances?

Uhhh since ATS and every other outlet decided it was cool to blame Bush for 2008-9? People blamed the Executive Branch for what congress did, which was give Bush the choice to either sign tarp or be a lame duck.

But you go on protecting that Obama legacy.

a reply to: buster2010

Opinions do not change the fact that the story in the op is correct along with every other story I found on their site. Biased yes but racist no

I have found no evidence that not accepting the muslim religion makes you racist

I am fairly open minded so do you have any evidence that the site is racist?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Look at my join date. Was I here during Bush' Presidency? No. So don't blame me or lump me in with the members here who accused Bush of everything under the sun.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Look at my join date. Was I here during Bush' Presidency? No. So don't blame me or lump me in with the members here who accused Bush of everything under the sun.

Lol I didnt.
I accused you of protecting Obama.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

your join date shows something different than what you refer us too because it resets when one resets their password

no one could have known such by looking at your avatar

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Which is also dumb. There is no reason we should even be talking about Obama in this thread. This case has to do with the Judicial Branch of government, not the Executive Branch of government.

Funny enough, you are trying to say I'm protecting Obama, but I don't even want to be talking about him. Why is it that Conservatives like talking about Obama more than anyone else? I have no problems griping about things he does wrong when he ACTUALLY does something wrong, but I really don't feel the need to bring him up for EVERY little thing involving the government. I know how compartmentalization works.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

your join date shows something different than what you refer us too because it resets when one resets their password

First I've ever heard of this.

no one could have known such by looking at your avatar

No matter. I've never changed my password on this website. My join date really is February 7th, 2012.

a reply to: deadeyedick
little kimmie knew that the chances were good that the changes were coming, so much so, that right after being elected, she was writing letters to elected officials wanting them to act.
and, my husband was a trucker, he never hauled alchohol as far as I know, he hauled alot of other things. most trucking companies just take whatever contracts they can get, and don't confine themselves to one certain item. so are you sure that it was self evident when they were hired on that they would be transporting alchohol? or was this a contract that the company picked up after they were hired?

it was decided that the trucking company could have easily accommodated the employees in this care, and therefore ruled in their favor. in the county clerk case, she is an elected county representative, her paycheck is issued through county funds. The country really had no say in the laws that govern how marriage licenses were to be issued. And she really didn't have to issue any to begin with, she had court deputies that could take that chore off her hands. Heck she was the supervisor over them and the county clerk's office does a heck of alot more than just issue marriage licenses. But, she wouldn't let them, would she? No, because her name and title would still be on those marriage licenses, again, dictated by state laws, the county was in no position to change those laws!!! whereas the trucking company probably just had to ensure that the dispatcher planned the truckers routes so that other people were in a position to pick up the shipments of alchohol, it took a judge, and some jail time for kim to soften her stance on the issue, to find an accommodation that was acceptable by both.

so, now minority religions claiming the same rights that christians have been enjoying all this time is an act of jihad huh???
okay, but, making up a reason to go bomb cities, and villages into oblivion and killing the men, women, and children was a called a crusade by the president that started that danged war! And, that little ole crusade has put a mass of people on the move towards europe, and eventually here probably....so well, you might as well get used to the minority religions wanting an equal right to practice their religion. Instead of griping everytime when those christians who cross that separation of church and state, you should be wanting to preserve it... since it will allow us all to practice whatever religion we wish without gov't interference as long as we don't start trampling on others rights to do the same...

My first question to these gentlemen would have been.

"Did you know that this company delivered alcohol of various sorts?"

If yes?

"Did you feel unable to do that due to your religious beliefs?"

If yes?

"Why the Hell did you bother applying, then, as a driver?"

This is wrong. Reasonable accommodation should apply only to physical disabilities. Does this mean that a blind man should be able to be hired as a driver? No, of course not, that isn't reasonable.

If your religious beliefs are offended by doing your job as described, then I'm really sorry, you rapidly become unemployed.

Muslim. Christian. Buddhist. What ever.

a reply to: dawnstar

by accommodations for the muslims you mean remove a driver from a route they have been proven on and worked hard to maintain. That is not fair just or legal

now they can ask but not force

a reply to: deadeyedick

I looked at the company's website, there is no indication that it was any different than the trucking companies my husband worked for. He never got one specific route that he "got to prove himself and work hard to maintain"! One trip he could have been traveling up and down the east coast, another he might be heading out west and have a lay over in las vagas (boy, he loved that route!!), and he had the ability to refuse a route if he didnt' want to take it, like heading up to alaska, he refused that one. he also had the choice of going to short haul if he had wished, but well, you just don't make as much money that way. Now if every route that they could have put him on had a pickup and delivery of alchohol on it, you might have a point, but well then the trucking company would have mentioned this in their hearing, wouldn't they?

a reply to: dawnstar

It really just depends on their routing procedure and what ones definition of reasonable accommodation is.

To take one load from a driver and give it to another is beyond the companies responsibility.

Where does it end?

The muslims can find something wrong with every job out there such as delivering meat tobacco computers fireworks guns anything supporting another religion the list just goes on and on

there is no end to it

a reply to: deadeyedick

It ends when it becomes more of a detriment to schedule the Muslim's shipping routes versus running the business. Making one or two accommodations can be considered reasonable (if they are possible). Making 50 of them for every little thing isn't reasonable and the company would have the right to let the person go. They attempted to work with him for the one or two major issues, but if he kept coming back with more issues then the company can let him go.