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

a reply to: DelMarvel

going a bit of memory
this made headlines a few yrs back and there are existing threads on it but I can not find.

a reply to: DelMarvel

seems to me that weather or not they were picking up alcohol wouldn't be on the top of their list of concerns as to what routes are desireable and what aren't. not a route that takes you into NY City, that wouldn't be too disireable for most drivers. but alcohol??? heck, ya know that sometimes there's an overage on a load and well, the drivers get to have the excess, at least my husband had this happen a couple of times. I imagine there's quite a few truckers out there that would take the run, just hoping that it would be their lucky day!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

You do not go into the transportation business while having unstated secret no noes

if you are hired and do not tell your employer your restrictions then it is on you and you would not be givin the job in the first place without being dishonest

this is a big score for everyone that does not want muslims to work cause now they will be skipped over and that is likely why the story was buried in the msm and I had to use a link from jihadist watch.org

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel

it is simple that if the drivers were scheduled to deliver the booze and they refuse then they would be expecting to pick up someone elses load in lieu of their assigned load.

You've been talking about drivers being removed from routes they were "proven on and worked hard to maintain" with the implication that the jobs delivering alcohol were less desirable.

Where are you getting that from? I spent a while searching and have found no details like that.

If the company has a policy of assigned routes then it would require removing a driver with seniority from a route that he or she had earned by putting in the time to get the route. But I can not find any information on what this company's policies were at the time.

Let me give you some background on my experience. In the 70's and 80's my mother was a supervisor for Roadway Express. My uncle was a career long haul trucker. My brother-in-law is a trucker and so is my nephew. Some companies have assigned routes which are awarded to the drivers based on seniority. Some companies do not.

Based on the company delivering beer, my best guess is that they did have assigned routes. But that is only an informed guess based on my family's experience in the different areas of the trucking industry.

I think the simple fact that this info has been left out of all reporting says much

Like I stated before I am going of memory on this one and I seem to remember a couple drivers leaving their rigs on a very busy street the day this took place. hearsay of coarse

a reply to: deadeyedick

One question, simple answer, no tangents if you please:

Do you feel that an American should have to ignore their religious beliefs to do their job?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: deadeyedick

One question, simple answer, no tangents if you please:

Do you feel that an American should have to ignore their religious beliefs to do their job?

You are crazy trying to get a single answer from a multifaceted question.

If it were that simple then there would be no debate.

I need more info to answer honestly

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: deadeyedick

One question, simple answer, no tangents if you please:

Do you feel that an American should have to ignore their religious beliefs to do their job?

I don't know how others feel but I will answer for myself. When the story came out about Kim Davis, I stated here on ATS that if the job required her to go against her religion, she should resign. If the known requirements of a job go against someone's religion then they should resign. Notice I said "known requirements". The requirements of the job actually changed for Kim Davis but I still feel she should have resigned. So, if the job requirements to deliver beer for this trucking company were known up front and they accepted the jobs, they shouldn't have accepted the jobs or they should have complied with company policy.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
When the story came out about Kim Davis, I stated here on ATS that if the job required her to go against her religion, she should resign.

Let's remember Kim Davis' job is government.

She is required to uphold the Constitution.

a reply to: Annee
let us remember she is a human being along with the other two

If these muslims had givin as much notice as kim then they would be owning the company

regardless of employer if someone gives due time for consideration then that is something we can work with as a society

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Khaleesi
When the story came out about Kim Davis, I stated here on ATS that if the job required her to go against her religion, she should resign.

Let's remember Kim Davis' job is government.

She is required to uphold the Constitution.

I am not arguing the Kim Davis situation all over again. I am a Christian and did not agree with how she went about that whole debacle. She should have resigned. As for this case, if a company gave me the requirements for a job up front and those requirements go against my religion, I wouldn't accept the job. I don't care if it's a government job or a private company. The job is the job. Do the job or turn the job down. I find it interesting that I am not the one doing mental gymnastics in order to have opposing opinions within my own mind. My opinion is straight forward and consistent across the board.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Honestly, I find your use of "honestly" doubly ironic. You don't want to answer a simple question, fine.

I think I'll hypothesize as to why you might not want to do so, however, if you don't mind.

I think you've finally realized albeit somewhat dimly that your earlier postulates regarding Ms. Davis' unquestioning unlimited right to religious freedom and not being forced to do something in her job that she finds morally repugnant actually means that you should be on the side of the two Muslim gentlemen in your OP.

That's the only reason why you're weaseling. Why don't you just say you think CHRISTIANS should have religious freedom, and everyone else can just suck it up and comply?

a reply to: Gryphon66
You need glasses

I never said I would not answer

I told you that more details would be needed to form an answer

the only thing you can take away from that is that not every situation is the same and there is no one size fits all answer

honestly you need glasses



weaseling I think you need to be more clear

a reply to: deadeyedick
why, christians go throught the trouble and expense of getting the training to become pharmacists and then expect to not have to fill perscriptions for birth control!!!

Refusal to Dispense Contraception are Increasing

Reports of pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control—or provide EC—have surfaced in at least twenty-five states across the nation, including: AZ, CA, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI.
These refusals to dispense prescription contraceptives or provide EC are based on personal beliefs, not on legitimate medical or professional concerns. The same pharmacies that refuse to dispense contraceptives because of personal beliefs often refuse to transfer a woman’s prescription or refer her to another pharmacy. These refusals can have devastating consequences for women’s health.
Despite the fact one type of EC is available without a prescription, refusals based on personal beliefs are still a problem. Some stores prefer to keep non-prescription EC behind the counter or in locked cases, so individuals seeking it must interact with pharmacists or other pharmacy staff who may have personal beliefs against providing the drug.
Some examples of refusals in the pharmacy:
April 2012: Andrew Andrade attempted to purchase EC at a Jersey City, New Jersey Rite Aid for his girlfriend who was at work but he was turned away, even hough the FDA rules allow men to buy EC.
November 2010: Adam Drake attempted to purchase non-prescription EC at a Walgreens in Houston, Texas and was turned away, despite the fact he should have been allowed to purchase the medication.
March 2010: A pharmacy that refused to stock or dispense contraceptives in Chantilly, Virginia closed due to lack of business. When it opened in October 2008, staff at the pharmacy refused to provide referrals or help individuals find contraception elsewhere.
January 2010: A mother of two in Montclair, California went to her local CVS to purchase EC after she and her fiancé experienced a birth control failure. The pharmacist refused to dispense EC to her, even though it was in stock, and told her to “come back in two and a half days,” at which point it would no longer be effective.
May 2007: In Great Falls, Montana, a 49-year-old woman who used birth control to treat a medical condition went to her local pharmacy to fill her latest prescription. She was given a slip of paper informing her that the pharmacy would no longer fill any prescriptions for birth control. When she called back to inquire about the policy change, the owner of the pharmacy told her that birth control was “dangerous” for women.
January 2007: In Columbus, Ohio, a 23-year-old mother went to her local Wal-Mart for EC. The pharmacist on staff “shook his head and laughed.” She was told that even though the store stocked EC, no one on staff would sell it to her. She had to drive 45 miles to find another pharmacy that would provide her with EC.
December 2006: In Seattle, Washington, a 25-year-old woman went to her local Rite-Aid to get non-prescription EC after she and her fiancé experienced a birth control failure. The pharmacist told her that although EC was in stock, he would not give it to her because he thought it was wrong. The woman had to repeatedly insist that the pharmacist find her another pharmacy in the area that would provide her with EC.
January 2006: In Northern California, a married mother of a newborn baby experienced a birth control failure with her husband. Her physician called in a prescription for EC to her regular pharmacy, but when she went to pick it up, the pharmacist on duty not only refused to dispense the drug, which was in stock, but also refused to enter the prescription into the pharmacy’s computer so that it could be transferred elsewhere.
January 2005: In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a mother of six went to her local Walgreens with a prescription for emergency contraception. The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription and berated the mother in the pharmacy’s crowded waiting area, shouting “You’re a murderer! I will not help you kill this baby. I will not have the blood on my hands.” The mother left the pharmacy mortified and never had her prescription filled. She subsequently became pregnant and had an abortion.
April 2004: In North Richland Hills, Texas, a 32-year-old mother of two went to her local CVS for her regular birth control prescription refill. The pharmacist refused to refill her prescription because of his personal beliefs. The pharmacist said he would not fill the prescription because oral contraceptives are “not right” and “cause cancer.”
January 2004: In Denton, Texas, a rape survivor seeking EC was turned away from an Eckerd pharmacy by three pharmacists, who refused to fill the time-sensitive prescription due to their religious beliefs. The pharmacists’ refusal put the survivor in danger of becoming pregnant due to the rape.
www.nwlc.org...

wonder which came first, muslims truckers refusing to carry beer, or pharmacists refusing to provide birth control?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66
You need glasses

I never said I would not answer

I told you that more details would be needed to form an answer

the only thing you can take away from that is that not every situation is the same and there is no one size fits all answer

honestly you need glasses



weaseling I think you need to be more clear

Sorry, can't write the question in crayon for you.

Besides, everyone who's ever read your posts knows the answer.

Carry on.

a reply to: Gryphon66
what was the question?

a reply to: dawnstar

Well those are very different cases.

are you trying to equate one to the other or you just adding to the list of stupid things people do?

If you are asking me if a drug dealer should sell drugs indiscriminately then that too is a multi angled question that would require more info.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: deadeyedick

One question, simple answer, no tangents if you please:

Do you feel that an American should have to ignore their religious beliefs to do their job?

They were required to deliver it, not drink it.

Just pure bolshiness for the sake of being a pain in the ars*

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: deadeyedick

One question, simple answer, no tangents if you please:

Do you feel that an American should have to ignore their religious beliefs to do their job?

They were required to deliver it, not drink it.

Just pure bolshiness for the sake of being a pain in the ars*

I think you mistake the point of my post, however ... they were required to participate in activity they found to be morally repugnant according to their religion.

There are those here that have made argument after argument in favor of Christians being able to deny goods and services to those that are participating in activities that are contrary to that Christian's religious beliefs.

Yet, when it is a Muslim involved, the same folks that have made that arguments for Christians reply: "They should do their danged jobs!"

Why is that do you think?

a reply to: deadeyedick

no, they are pretty much the same!!!! one the one hand you have a couple truckers who have a moral issue with transporting beer, on the other you have pharmacists that are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control because they have a moral issue with it...
the only thing I see as different is that people can live without beer where as there's women out there that because of medical reasons getting pregnant would be a death sentence!!!!

I particularly like this one:

January 2005: In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a mother of six went to her local Walgreens with a prescription for emergency contraception. The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription and berated the mother in the pharmacy’s crowded waiting area, shouting “You’re a murderer! I will not help you kill this baby. I will not have the blood on my hands.” The mother left the pharmacy mortified and never had her prescription filled. She subsequently became pregnant and had an abortion.