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.

 

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

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's stupidity.
If whatever backwards fairy tale is your favourite starts making you inflict it on the wider, secular world of work and commerce then you need to
A- Go live somewhere that has a body of laws that reflect your favourite rules to live by or
B- Realise that religion is a personal thing and leave it at home when you go out to work.

The same can be said of that woman who wouldn't sign marriage certificates, pharmacists not filling prescriptions, whatever.

It's high time people took responsibility for their own actions, the clowns in this story who didn't want to deliver some beer ought to have been ordered to pay damages to the company they let down rather than recieve damages because they managed to justify their awkwardness by referring to an old book of dubious worth.


For the record, there are plenty of muslims who own shops selling alcohol and sausage rolls made of pork.

In all my life, I have never heard of a jewish cashier in a supermarket refusing to scan a sealed pack of pork but there are growing instances of muslims doing just that.

edit on 51pTue, 27 Oct 2015 18:45:51 -050020152015-10-27T18:45:51-05:00kAmerica/Chicago31000000k by SprocketUK because: addendum




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
oh and here's a nice gem....

www.myfloridahouse.gov...

personally, I think that the christians started this headache to begin with because they don't like birth control and abortions or gay marriage and therefore don't believe that they should have to take any part in it (hoping that there will be no one else nearby willing to do it and therefore, it won't be done!) and the thought that the same right would be granted to those of other faiths never crossed their danged minds! so well, here is a law that will allows the pharmicists to refuse birth control to the women, but it also allows the muslim working down at the flipping 9/11 to refuse your beer also!!!
nice going!!!!!
edit on 27-10-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Wow, way to go turning this around and blaming the Christians for someone else's personal decision. I believe in personal responsibility. Kim Davis is responsible for her actions. The Muslim truckers are responsible for their actions. IMO your position is a bit of a reach.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

did you look at the link?? did you read the bill that is up for consideration in florida, do you doubt that the intent on it's makers is more to cater to the christian crowd with their we don't like gays, we don't like abortions, we don't like birth control and we have a religious right to not have to participate in providing it to anyone....



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Khaleesi

did you look at the link?? did you read the bill that is up for consideration in florida, do you doubt that the intent on it's makers is more to cater to the christian crowd with their we don't like gays, we don't like abortions, we don't like birth control and we have a religious right to not have to participate in providing it to anyone....





I am Christian and I am a lesbian. Try again.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

okay, then that group of people over there that are proclaiming to be speaking for all you christians that are working so hard to transform our country into a "christian nation".
is that better??



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You do realize that in your previous posts, you said that the trucking company should have accommodated these Muslims? Are you willing to apply that same thought process to Christians? I am not displaying cognitive dissonance here. Kim Davis should have resigned and the Muslim truckers shouldn't have accepted a job that required them to do something against their religion. You are trying to blame Christians for decisions made by Muslims. You are supporting the Muslims position and in the next breath condemning the Christians for having similar stances.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
hey I am all for extending the same rights to christians as to every other religion out there.....CONSISTANTLY.
the law says that when reasonable accommodations can be made, they should be....as long as it's not too burdensome to the employer. I have no problem with that weather the person is a christian, a jew, a wiccan, a muslim, whatever. Although I do draw the line when it comes to endangering people's lives or denying them necessary items when they have no reasonable alternative present. the law that I linked to in florida would enable health care providers to endanger women's lives, it would enable them to deny gay couples adoption or wedding cakes, but it will also enable the muslim working at the 7/11 to deny someone their beer! and while I would be concerned with people's lives being put at risk, some of the christians on these boards would be more concerned with getting their danged beer! but, there's no doubt in my mind that that law it there because of political agenda that many of the christians are supporting because they don't want women to have access to abortion and birth control, or gay marriages, ect..... and they will be the ones screaming the loudest when the same right is extended to other groups for things outside of their targets!



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel

rowan co.


the couple live in Lexington

I can not remember their names but if you google their names they both live in Lexington which is not in rowan co.


Your answer is that I'm supposed to google some names you haven't even provided?

Look, I spent a long time on a good faith effort googling looking for this information the last time this allegation was made here. I couldn't find it and no one could provide a link. And you're not backing it up now either.

So until further notice I call BS.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Changing the focus from the OP to a law unrelated to the OP is called thread drift. Let's just stick to the OP and ask a similar question to the one Gryphon66 asked earlier. Should these men have accepted a job knowing it required something against their religion or should a company be required to accommodate every religion?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
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.



So no link here, either.

I have an open mind on this case. I've looked up a lot of articles and have seen none of these details reported.

If you're making claims like this about what happened you need to back it up with something more than your memory. Otherwise, there really isn't enough information to be having much of this discussion.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: dawnstar
Should these men have accepted a job knowing it required something against their religion or should a company be required to accommodate every religion?



You're making a good point.

However, do we know these men accepted the job knowing they would be required to haul alcohol? Do we know anything about what was going on with this company or the details of what happened in the year the EEOC tried to work things out before it went to court?

Does anybody have a link to a more in depth report?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

My previous posts explained that my educated guess is they knew. It is only an educated guess but I have a lot of family experience in the trucking industry. The fact that the product that they objected to was beer leads me to believe this company had assigned routes dropping product at stores. Assigned routes would make sense BECAUSE of the product itself. They are probably expected to go to convenience stores etc. Those are usually assigned routes. But this is an educated guess and I can not find any information so it is purely opinion.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Agreed. On virtually every point.

Religion should be a personal matter. If your religion doesn't allow you to do a job, don't take the job. Period.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

considering that we've had pharmacists using the religious belief excuse to get out of distributing birth control to women, or even transferring the prescription over to someone who will fill it since 2004, well, sorry, I tend to side with the two drivers on this one! after all you can live without beer, but there's women out there who are at a pretty big health risk if they get pregnant.
personally, I think that if you take a job, open a business, run for office, you should be willing to do whatever the job entails, but then none of the jobs I ever had very clear job descriptions to them, I did whatever I was expected to, regardless of my beliefs (hey, I printed banners that advertised beer, I would have never gotten away with refusing to do it based on any religious beliefs. heck I had to quite just to be able to get out of grommeting the danged things when it started hurting my feet so badly. but their is a long history in this country of businesses having to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees. it's nothing new. the idea that they should be accommodated as long as it doesn't prove to be too burdensome to the business is really a good balance between the religious rights of the people and the rights of the business to remain operational. I imagine if it ever gets to the point where there's so many different religious views wanting to be accommodated, the courts just might step in and decide that religious accommodations are just too burdensome in and of themselves and therefore no longer required. but it's not the government's place to start picking and choosing which beliefs are worthy of being accommodated and which ones aren't, which I think is what some people want.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Considering that I am a Christian and I am saying people shouldn't take jobs that go against their religion ... you are trying to convince the wrong person. Kim Davis should have resigned. The Muslim truckers shouldn't have taken the jobs that went against their religion. You are the one that has supported the Muslims stance and then switched opinions when dealing with Christians. Here are your posts proving your flip flop:



originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Khaleesi

Even so, it's my understanding the Employers in this case didn't try to accommodate. If they had, and failed the commission would have probably ruled the other way. Like the did with the Muslim stewardess who didn't want to serve alchohol.

Although we were originally a country of the people and for the people, we are more of a country of the corporations and for the coporations and well when it comes to this particular subject, they are very lenient with the businesses usually.





originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deadeyedick
she denied anyone and everyone who wanted to get married a license for months. are you saying that none of them that wanted to apply were living in that county?? I find that hard to believe!!!




originally posted by: dawnstar
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!!!



Trying to convince me I am wrong is just plain old cognitive dissonance when I've already said multiple times that the job is the job. Do the job or don't accept the job if you disagree with the job requirements. Bashing Christians isn't helping your case when it is obvious you are switching positions based on which religion is involved.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

no, I am switching positions on just how much of a hassle it is for the employer to accommodate, or in the case of the pharmacist, the fact that they could be risking someones health, and possibly even their life!!!
and it's really ironic that we've had all these pharmacists refusing to fill people's birth control prescriptions since 2004 using the religious belief excuse, and yet, when it comes to two muslim truck drivers probably some of the same people who were supporting the right of these pharmicists to do what they are doing are throwing a fit about the danged truck drivers!




Expansion of Catholic hospital systems is accelerating around the country, partly by acquiring non-Catholic hospitals. This trend is posing an increasing threat to access to care in two major areas—reproductive services and end-of-life care. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (the ERDs) are being enforced by the bishops more vigorously in many parts of the country, holding their employed physicians to strict adherence to the ERDs or loss of employment. Meanwhile patients in many locations, especially rural areas, are finding it increasingly difficult to gain access to essential care.

pnhp.org...


These hospitals are legally allowed to follow what are called ERDs:




These are some of the ERDs restricting common needs of women in their childbearing years: (2)

“Catholic hospitals may not promote or condone contraceptive practices.” (Directive 52)
“Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted.” (Directive 45)
“In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.” (Directive 48)
“Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.” (Directive 53)
“The free and informed health care decision of the person. . . is to be followed so long as it does not contradict Catholic principles.” (Directives 28 and 27).
“Catholic health care services must . . . require adherence to [the Directives] within the institution as a condition for medical privileges and employment.” (Directive 5)
Other ERDs prohibit abortion even in cases of rape or incest (Directive 45), and in-vitro fertilization (Directives 37, 38, 39) (3)



even though they sometimes cause some negative effects.




The following cases in two parts of the country indicate how extreme and harmful strict adherence to the ERDs can be:

Sierra Vista is a rural community about 80 miles southeast of Tucson, AZ with one hospital serving a three-county area. The local hospital had been secular until purchased in 2010 by the Carondelet Health Network, a member of Catholic-sponsored hospitals. ERDs were to be followed at the time of transfer of ownership. Shortly thereafter, a woman presented to the Emergency Room 15-weeks pregnant with twins after miscarrying one of the twins at home. The remaining twin had a heart beat. The attending physician concluded that any attempt to continue the pregnancy would pose high risks of loss of the child as well as hemorrhaging and infection for the mother. As he and the staff were preparing to complete the miscarriage, a hospital administrator intervened and ordered the patient transferred to another hospital 80 miles away, where she did receive necessary care. The medical staff felt misled since they had previously been assured that they could provide appropriate care for miscarriages. (4)

A woman 18 weeks along in her pregnancy came to Mercy Health Partners, a Catholic-sponsored hospital in Muskegon, Michigan, where it is the only hospital with two campuses in the community. Her water had broken at home and contractions had started. She was told that she had premature rupture of the membranes (PROM), that nothing could be done, and to go home. She was not informed that there was almost no chance that the fetus could survive and was not counseled about risks of non-treatment to herself. She returned to the hospital the following morning with painful contractions, bleeding and an elevatedtemperature. Her contractions were monitored and she was given Tylenol. She was again sent home after the temperature came down. Later that same night, she returned to the hospital again in severe distress. While the staff was preparing to send her home, she delivered a very premature son, who died within hours. She soon developed infection that had developed after her membranes ruptured. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit contending that “a young woman in a crisis situation was put at risk because religious directives were allowed to interfere with medical care. . . Patients should not be forced to suffer because of a hospital’s religious conviction.” (5)



So, we can grant Ten of the 25 largest health systems in the U.S. in the US their religious rights, even when it endangers peoples lives and causes them to suffer needless pain, heck we will even pay them gov't funds to do it.....

But, we can't at expect companies to at least try to accommodate two muslim truck drivers when they have a small moral issue in their duties???

by the way, it wouldn't suprise me to find out that the idea of accommodating for religious beliefs started so that Jewish employees could honor the sabbath and religious holidays...



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Do not lecture me on hospitals and policies. I worked in health care for 15 years. Do the job or don't take the job. You are hung up on prescriptions and think people are being petty about beer? I personally know a urologist that prescribes beer for patients with kidney stones. We used to laugh about it because he actually had an underage patient that he wrote a prescription FOR BEER! The kid of course was delighted ( other than being in agony with kidney stones ). Maybe that will put a new perspective on this for you. Those men are depriving some poor patient with kidney stones from getting their beer. LOL you really make me laugh. Flip flop all you want. My stance has been the same throughout this entire thread. Do the job or resign if you don't like the requirements.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

and I'll agree to it when all those religious accommodations and exemptions that are given to employees, businesses, organizations, and places of worship are gone...and the hobby lobby ruling is overturned.
but as it stands now, it seems that the christian religion is the biggest receiver of all these accommodations and exemptions, so you might want to think twice about it....


edit on 28-10-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
From what research I have now done I'm not sure it's certain these men knew they would be required to haul alcohol when they were hired. Apparently the trucking company was unwilling or unable to provide the EEOC information about the terms under which they were hired.

Perhaps they should have just quit when they found out what the job required. However, they may not have arrogantly taken the job knowing what is was and then refused to do it as is being claimed by numerous blogs and websites.




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join