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

“The EEOC argued that the company could have easily reassigned the drivers but did not and sued it for religious discrimination.” If that is true, then the company was indeed in the wrong, although not necessarily to the tune of $240,000. More often, the Muslims who bring these kinds of suits have refused reassignment to positions that would allow them to practice their religion without hindrance — as in the notorious case of Imane Boudlal, who insisted on wearing her hijab while working at Disney, and sued after refusing multiple offers from Disney to place her in positions where her hijab would not violate their longstanding dress code.

www.jihadwatch.org... oc-wins-240000-damages-for-muslim-truckers-fired-for-not-delivering-beer

Yep
Any ideas on why accommodations were not granted to Kim Davis but these two clowns can get special treatment under the same circumstances. Even if you see a difference in the two cases then tell me why an established company seeks a couple drivers for certain open delivery routes and once they hire muslims then they are then expected to move around current established routes in order to allow these two clowns to refuse to work the routes already taken.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Already posted here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kim Davis is operating under a religious exemption.

Good god, just do the job you are hired to do!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: deadeyedick

Already posted here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kim Davis is operating under a religious exemption.

Are you sure about that???

a reply to: deadeyedick

Sure about what? Kim Davis is NOT issuing marriage licenses.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Good god, just do the job you are hired to do!

the two decided to go ahead and take the job then to try to steal routes from other drivers that had already been established. Expecting for others to give up what they had earned by working at the same job. The owner did not see that as fair so Obama sues him.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Any ideas on why accommodations were not granted to Kim Davis but these two clowns can get special treatment under the same circumstances.

Accommodations were offered to Kim Davis. She refused them. Also, Kimmy is a public servant. She can't arbitrarily decide which laws she will follow, and which she will not. Please tell me we're not going to rehash the whole Davis thing again. This has been explained ad nauseum. And btw, as BH mentions above. Kimmy is being catered to per her privileged status.

The law says this company did not make reasonable accommodations. Therefore, they lost the case. The amount of money is irrelevant. What's more important is precedent. This case will be used to decide future cases like this. I have no doubt it will spawn some frivolous cases, but I think those who file them may be in for a surprise.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: deadeyedick

Sure about what? Kim Davis is NOT issuing marriage licenses.

The story was not very well documented in the thread and by looking at that thread it looks like an attempt to bury the story. So no it really has not been posted but we shall see if this continues.

Very sad that Obama would sue for this.

a reply to: Klassified

Get the facts straight...

Kim was not at all offered accommodations. If she was then she would have never went to jail.

Now I am sorry I even mentioned her name.

This case is very serious and sets a dangerous precedent if not overturned.

Our economy will never withstand such criminal actions.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
so Obama sues him.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Very sad that Obama would sue for this.

Obama didn't sue anyone. He has nothing to do with this.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Get the facts straight...

Kim was not at all offered accommodations. If she was then she would have never went to jail.

YOU get the facts straight. She was told that her deputies could issue them instead of her and she REFUSED that accommodation. She PROHIBITED her deputies from issuing marriage licenses.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: deadeyedick

Sure about what? Kim Davis is NOT issuing marriage licenses.

The story was not very well documented in the thread and by looking at that thread it looks like an attempt to bury the story. So no it really has not been posted but we shall see if this continues.

Very sad that Obama would sue for this.

Just because the direction the thread takes is in a direction you don't agree with doesn't give you carte blanche to violate the T&C for posting duplicate threads.

PS: What does Obama have to do with this issue?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

bs bs bs

If you want to keep posting half truths and pretend that kim was not forced into the role then let us do it in another thread. She gave months notice that an accommodation would be needed and the only reason anything decent got done in the case is because of people like Huckabee that did not quit on her. Anywho they put her in jail for her religion.

Yes this has obamas name all over it. Where did they get help to screw over their boss?

Do you really feel that this ruling was just?

Do you really feel that Obama really had no say in how this case proceeded?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really?

You did not even cover the story half ass.

I had to have a magnifying glass to find mention of this story.

How in the heck is anyone supposed to find your coverup thread if the title does not reflect the content?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

bs bs bs

This pretty much sums up the next several paragraphs in your post.

If you want to keep posting half truths and pretend that kim was not forced into the role then let us do it in another thread. She gave months notice that an accommodation would be needed and the only reason anything decent got done in the case is because of people like Huckabee that did not quit on her. Anywho they put her in jail for her religion.

Not true. She was jailed for being in contempt of court.

Yes this has obamas name all over it. Where did they get help to screw over their boss?

No it doesn't. You brought Obama's name into the discussion. Even the right wing propaganda site you linked that contains the article in the OP doesn't mention his name.

PS: Your source sucks. It gets blocked by my work filter; that tells me that it isn't a reliable reporting site.

Do you really feel that this ruling was just?

Do you really feel like you are being honest about this thing? Did you read my two posts in response to the OP of the other thread?

Do you really feel that Obama really had no say in how this case proceeded?

Believe it or not, just because the government is involved that doesn't mean that Obama is involved. Case in point, this case is part of the Judicial System and Obama works for the Executive Branch not the Judicial Branch.

a reply to: deadeyedick

It wasn't my thread. I only responded to it by showing it was being sensationalized. If you think I was the OP of that thread, then you didn't even click on the link, let alone get a magnifying glass to read anything on it. But hey, at least the sources in that other thread are safe to read at work, unlike your NSFW site in the OP.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

jihad watch is not safe for work?

That is the first legit comment made so far if it turns out to be true.

On what grounds do you make that claim?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

bs bs bs

This pretty much sums up the next several paragraphs in your post.

If you want to keep posting half truths and pretend that kim was not forced into the role then let us do it in another thread. She gave months notice that an accommodation would be needed and the only reason anything decent got done in the case is because of people like Huckabee that did not quit on her. Anywho they put her in jail for her religion.

Not true. She was jailed for being in contempt of court.

Yes this has obamas name all over it. Where did they get help to screw over their boss?

No it doesn't. You brought Obama's name into the discussion. Even the right wing propaganda site you linked that contains the article in the OP doesn't mention his name.

PS: Your source sucks. It gets blocked by my work filter; that tells me that it isn't a reliable reporting site.

Do you really feel that this ruling was just?

Do you really feel like you are being honest about this thing? Did you read my two posts in response to the OP of the other thread?

Do you really feel that Obama really had no say in how this case proceeded?

Believe it or not, just because the government is involved that doesn't mean that Obama is involved. Case in point, this case is part of the Judicial System and Obama works for the Executive Branch not the Judicial Branch.

God forbid us holding our leaders responsible for what happens on their watch.

Tell me just what is Obama responsible for if anything?

Fact is that our economy will not stand up to such injustices going unchecked and you probably know someone that owns a business that will be effected by this ruling eventually. This is clearly jihad...

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

jihad watch is not safe for work?

That is the first legit comment made so far if it turns out to be true.

On what grounds do you make that claim?

On the grounds that my work filter refused the connection.

Does this now mean that our bakeries are safe from lawsuits based on discrimination.

That is what anyone that agrees with this ruling is saying that they are ok with people opting out of performing for any reason they feel goes against their religion.

This case just opened up a whole new round of discrimination.