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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Get a job that does not cater to jihadist.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
God forbid us holding our leaders responsible for what happens on their watch.

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?

Tell me just what is Obama responsible for if anything?

The Executive Branch... Did you fail Social Studies in High School or something?

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...

Fact is that the above is an opinion and thus not a fact.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Instead of forcing me to change careers to read your crappy source, how about just finding a better source? I know of at least two other sources since they were posted in the other thread that would work just fine, though if you posted them you'll lose all credibility about your argument about this not being a duplicate thread. So maybe that's why you are being resistant to it...

a reply to: Krazysh0t
HA
That would make sense but...

I have been through the site and have not found any reason to ban the site.

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts.

That is the core role the site plays and such stories like in the op show that it is needed.

All bs aside can you give me an example why the site is not safe for work?

If anything the site seeks to maintain you ability to have a job.



eta if you have other links I welcome them regardless
I made the thread to get to the facts not for any other reason

a reply to: deadeyedick

I wouldn't know. I can't get to it. Though Wikipedia has this to say about it:
Jihad Watch

Jihad Watch is a blog affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center (an organisation described as being far-right by the Southern Poverty Law Center).[2] Run by Catholic blogger Robert Spencer,[3][4][5][6][7] it has been described as one of the main homes of the anti-Islamic, right-wing counterjihad movement on the internet.[8]

According to the website, a theology of violent jihad, which denies non-Muslims and women equality, human rights, and dignity has been present throughout the history of Islam. Jihad Watch says that it is "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correct popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts."[9]

It has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories.[10][11][12][13][14][15]

Plus it's apparently a blog. That's like the least trustworthy way to get your news...

If anything the site seeks to maintain you ability to have a job.

I'm pretty sure my Muslim employers do that actually.

a reply to: deadeyedick

If your religion prevents you from doing the job your company requires you to do then you don't belong in that job.

Religion is not a disability and therefore should not be protected when it comes to work.

The company they work for delivers Alcohol, whether they deliver it or not they are supporting the delivery of Alcohol. Disney has a dress code, the woman either follows the dress code or finds another job.

This is ridiculous.

I am going to become a Rastafarian and force my company to allow me to be high at work. If they refuse can I sue them?

Religious tolerance does not mean you get treated special. Giving someone preferential treatment because of religion is not fair to their co-workers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Holy chit..did he really tell you to change jobs..lmfao..talk about out to lunch..Obama did it..and poor Kim..lolololololol.
The truck drivers should of been shown the door IMO, they deserve nothing..tired of this crap.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps you should be asking why your bosses ban a site that is legit.

There is nothing there that makes it not safe for work unless you work for folks that are involved in jihad.

Do you realize that many out there have declared jihad against us and battles such as the op show that the battle rages on.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
That is very weak.

The only part that even has merit is the claim of a blog.

The site only has stories along the lines of the op.

All sites are banned at my work as Im supposed to be working and not f'ing around on the internet..I don't get the sports channel either..should I quit?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is a sample of the stories run on the site.

Al-Shabaab faction pledges loyalty to the Islamic State after murdering 150 Christian students

“Palestinian” Muslim cleric brandishes explosives belt during sermon: “Oh people of the West Bank, kill them!”

Australian media covers up fact that man with meat cleaver who smashed cafe windows called himself “messiah of Islam”

Al-Shabaab faction pledges loyalty to the Islamic State after murdering 150 Christian students


I find nothing on the site that is not safe for work and feel that your employers may have other reason for not letting you visit the site at work. It is their right to do that but let us not pretend that it has anything to do with the content being explicit.

originally posted by: vonclod
All sites are banned at my work as Im supposed to be working and not f'ing around on the internet

..I don't get the sports channel either..should I quit?

only if you disagree with something I have said.jk

it was a dumb random comment I made however I am not srry

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps you should be asking why your bosses ban a site that is legit.

You're trolling your own thread! There's no hope of having a discussion here, IMO.

Bye now.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

not much of a troll when a person bitches at me for using a certain legit site just because they work for muslims

like I said it is their right to ban such without reason but it is not my fault

I think we can all see the impact this decision will have on future cases

I think klassified said it best

The eeoc chose to ignore the fact that employees of the company had their own routes that they worked to keep. The eeoc feels that those proven routes should be taken from other employees and givin to the new muslim employees because they were muslim.

If you currently have a job where you have established a work pattern then you would be expected to be transferred to another route because your boss hired a muslim. It would not matter if you had been on the same route near your home for yrs. You would be required to change your route for religious reasons.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Man this is really bothering you. It really makes you mad that your article in the OP is considered a racist/bigoted site. After all, you posted three responses to me talking about the legitimacy of that site and nothing else related to your thread. I'm sorry that your site is considered racist (and trust me, my IT department didn't ban it because I work for Muslims, I would know. I'm in the IT department), but hey it makes sense. Your article is sensationalist and inflammatory nonsense. The real meat and potatoes of this case minus all the sensational BS from your super favorite blog can be found here.

www.eeoc.gov...

PEORIA, Ill. - Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "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."

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.

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."

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.

These men are not being discriminated against, they are being asked to do the job they were hired for. Which is to deliver any and all products distributed by their employer.

Does the cashier at the 7-11 get to refuse to sell alcohol and tobacco because their are two cashiers on duty?

This is not a path that we should be going down.

a reply to: Isurrender73

This is why this thread needs to be closed. I just responded to this EXACT same post in the other thread...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

blah blah blah

you work for muslims that have deemed the site discriminatory

that is on you buddy

their views are clouding your own judgment

everything you post is just geared toward everyone accepting their JIHAD

you have been caught up on the wrong side of a serious issue

it is sad because you seem like a decent fellow

a reply to: Krazysh0t
get over it or contact a mod but you have severely disrupted the flow of the thread from the start

quit your bitchin