Sharia in America: EEOC Sues Transport Company for “failing to accommodate” Muslim Truck Drivers

reply to post by Kali74


I disagree. They are trying to push these laws harder and farther, stepping more and more into matters of religion and business, and they are using Muslims to do so. Just as they used Muslims to strip the constitutional rights of the American public, they are using Muslims now to go further into matters religious and work related.

I do not trust it.

With case law being what it is already, this case should never go to court... yet, it is going to court... the question now is why?

beezzer
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

So either way, it's not good.

Dang.

Surely this could have been resolved at the job interview stage with a simple question to the Muslim potential employee. " Do you have any religious objections to delivering alcohol, as this is part of your work requirement ? " If the Muslim says that he has a problem with that, then he is simply unsuitable for that job. It's not fecking Rocket Science !

reply to post by OpinionatedB

this case should never go to court... yet, it is going to court... the question now is why?

Because the former employees are claiming that reasonable accommodation wasn't granted when they feel it could have been. The lawsuit is made based on existing law. There's nothing there to set new precedent with.

reply to post by Kali74


Maybe, maybe not...

Star apparently feels they have every right in the world to take this case to court, most businesses even when in the right will not do that as it is simply more convenient to pay a few dollars... unless they feel their ground is so solid nothing and no one can knock them off of it.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I agree and said as much before. It's highly unlikely that Star wouldn't have settled this before a lawsuit was filed if they didn't feel they had solid ground to stand on. Hopefully we'll get to see the details as the case proceeds. Major companies like that tend to cover their asses 10 ways to Sunday. I'm guessing there was some fine print missed by the former employees or they weren't honest when they stated in their paper work that circumstances existed that may not allow them to perform their job (which is standard now) if they answered that question with a no, the case should be dismissed immediately.

Kali74
I'm guessing there was some fine print missed by the former employees or they weren't honest when they stated in their paper work that circumstances existed that may not allow them to perform their job (which is standard now) if they answered that question with a no, the case should be dismissed immediately.

If that's the case they would have been fired already. I used to have to bring hires in periodically so we could call the Recruiting and Compliance director so he could fire them for not telling everything on their application. Barring them being new enough that the background check hadn't been finished yet (and they can be done in a couple of weeks most of the time), then it should have been caught not long after they were hired and they should have been fired for it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'm just making guesses as to what the circumstances might have been for both party's to feel they have a legal case.

reply to post by Kali74


Oh, I know. I was just saying that falsifying an application for whatever reason is already grounds for termination. Just throwing out there information about the industry.

reply to post by Zaphod58


If they stated there was no conflict of interest in their job, or that they could fulfill the job requirements, it would not have been until the first conflict of interest arose that would have shown their words on the paperwork as misleading.

Just being Muslim is not cause believe they would ever refuse a load. Many Muslim business owners sell alcohol. Being Muslim, or from a Muslim country means little, it is how the individual practices, and which laws are important to them. Just like Christians, there are many Muslims who don't much practice...

reply to post by Zaphod58


They may not have understood that the question was where they should state that religious beliefs may affect their ability to do a job, or thought it may never come up. I'm not sure how trucking companies operate but after reading the thread I believe it's been mentioned that generally you get to choose your jobs.

reply to post by Kali74


This is Zaphod's post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He said:

Most companies, if you are a company driver, then it's forced dispatch. Once they send you a load you have to accept it and run it. You sign the agreement with them that in return for hiring you, you will run whatever load they send you, regardless of what it is, unless it's not legal for you to run it (ie Hazmat and you don't have an endorsement). Even if you don't have the hours to get it there on time, you have to accept the load.

hamchuck36
POST REMOVED BY STAFF.

Well. *ahem*

As a practicing Catholic, I would have to disagree. There's been too long, hatred, mistrust, anger directed at people of different faiths.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller


There will never be freedom to practice religious faith (any faith) if there is even ONE faith that is discounted.

Do you all not see?

This was PLANNED.

1. Get a job.

2. Make sure their's some element that violates their "faith".

3. Sue.

4. Win.

Another victory for allah.

"We have beat once again the American infidel. They must accept our faith!

Next stop: Sharia law.

beezzer
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Allow me to play devil's advocate, then.

What would be so terrible if Star lost the case? We should value religious freedoms. The 1st Amendment clearly states. . .


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Any precedent set by the government would be in clear violation.

"Valuing religious freedoms" includes keeping them religious, which isn't happening as government gains inroads into control of religion. You are correct - ANY precedent set by government in religious matters is a clear violation. it's a government, not a Bishop's Conference, and it has NO business setting religious policy, not any more than Bishops have of adding law to the USC.

SO - if Star loses the case, then precedent is set that the government can control religious observances in secular matters. This sort of thing happened once before, in the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, with less than optimal results. It gave us such things as The Inquisition, religious persecution with government sanction. When government gets to control the flow of religion, it can either flood with it or cut it off altogether, because it's at the government's discretion.

It makes of religion a "Civil Right" rather than the inalienable right that the founding fathers held it to be in the creation of the nation. What the government gives, the government can also take away, "blessed be the name of the government". It replaced God with government edict, which is the wet dream of just about every dictatorship that has ever arisen.

beezzer

neo96
If a person gets hired to do a job, and that person refuses to said job ?

Hit the road jack, and don't come back.

People need to get it through their heads that business owners do not have to cater to everyone's little whim.

But business owners HAVE to cater to every little whim.

Look at how faith-based businesses HAVE to cater to anyone that comes into their place of business!

Damn tootin, and next we're gonna have to have little bits of rug facing Mecca in every office and place of employ just to accommodate the five times a day they have to pray.. and a new week or so off from work and school for Ramadan, and OH YEAH of course let's not forget...

A BAN ON BACON!!!!!!!


(Beez? just offtopic, when did you become DarthBunny?)

reply to post by beezzer

There will never be freedom to practice religious faith (any faith) if there is even ONE faith that is discounted.

And that is why the first was created.

Not to diminish one religion in favor or another one.

But as an equal protection clause.

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Well In that case... not so fast lol. I missed the press release issued by the EEOC in which it claims:

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.

Press Release

Star Transport must feel they have solid footing here to let it go to court. Maybe there's some fine print the former employee's missed, or maybe Star truly couldn't accommodate without undue hardship. I'm interested to follow the case if only to learn the relevant details that the blogger made massive assumptions before knowing.

Now THAT's the Kali I've grown to know and love!

Here's where my argument meets the EEOC argument: in the passage you quote, it specifically states that it's a violation of "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".

"Civil Rights Act".

It's making their religion a "Civil Right", a government-issued right, and what the government gives, the government can also take away. That is the inherent danger in "Civil Rights". The very notion that a government CAN pass a law (Civil Rights Act of 1964) that "prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion" means that the government has already violated the First Amendment, and is seeking to strengthen that violation.

There are several "protected classes" in that Act, but religion cannot be legitimately among them, since the First Amendment specifically and in unequivocal terms prohibits the government from making ANY such ruling. The same amendment that prohibits the Ten Commandments being exhibited in government facilities ALSO prohibits government from favoring any other religion - in this case, Islam. To do so IS passage of a law "law respecting an establishment of religion" - it establishes Islam as the religion of Star trucking by governmental edict. it forces Star to observe a religion that was not previously theirs.

Is that not the government itself discriminating solely on the basis of religion and against Star trucking?

"The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief." - the agency seeking PAY for REFUSAL to do a job, based solely upon religion? How discriminatory!

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu

 

reply to post by beezzer

 

There's no precedent to set with this case, the laws already exist. Either the company intentionally didn't accommodate or they couldn't. If they could accommodate, the former employees were wrongfully terminated. If they couldn't accommodate without undue hardship, then the former employees were rightfully terminated.

"Precedent" in a legal sense is set in legal decisions, not in statues. It's set in the interpretation of statue in a specific way by a court. THAT is the precedent being set. For example, when the Supreme Court hears a case, the statues have already been long established, but the precedents set are in the court's interpretation of the statues already existing, not in making new ones. If the statues did not already exist, there would be nothing for the court to rule on.