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

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by nenothtu

 

There are alcohol molecules in every breath you take.

True enough - just as there are molecules of dead and decayed people in every breath you take. The difference is that a Muslim didn't put them there by cooking.

Islam does not actually have a single source of law other than the holy books - which have to be interpreted - and one Islamic scholar can disagree with another - so while perhaps your source says advertising is harum, another might say that transporting is not.

Also true, just as one will insist that killing infidels gets you a ticket straight to heaven, complete with 72 virgins, and another will say that killing without the just cause of defense is haram. That's why some Muslims sell alcohol, and others won't even transport it, and a very good reason why the Muslims in question should have disclosed in the interview what sort they were, and whether religion was going to prevent them from doing their job.

reply to post by nenothtu


Unfortunately we are not allowed to ask such questions.

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Public Accommodation came with the British and remained through the Revolution, Civil War (was a bit of a big deal after the Civil War when Yankees refused business to former Confederates) and lives with us to this day.

It was only a "big deal" to the Confederates - the Yankees, who were the ones making law in the South during Reconstruction, were just fine with it, and so was the law.

Generally though it's such common sense that it barely is ever mentioned...

That's what I said - in my observations, the money was always the same color, ideology et cetera, and they always took it. Not because of a law on Public Accommodation, but because they wanted the money.

until recently now that people want to use their religion in order to discriminate against gays. If you are open to the public, it must be the entire public, you don't have the authority to declare another person as not being a member of the public. The only time you have the right to refuse service is if someone is being disruptive to your business.

And now they want to use their religion, with governmental blessing, to discriminate against their employers. Some things never change, eh?

I don't know where you're from, and that law may have "always been" there, but I've seen with my own eyes people turned away because of their political ideology, which falls under the heading of "creed", among other spurious reasons, so it hasn't "always been" nation wide. Those people were not declared "not members of the public", they were simply refused service and ejected. They got to be "in the public" in... public.

I have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, to do business with whom I choose, AS I choose, and no government can take that right away, not with all the laws on Earth. laws can ONLY take away "rights" that they have granted to begin with.

reply to post by nenothtu


A law isn't unbroken simply because lawful action wasn't taken.

reply to post by thesaneone


Which is why I said that the interviewee in question ought to have disclosed it, and to which I might add they should not be surprised when they are fired for not doing their job when it comes up. It's HR's job to hire and fire, not to make the employees work.

There is nothing to prevent asking "is there anything that might prevent you from doing the job?". I know this, because I've been asked it fairly recently. Twice. I've got both jobs, and have stuck to my word on both of them - even in the face of difficulty in doing so. If I couldn't have done it, I would have said so, or quit when I found out I couldn't. I wouldn't have waited for them to fire me, and then whined that I should keep a job I refused to do.

Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu

 

A law isn't unbroken simply because lawful action wasn't taken.

I know of no such nation-wide law until the 60's. I'll have to research it, I suppose.

buster2010

You have the right to hire or fire people as you choose but you cannot bring race, religion, gender or sexual preference when making those decisions. That is what I meant when I said you were both right and wrong Sorry you missed that.

There is a business in Greensboro, NC that hires gays exclusively. Is that not discrimination based upon sexual preference? How do you suppose they work around that? They sell china replacements and various home decoration stuff. No reason that I can think of that only gays should be employed there.

This is what the Quran says about women's clothing.

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not harassed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
—Sura 33 (Al-Ahzab), ayah 59, Qur'an

It says nothing about long loose clothing. So her long loose clothing really doesn't fit with her faith so the woman was in the wrong. Her choice of clothing sounds like it was more regional based instead of religious based.

What is a "cloak" where you come from? Are they not long and loose there?

I'll defer to a Muslim to explain Islamic clothing laws to you.

reply to post by nenothtu


That absolutely is discrimination.

reply to post by Kali74


I thought so, too - but then I never wanted to work there to begin with, nor could I ever find a reason to shop there, so their discriminatory practices never much bothered me. Had I ever wanted to shop there, I think the discrimination would have put me off, rather than the sexual orientation. I could care less what they do on their own time and their own dime, but the fact that one had to have a particular sexual orientation to work there would have made me not want to give them my dimes, same as I wouldn't shop at and support a place that refused to hire Mexicans, or ONLY hired Mexicans. I was always amazed that no one ever kicked up a fuss about it, considering the area, it's history, and all the college kids around there looking for a "cause".

reply to post by nenothtu


Boycotting is all well and good, I do it myself with many businesses, until it is the only job in town and I'm starving and no one cares because I'm the only straight person around for miles.

reply to post by buster2010


It always helps to quote all of the verses in the quran concerning whatever topic you are wishing to discuss, rather than only one. It also helps to use accurate translations.


Qur'an:

[And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils (which cover their head, ears and neck) over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, . . . . . and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments . . .] Al-Noor 24:31

[O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons: that is most convenient, that they should be known and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.] Al-Ahzaab 33:59


There are other verses that women should not dress as the men do, therefore it is seen more as dresses must be worn and not pants...Basically, the quran took the way people were already dressing, and asked them to make improvements upon it in order to be more modest in their dress.

Loose fitting dresses is part of "not displaying your beauty and ornaments" Long dresses is to comply with showing only hands and feet and face.

Pretty much all schools of thought believe the same concerning dress. Now, what that dress will look like does vary according to region, a pakistani woman will wear a long shirt and loose pants and a headscarf, whereas you will see other parts of the world wearing long dresses, in the west you see many girls leaning more toward that pakistani style more because it is seen to fit in a little better with western dress... I often wear long skirts with longer shirts and a headscarf but I enjoy the comfort of it so I am biased plus I also love the fact that I can mix match at will...

That girl was unwilling to wear the pakistani style and this is her choice and according to Quran. However, she should not have chosen a job where this was unsafe...

reply to post by thesaneone


As mentioned a few times in this thread, the only question that need be asked is "Is there anything that would prevent you from fulfilling all the obligations of this job?" (or some very similar wording)

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Transporting it goes toward aiding in others' consumption. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a comparable situation. It is something we are not allowed to do, aid others doing things that are harmful for them.

Back then when all this was written there weren't many who ever worked for anyone else. Most were either the nomadic type or the farming type or the business type selling their wares, but few had employers, unlike today.. if you did, they owned you and you had no choice. Therefore, there wasn't a lot of call to address concerning employers who do not hold the same faith.

This is why scholars take the law, and interpret its meaning in the light of today and our situations now as the times have changed. When you have this being done, you find disagreement even among the scholars, and that is perfectly normal... lawyers and judges don't always agree either... just people interpreting documents in light of situations today...

Not everyone will agree on finer points. Nor do they have to. I may believe different than another, and another may believe slightly different still. The same is true in any religion, the Baptists don't agree on all the finer points with the Methodists and the list can go on. However, the main points are usually agreed upon and when some main points are disagreed heavily, you see different sects, such as the Catholics and the Protestants... same with the Shia and the Sunni.

Only I know what I believe, therefore it is up to me to address any concerns I have where concerns my employment. It is not to any prospective employer, it would take them years just to figure out the ins and outs... lol..

The prospective employee has a responsibility, and that responsibility should never be overlooked by themselves, and it upsets me when they refuse to address their own responsibilities just as much as it would upset you, or any employer.

reply to post by vkey08


Darth Bunny is cute...



What Beezzer turned into is just plain scarey. Me Thinks he misses his wife...

That said, and for topic considerations, most Muslim business owners wont make sacrifices in their places of business for their employees religious observances... seriously on that. I have heard more about not wearing hijab and violating every tenant of religion for the almighty dollar from Muslims (in the form of serious encouragement not to practice) than ever from anyone of any other faith..

I am not seeing any huge danger of turning every office into a place of prayer... lol...

Now granted, if I would like to wear a headscarf at work, I have a better chance doing that working for a Christian. I have been told outright by a Muslim that if I take the job I cannot cover my head, never been told that by a Christian...Worst a Christian ever said was I cannot wear a dress to work, which was fine by me since it would have made it more difficult considering the work itself.

I have always found it weird, that if you want to practice your religion a Christian always shows more respect toward that end.

Another story.

Another suit by the EEOC

www.foxnews.com...

The local EEOC office's district director, Spencer H. Lewis Jr., said modifying a dress or grooming policy can allow someone to keep working without posing an undue hardship to his or her employer.

"No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs," Lewis said, "in order to earn a living."

Just employers should be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

reply to post by beezzer


Our Govermental System in America is Legally based on the Seperation Of Church and State . That Means ANY CHURCH Or ANY RELIGION . Anyone or Group of People that would try to Change that shall be Considered Traitors or Foreign PROVOCATEURS and should be proscuted to the Full Extent of the LAW .

reply to post by beezzer


I think it has more to do with the idea that all religions are protected, but some religions are more protected than others.

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by beezzer

 

Our Govermental System in America is Legally based on the Seperation Of Church and State . That Means ANY CHURCH Or ANY RELIGION . Anyone or Group of People that would try to Change that shall be Considered Traitors or Foreign PROVOCATEURS and should be proscuted to the Full Extent of the LAW .

Actually, it's really not. It's based on the idea that government not make laws to favor or establish the practice of one religion over all others. That's different from a complete separation of the two.

ketsuko
reply to post by beezzer

 

I think it has more to do with the idea that all religions are protected, but some religions are more protected than others.

Right out of "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

"All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others."

reply to post by beezzer


That's a tough example to use, I gotta say..... I was looking with interest, and came across the fact the guy suing there has had his beard, beliefs and no written reprimand in his file from pencil pushers for 27 years with the same school district. It seems it's the district who decided to get pushy shovey on that one and that does strike me as wrong.