Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Muslim Truck Drivers Fired For Not Delivering Beer, Jury Awards Them $240K


I need $240k...

I think I'll become a Muslim, get a job as a beer truck driver and then refuse to deliver based on my religion. . :shiftyeyes

:baller:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
What a crock. I love how the Obama administration backs and even represents these Muslims when they complain about not being able to follow their religious beliefs at work, but when the Christian photographer or bakers try and do the same, they are fined and considered racists or bigots. This administration is the most divisive ever. They also seem to believe that the Constitution only applies to those who believe what they do.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
What do they mean by "The Obama administration represented the muslims?". Like Obama sent lawyers to defend them?

Doesn't really make sense to award them $240k dollars but it seems like the [state? federal? I don't know] law says an employer is supposed to accommodate reasonable alternatives for religious reasons and with the fact that the delivery company could have easily provided such accommodations, they were wrongfully fired.

I'm assuming either the lawyer representing them stretched the law that is probably mostly used for not being able to be fired because you were observing a religious holiday or this was in a union/non-right-to-work state.

Regardless, this is in no way applicable to Kim Davis in the slightest beyond "muh religious freedums!". She's an elected official bound by an oath to uphold federal law - not a ****ing employee of some delivery company.

Don't really agree with the outcome, but I'm also in Texas which is a right-to-work state which means a company can fire you for literally anything as long as they come up with a non-discriminatory excuse (pretty easy to do). Definitely sounds like if the "Obama Administration" did anything more than agree with an opinion, they were doing it just to rile up emotion.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure the "Obama Administration represented them" is something this lady pulled out of her ass. I can't find mention of anything anywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
It's ALL Obamas fault.....

John
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
It's ALL Obamas fault.....

John
The Govt sent lawyers to defend religious rights of Muslims. Most people see each administrations as the presidents because he is the leader at the top of our Govt, and he influences all the agencies below him, so it's more or less a blanket statement.

The Bush Administration

The Clinton Administration

The Obama Administration

Get it? :yes

Nice distraction for the point of the story, though. Love how you guys get everything but the point of the story. :lol
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
The Govt sent lawyers to defend religious rights of Muslims. Most people see each administrations as the presidents because he is the leader at the top of our Govt, and he influences all the agencies below him, so it's more or less a blanket statement.

The Bush Administration

The Clinton Administration

The Obama Administration

Get it? :yes

Nice distraction for the point of the story, though. Love how you guys get everything but the point of the story. :lol
I talked about precisely the point of the story:dunno

I can't find anywhere that says Obama sent lawyers to defend them though besides this lady and the Fox News article that accompanies the video. And even in the article, it's just a quick blurb: "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won the case on behalf of the Obama administration." Says who?
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I talked about precisely the point of the story:dunno

I can't find anywhere that says Obama sent lawyers to defend them though besides this lady and the Fox News article that accompanies the video. And even in the article, it's just a quick blurb: "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won the case on behalf of the Obama administration." Says who?
Why does that even matter? :facepalm:

All I'm concerned with is why the court awarded them $240k when they knew damn well when they filled out the application, the core of their job was to deliver beer, and when they enter in to a contract with their employer to fulfill the duties of their job, how they could refuse and then sue.

Most employers ask on their applications if there is anything at all that would keep you (them) from performing and carrying out the duties of the job for which they're applying. You are required to enumerate anything you believe or know that will keep you from 100% fulfilling your job duties.

That's the part I want to know. Did the employer forget to ask, or did they lie on their application? That would lead me to why the court awarded them $240k, either justly or unjustly.

I don't give 2 shits about who sent them lawyer or represented them. :no That's a stupid point to focus on. :yes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
The World of JohnC

Acceptable

Why does that even matter? :facepalm:
Not acceptable



Rather than continue bantering back and forth about Johns new conspiracy theory lets get right to the matter.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm


"PRESS RELEASE
5-29-13

EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination

Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs

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."

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov."


John
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Why does that even matter? :facepalm:

All I'm concerned with is why the court awarded them $240k when they knew damn well when they filled out the application, the core of their job was to deliver beer, and when they enter in to a contract with their employer to fulfill the duties of their job, how they could refuse and then sue.

Most employers ask on their applications if there is anything at all that would keep you (them) from performing and carrying out the duties of the job for which they're applying. You are required to enumerate anything you believe or know that will keep you from 100% fulfilling your job duties.

That's the part I want to know. Did the employer forget to ask, or did they lie on their application? That would lead me to why the court awarded them $240k, either justly or unjustly.

I don't give 2 shits about who sent them lawyer or represented them. :no That's a stupid point to focus on. :yes
I agree, I don't understand the $240k settlement or whatever. But this was in Illinois so it makes a little more sense. I'm sure there are countless cases like this that happen in regards to multiple religions/colors/whatever.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I agree, I don't understand the $240k settlement or whatever. But this was in Illinois so it makes a little more sense. I'm sure there are countless cases like this that happen in regards to multiple religions/colors/whatever.
True. I agree. :yes

Nice to see some levelheadedness here. You seem a lot more open and logical than John/Nova and Eric Foxwell, who would rather launch attacks away from the point than discuss it. :facepalm:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Oh! Is that what you are calling pointing out your hypocrisy? Launching attacks?

I just layed out the entire case yet you only focus on how your being "attacked". How pitiful.

John
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Oh! Is that what you are calling pointing out your hypocrisy? Launching attacks?

I just layed out the entire case yet you only focus on how your being "attacked". How pitiful.

John
No. I'm just ignoring you because arguing in circles over points that don't mean **** in the grand scheme of things is stupid and boring. But it's fun to see you wasting so much time. :yes
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Man, the craziest part about this is that the lawsuit started in 2009! After six years I wouldn't even give a **** about a job I had that long ago.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Man, the craziest part about this is that the lawsuit started in 2009! After six years I wouldn't even give a **** about a job I had that long ago.
Wherd!

But setting up the company for a multi-million dollar lawsuit over religion is worth waiting for, ehh?

Would you wait 9 years for $240,000.00?
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Wherd!

But setting up the company for a multi-million dollar lawsuit over religion is worth waiting for, ehh?

Would you wait 9 years for $240,000.00?
I mean, me personally? No. But I'm not really one for just taking money from people because I hold a grudge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
I see the double standard here, and no it doesn't involve Obama so much as the court of public opinion.

Here's the double standard as I see it. Two muslims are expected to be given a deferment from delivering beer in their truck. Now I don't know the situation of the trucking company, but my presumption is they're just a national carrier, told to carry x load to Y destination. So perhaps they were contracted a load from point A on the east coast, to point B on the west coast, then while they're there, pick up a load at B and bring it back to A. Anyway, by all means I agree that there should be a reasonable exception made based on their religion.

Where the double standard comes into play is that not too long ago, a Christian man who was a baker, owned his own bakery, was sued because he refused to make a cake to commemorate a homosexual couple getting married, and he lost that lawsuit. As a business owner, he has the right to deny any person service for any reason. That doesn't give him the right to deny service to an entire group of people, so he can't put up a sign saying, "No gays served", and he can't deny them anything like donuts, bread, etc. He can only deny them a cake decorated in a manner that disagree with his personal religious beliefs.

So the double standard is that he was sued and lost, because the court of public opinion thinks that Christians should have to put their beliefs aside to suit the popular homosexual crowd because the homosexuals are perceived to be discriminated against. Then we're supposed to believe that in a short period of time, we're supposed to stand behind a different religion that doesn't allow alcohol and give these guys hundreds of thousands of dollars in reparations because they lost their job for refusing to do their job.

Again, my personal belief is that they shouldn't be forced to go against their religion when other truck drivers are available. But, that baker shouldn't be forced to go against his religious beliefs either for the same reason. There are other bakeries available. They weren't being discriminated against as a group, I highly doubt they would have been denied a "Happy Birthday" cake, or a dozen donuts, etc. They were denied one specific service based on the proprietors beliefs. Why are we ok with this double standard?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
But it's not a double standard. The cake bakers said they didn't want to bake a cake for the gay couple because it was against their religion which would follow that that would go for ALL gays that walked into their shop.

As a business owner, he has the right to deny any person service for any reason. That doesn't give him the right to deny service to an entire group of people, so he can't put up a sign saying, "No gays served"
Which is exactly what they are saying by proclaiming their faith prohibited them from baking a cake for a gay wedding.

The reason Star Transport lost the case is because they could have "reasonably" accommodated them but they chose to simply fire them. Had this been a Christian that was transporting fetal baby parts and claimed that his religion didn't allow him to participate in what his faith tells him is wrong and got fired for it we would have conservative media bellowing from the rooftops that the "War on Christianity" is alive and well and this is the example. There's your double standard.

John
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
6,620 Posts
I'm still trying to figure out where in the Quran it says you can't handle/transport alcohol. I know imbibing is verboten, but that's nowhere near the same as driving a truck that happens to have a few cases of booze in the back.

If I refused to write some of the extremist **** I have to write all day at work, sure, my beliefs would be accommodated, but I'd be an asshole for it. I wish those two guys luck finding and keeping new jobs. They got lucky this time, but eventually those two assholes will run across a complete dick. And dicks tend to **** the assholes one way or another.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top