Obama Sues Trucking Company For Requiring Muslim Drivers to Deliver Alcohol

http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/obama-sues-trucking-company-for-requiring-muslim-drivers-to-deliver-alcohol/
thats it for this country, we're living in bizarro world. this is the idiotic bullshlt you get with a liberal in charge of the country. i think every liberal on this forum can $tfu now about separation of church and state and gay cakes.

edit. just realized this is an old story

 

Star Transport did violate Federal law, hence, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (not the President as the article states by Ben Franklin).

 

How come the liberal governments consider certain groups such as the religious devotees (especially the Muslims) and the gays exceptional and their values untouchable? In Canada you get fired for refusing to drive a gay bus around a major city which advertises upcoming gay events, which would open yourself up to a wide public scrutiny, while the government and the Muslims are on the same side when it comes to protecting their rights from something that would not involve consumption or public exposure, since the trailers usually do not hint they are used to haul alcohol, unless you apply to work for a beer store.

 

more than one article says obama sued

 

So Catholics have to provide Abortions, but Muslims can't deliver alcohol? This can't be true.

 

Im a trucker. These muslims knew exactly what they were getting into hauling dry van / reefer general freight. This is unheard of to me. Either you haul the freight that the company gets or you should be fired or quit and go work somewhere else. These muslims should have taken the precautions to ensure they would never deliver alcohol by working for a flatbed or tanker company, for example. But of course they dont want to do that because they are lazy and there is more work involved in those sectors of trucking.

 

Do Jews have to deliver bacon?

What happens when a Jew and a Muslim team up as co-drivers and have to deliver a truckload of Coors to Big Daddy's shin dig in a dry county in Kentucky?

Does Matter touch anti-matter and we all evaporate?

Next thing you know, Playboy will stop publishing nudies.

Keeeriste.

 

so its illegal for a county clerk to not issue a gay marriage license, but its okay for a delivery driver to refuse to deliver liquor...

and both are citing religion... yet only one is being prosecuted, while the other defended... but the same government...

yeah, I think we have all the answers we need...

the story says the company violated his rights because they could have made reasonable accommodations... why couldn't the government have made reasonable accommodations to the county clerk without arrested her and putting her in a jail cell... literally the same thing... can the county clerk now sue the government?

P.S. notice the sign the muslim is holding up, respect me respect my religion, yet we won't apply that to all religions, just muslims?

 

I am skeptical that you really want to understand, but I'll try. The biggest difference between the county clerk and this company is the nature of the entity doing the discriminating and its impact, not who the discriminating is against, or the basis of the of the claim of protection. If it is a government officer or employee, we have due process constitutional issues that SCOTUS addressed in its recent SSM decision and comparing it to 'religious objection'. There is presumptive constitutional right to equal access to a government provided license, and there is no constitutional right to receive some booze from off a truck .

When we are talking a business, its about interpreting the scope of statutory language in a civil rights bill and comparing it to a 'religious exemption' This is more like the florist or the cake decorator employee,seeking reasonable accomodation as opposed to this County Clerk, voted into office, where she made it almost impossible by intimidating lower staff ( the real employees), and refusing as a dept manager, to cooperate with any efforts to find a middle ground that did not involve citizens being denied access at that office to service.

I am all for employers offering reasonable accommodation by using another employee to do the job, or shuffling the responsibilities under the job description as long as substantially similar service is provided to the gay customer That does NOT mean driving off in search of someone, anyone willing to provide service in a 20 mile radius, or having to leave and come back on the third Tuesday of the month, when someone always is willing to do the same exact exchange for straights who get the service anytime within normal business hours. That is not 'substantially similar' service to the protected class, and it sure is not substantially compliant with civil rights statutes, if gays are protected under state law.

 

there is no constitutional right to marry... so please stop trying to divide the two religious issues...

the only difference is the EMPLOYER... just because the government doesn't want to follow a law, does not make it any less responsible for its actions... the EXACT SAME LAW the EEOC is citing for this trucking company violating, can be absolutely applied to her position as a government employee... everyone has to follow the laws, government doesn't get to exempt itself from its own laws... don't try to turn this into me not comprehending something... I clearly understand exactly whats going on...

the government by law has to make reasonable accommodations just like it expects a trucking company to... so if you're telling me the trucking company must not use its workforce as it sees fit, and it must force another driver to do something, that would violate another drivers religion, why can't the government then by law force another government employee to sign the marriage licenses... (which if you haven't noticed, its EXACTLY WHATS THEY LET HER OUT OF JAIL FOR)... the county clerk was released from jail only after ANOTHER employee who didn't object, agreed to sign the marriage licenses... WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY THE TRUCKING COMPANY SHOULD DO...

yet only ONE person was imprisoned against her will, for upholding her religious rights... whats good enough for the goose... well you know the rest...

why should the government force companies to comply with laws, but then exempts itself from laws... don't you find that dramatically disturbing... when the exact same scenario was reversed and the government should have been compelled to find another employee (like it did) without imprisoning someone... why did they feel they had the right to strip someone of their liberties, but suddenly its wrong when a trucking company does the exact same thing, over a religious protest...

is it right because you support the democrats who wanted to punish her, and you don't support the republicans who backed her??? is that why you think this is different? I'm constantly in the middle as an independent scratching my head when I see one side apply law one way, then back track and apply it another way when it comes to their own politics and interests... you can't fool me while I sit here in the middle watching BOTH sides bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting americans and abusing the laws and rules we have... equality means we apply the law equally... if you don't like the county clerk refusing to sign marriage licenses, then you should be furious the muslims won't haul liquor... because then your logic would match and you would achieve equality... but if you're telling me one of them gets a right the other does not, FUBAR on you... logic fail...

your claims the person had to be 20 miles away, and thats unfair... THEY FOUND SOMEONE IN THE SAME OFFICE... thats not an unreasonable accommodation... but they never saught that as a solution, they only wanted to punish someone who didn't politically match up with their ideals... they wanted her to hurt and suffer because she didn't agree with them... thats all these lawsuits are about... its not about finding a solution, its about making someone hurt...

so please, save the excuses and justifications for those who live in your little political bubble... outside in the independent world, I call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your excuses...

either the law is right to be applied to ALL, or is wrong and should be applied to NONE... but you can't have this wishy washy try to find ways to justify it... un-american...

 

My skepticism is thus rewarded. Sigh.

 

No one is stupid enough to believe articles written saying the prez of the USA files lawsuits. The authors of such stories are idiots. Tabloid supermarket garbage.

 

These degenerates don't have to drink they beer they just have to drive a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing truck.

This isn't preserving religious freedom, damned Democrat hypocrites, this is special treatment.

This is giving Muslims the "right" not to do their job ...something non-Muslims simply do not have.

Why do liberals get down on their knees before Allah with bleeding heart sympathy and foaming mouth outrage over something as STUPID AS DRIVING A TRUCK!

But then when Christianity comes under actual assault ...liberalism sits back and laughs.

I cant wait for the civil war.

We're going to correct a lot of wrongs, believe you me.

 

for the record... I think anyone should be allowed to marry... to squash your skepticism... in fact I think government should get out of the marriage business because it has no business regulating or controlling it... that should be up to the institution that is marrying people, this way anyone will find a place that wants to marry them...

but just because I support a gay persons right to marry, does not mean I will support a governments right to screw over americans with its pick and choose policy of upholding the laws, or bending them to suit a political agenda...

so don't get your panties in a bunch, I support gay marriage, and I support religious rights... because in america we're supposed to have the FREEDOM to do both... however you seem to be just fine with the abuse of the legal system to support your political agenda... and I think that makes you an american traitor... you accept it...

 

Who can ever figure out RW mentality? It's a disease.

 

What do you expect from the most partisan political party and president in the history of the United States?

So Christians have to marry gays, perform abortions, contribute tax dollars to abortions and contraceptives and the list goes on BUT MUSLIMS are a protected class..

How can anyone say with a straight face that Obama or those that are members of his political party are not blatantly partisan?

 

well the president does happen to be the executive branch who determines what the government prioritizes... I mean thats his excuse for not deporting millions, he's prioritizing other things at the moment that he thinks are more important, so he's ordered them to focus on something else... essentially not upholding the law, which is the job of the executive branch...

so while I concede the person should have used a more "correct" title, we could also concede it was journalistic liberty taken... you know what both sides smut websites do...

 

Beautiful post. Whenever I find a fellow intellectual who straight talks and doesn't BS around, I grow tremendous respect for that person because it's not easy being an intellectual. Nor is it easy to be independent. The rest of the sheep want us to follow them like one of the herd. I'm not a herd member, I'm a very rare sheep that's going to rebel against the 'baa baa' stupidity this country seems to be indicted in lol.

I agree with everything you said, including the most important: There is no constitutional right to marry. Justice Kennedy had the privilege of using his hammer to interpret the law as he saw it fit, but that doesn't mean it's the literal interpretation, or the correct one.
The only thing the 14th assured was that all 'rights and privileges' due to US Citizens would be extended to everyone. At the time it was written, it was meant to include the former slaves who had been set free from their captivity inside the country.

Marriage, in of itself was never actually defined as a right(despite the Court's laughable assertions otherwise). No, the court's historic assertions was that the Family unit were to be preserved, and that marriage was the foundation of the pursuit of happiness, etc. Basically arguments that danced around Marriage, but never defined it in concrete terms.

Purposing that we agree with the Court's terms, Marriage is then(as it was) governed strictly by Civil law, not Federal Law. The only thing that had to be guaranteed were the 'rights' endowed by Federal Law. Marriage, in of itself was and is not a requirement.(It's only a "requirement" now because of the half-assed way the court looks at it, rather then how it's actually written.)

It's for this reason that others have pointed out: Why should singles be discriminated against compared to married couples? That's going to be the next argument. And it'll be a pretty dicey argument too. Because singles of course contribute as humans in our world. Giving singles those same tax breaks could only help them. The foundation of marriage, due to Kennedy's stupidity is going to crumble like the weak pile of cards it is.

But even ignoring all of these very blatant contradictions, there's one even more blatant and obvious: If the 'right' of marriage exists, the right of divorce equally cannot exist. The U.N recognized that when it wrote in that one line in its own declaration of "martial rights" that the right of divorce also exists.

Of course, you *can* do that. But can the two rights be held perpetually? Lol, you and I both know the answer's a NO. If Divorce is held as superior(and those feminists will damn well be sure to uphold it as such.), then the right of marriage is secondary.

Because of course, human free will is essential. So, one's a right and the other is a privilege. Marriage is a privilege. One extended not by the State, but by your own willing hand(for better or for worse.)

And I'm just going to nod my head to everything you said about Muslim VS Kim Davis. There was no logical reason to arrest Kim Davis. The State of Kentucky abused its own State powers to send a message, ironically acting in a tyrannical fashion and Leftists supported it. Kim Davis violated no laws, she caused no harm to no one. She simply didn't want to recognize a marriage license that she didn't feel she could sign due to her religious(and therefore, conscious viewpoint.)

We hold we cannot compel people to do something against their will, even if they are contracted as a government agent. What they should've done, and what they didn't do until the last moment was to have someone else sign those marriage licenses. An easy enough resolution, but that wouldn't have intimidated those dissenting to the SCOTUS ruling.

 

The bigger legal differences are that the Country Clerk is an elected official rather than an employee and that she extended her objection to preventing anyone working for her from granting the licences (and thus anyone who legally could). Any of those individual employees could have requested not to grant same-sex marriage licences and their employer would be required to attempt the same kind of reasonable accommodation as the truck drivers were entitled to (the public and political fallout might be different but the law remains the same).

In general, I think the government actually has more restrictions as an employee compared to private businesses.

I believe she was imprisoned for imposing her religious principles on her office. If she’d refused to sign them personally but allowed willing employees to do so, I doubt we would have heard about any of it. She grudgingly conceded to that only after the court cases and her subsequent imprisonment. Of course there were greater complications because the legal documents were formally in her name but that’s exactly because this wasn’t a simple employee/employer situation and thus not comparable to the truck drivers.

I agree. There is an argument that there shouldn’t be special accommodations for religious people alone. It’s interesting that idea only tends to come up when it is applied to non-Christians though.

 

The government sued and he is in charge. It happened in Illinois and Obama favors Muslims.

 

Catholics don't have the "right" religion. It's bizarro world.

 

I guess the atheists got pissed off when Bush told them to teach religion in science classes, which to some was analogous to having Catholics marry gays. Muslims though are outside of this feud, and the society should adjust to their codes.

 

Or perhaps progress towards obedience is anarchy?

 

The story may be old....the lesson is not.

Do Not Hire Overly Religious People!

 

More stupid religious get-out-of-something-I-don't-like-because-God bullcrap.

I wish we lived in a country were you're allowed to be religious, and that's it. No special rights, no special considerations. We won't prevent you from being religious, but you don't get to prevent anyone or anything else from doing what they do either. Don't want to deliver beer because your version of God doesn't like it? Tough, don't work for a company that does. Don't want to sell a cake to some gay people because you've been told your version of God doesn't like it, even though he never said anything about refusing service to gay people in the first place? Tough, don't have a business open to the public. Don't want to put your name on a wedding certificate to signify that all the correct paperwork and procedures were followed for the application? Tough, resign or do your damn job.

People think it's gay folks who have special rights. Nonsense. To have special rights in this country you just have to say you believe in the Christian God(because the other gods don't get as much of that special consideration). It's all bullcrap.