Obama Sues Trucking Company For Requiring Muslim Drivers to Deliver Alcohol

why is an elected government employee any different from a non-elected private employee... aren't ALL of them governed by the same laws, rules, and PROTECTIONS of the united states of america... are only some afforded protections? based upon your justification and rationalization of the law? because then it supports your political ideology? or should these things cover all americans, in all aspects of life? why should it only cover some in some instances, but exclude others, isn't that discrimination?

yeah it is discrimination when laws only apply to some based on certain factors... thats not liberty and justice for all, its liberty and justice for all who agree with your political ideology right, anyone who opposes can go to hell and be subject to penalty, unless they change their opinions and agree with you? how, un-american...

this is supposed to be a republic... for a very good reason... so ONE voice is allowed to say NO to the majority, and can't be compelled otherwise... thats what makes america great... if we start taking that away and forcing the one voice to bow to the majority, we've lost everything that people who died for this country tried to protect...

 

You are right, President Obama did not sue, this article comes from a RW news source. That being said, I disagree completely with this ruling, it is a terrible ruling, and will be misused in the future.

 

The Jew will get behind the wheel and start driving, while Muslim will stab him with knife in the back while loudly complaining about being treated unfairly.

 

So, let me get this straight. A trucking company can't force an employee to do something that goes against the employee's religious beliefs, but a baker is forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding even though it goes against the religious beliefs of the baker. That's not fair.

I say fire their ******** asses!

 

"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."

 

Why is Lois Lerner not in jail or Hillary for that matter?

 

because at this point... what difference does it make...



thats just what they would say... I would say because clearly the executive branch is choosing not to enforce all the laws equally... but thats just my outside observation... prosecutorial discretion... the best and worst thing ever invented... you can turn a blind eye to the law, or apply the full force and weight of its power upon someone, irregardless of if they deserve it or not... and there is nothing saying you have to be fair, equal, or just... 'MURICA

 

Partisan politics instead of accurate reporting.

 

And that's why the civil rights act is incomplete.

It needs to be amended to accommodate the religious beliefs of employers.

It's not fair that one group (employees) have certain rights that another group (employers) does not also have.

 

If any employee decides they cannot do the Job they were hired for, regardless of the reason (Short of physical disability) they should no longer have the Job. All employers should have the right to remove an employee who cannot or will not do their job. Again I will state that the employer should simply never hire the overtly religious....They are an impending liability.

 

Excellent rebuttal HonestJoe. But it will fall on deaf ears as those who can't see the differences are purposely blinded to the difference.
But spot on.

 

He is not a dictator. So he doesn't control 100% of every gov't function. Not even a dictator could do that.
As to you last sentence, says a lot about you.

- - - Updated - - -

How are catholics forced to provide abortions???
AFAIK, no one is forced to do an abortion.

 

Notice the bold.

 

Think about it for a very long time...You may have an http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=epiphany.
(The word "you" directed towards readers of this forum that may agree with what I Underlined)

 

clearly my message went over your head... it was a passive-aggressive snarky response to the other guy...

thanks for commenting from the peanut gallery... maybe next time contribute something to the conversation instead of just trying to hear yourself speak...

 

So they took a job to deliver alcohol. Then when they got the job, they suddenly found religion and refused to work.

That's the Amerika that I know.

 

The federal government can exempt itself from laws.

Take the laws in regards to asbestos, for example. They require all public buildings to be inspected for the presence of asbestos before being remodeled or torn down, no matter how new they are. Except none of the laws apply to federal government buildings. It's even written into the laws and rules concerning asbestos.

This does not prevent them from being sued for exposing employees to asbestos. Typically, they follow the laws and get inspected(I've done it for the Feds on military bases and in some federal offices, including inside the EPA regional headquarters in my area). Since the people that actually perform that kind of work have to be licensed in their respective state to do said work, it gets done properly and according to the rules. That's been my experience with it anyways.

Thats, of course a generality. There are some bad asbestos contractors out there.

 

[video=youtube;h27AcB70Mvc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h27AcB70Mvc[/video]

I have spoken no words...you're losing it man.

By the way my previous link still stands to this post you made.

Like I typed....

Yep from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery I protest BullS#$tery. I dare so i do.
Here's a contribution...The whole topic is BS! President Obama not involved...and oh noe's somebody suing for something stupid, lets all be up in arms.
Suing doesn't = victory.
This is 5 pages in now....wtf.

 

Tell him that.

 

Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land." Nearly 75 years ago, (when Welfare was introduced) Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land." Today, Congress has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of Camels and mortgaged the Promised land! I was so depressed last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc... I called a Suicide Hotline. I had to press 1 for English, I was connected to a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got excited and asked if I could drive a truck...

I think this was a Steve Wright joke.

 

The elected official isn’t an employee at all. They have no employer (formally speaking) so the laws regulating employee/employer relationships can’t apply. The wider principles and equivalent laws will apply to elected officials, for both rights and responsibilities and it was under those that her case was decided. As I said, if she’d only refused to sign same-sex licences herself but permitted her officers to do so if they were willing, I doubt there would have been any legal issue.

Where did that come from!? I’m most just stating facts rather than giving opinions but where I have, I’ve been arguing in favour for the law applying equally to everyone though I’m still content to accept “reasonable accommodation” laws regarding religious requests.

Also, I’m not American (but please remember your position on not discriminating ).

So the majority should bow down to one voice instead? Clearly blind enforcement of majority rule isn’t right but where there is a situation of direct conflict and a decision has to be reached, something has to give. Either the drivers can be sacked or they can’t. Either same-se licences can be issued or they can’t. Either the baker can refuse service or they can’t. I see no valid reason why majority opinion on the issue shouldn’t play a role in resolving those conflicts.

 

Rule 11 thread closure

Shangrila
Moderator