https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/rele ... 22-15b.cfm

"But as the Peoria Journal Star (Andy Kravetz) notes, “Whether the men collect their money is another story. Star Transport went out of business earlier this year and it’s unknown who is now responsible for the judgment.” Thanks to Professor Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... t-alcohol/

James E. Shadid is the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Appointed by Barack Obama.

His father is George Shadid,[2] who eventually became sheriff of Peoria County and Illinois state senator.[3]

George P. Shadid was born in Clinton, Iowa[6] to immigrants from Lebanon.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Shadid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Shadid

Judge Shadid, is an Obama appointee, who, as Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin noted, was the first Arab-American to serve as a state judge in Illinois. He has made his mark in a pretzel-twisting interpretation of the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty.

The two truckers knew when they applied for the trucking jobs they might be asked to transport the prohibited alcohol. One suspects that might have been the intention -- to force a test case in federal court as part of the Islamization of America, a case they knew the administration of Barack Hussein Obama would support.

The double standard of the Obama administration knows no bounds. They did not rush to defend the religious liberty rights of the owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. But they have gone to court to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to force the group of elderly nuns who aid the impoverished and ill elderly to provide contraception coverage for their staff. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

The Little Sisters contend ObamaCare not only violates the First Amendment's religious guarantees, but also the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That requires the government to implement its policies in ways that do not impose an unnecessary burden on the free exercise of religion….

If the Little Sisters lose their case, they'll either have to violate their religious conscience or face fines of around $2.5 million a year, or about 40% of what they beg for annually to care for the dying poor. Their ministry would be severely crippled, as would the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

No meaningful accommodations are offered to counter ObamaCare’s infringement of religious liberty. Catholic institutions such as universities and charities are under assault for trying to act on their faith in their daily activities and not just for one hour on Sunday.

The Muslim truckers could have accommodated themselves by taking another job. Maybe they could open a bakery and be forced to cater gay weddings.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... z48j4frNe4

ronan01 wrote:The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol.

Technically, that's correct; but the EEOC only made that argument because Star Trucking admitted that it could easily have accommodated the drivers. If Star Trucking had said that such an accommodation would have placed too large a burden on its business, the jury might well have awarded the two drivers nothing. But, as I said above, once Star Trucking made the admission, the only question was the size of the check. The government didn't have to prove discrimination once the admission was made.

For the record, I'm far from an Obama apologist. However, it's important to keep the facts straight.

Udon Map wrote:

ronan01 wrote:The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol.

Technically, that's correct; but the EEOC only made that argument because Star Trucking admitted that it could easily have accommodated the drivers. If Star Trucking had said that such an accommodation would have placed too large a burden on its business, the jury might well have awarded the two drivers nothing. But, as I said above, once Star Trucking made the admission, the only question was the size of the check. The government didn't have to prove discrimination once the admission was made.

For the record, I'm far from an Obama apologist. However, it's important to keep the facts straight.

That may be so, but the full quote was:

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

It is important to keep the facts straight.

ronan01 wrote:The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

It is important to keep the facts straight.

Well, I'll grant that you're persistent, if unnecessarily snarky.

Christian bakers? Irrelevant, and an inapposite comparison. Let's start with Star Transport. The Star Transport case was about discrimination by an employer against employees, thus bringing it within the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The relevant sections are codified in the United States Code as follows:

42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(a) et seq.: Employer practices: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, ....

42 U.S.C. §2000e(j): The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

Star Transport admitted that it was able "to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship...." That means that the employees win; and, as I said upthread, the only consideration for court is the amount of the check.

Christian bakers? Presumably you mean Sweet Cakes, yes? Apples and oranges. The relevant statute in the Star Transportation case concerned, as you can see, employment practices, -- the relationship between employee and employer. The Sweet Cakes situation concerns the relationship between a business and its customers.

Seems that the law is one sided as I read it
what of the scenario.... if the transport company only transported alcohol or lets say non halal products and refused to hire the men, who then complained????????? would the first law come in to practice for refusing to hire?

The threshold inquiry is whether the company could accommodate the men with some reasonable and non-disruptive modifications to the way that it worked. If the company only transported alcohol or non-Halal products, it would not be required to hire the men.

Udon Map wrote:The threshold inquiry is whether the company could accommodate the men with some reasonable and non-disruptive modifications to the way that it worked. If the company only transported alcohol or non-Halal products, it would not be required to hire the men.

Thanks for the reply..
That's what the normal man would think but it really doesn't read that way. Industrial relations laws in all countries are hard to follow and employers whom are not vigilant initially in the hire process find it is usually too late once said employer has been hired.
It's a new game when the specific religion card is played.

Udon Map wrote:

ronan01 wrote:The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

It is important to keep the facts straight.

Well, I'll grant that you're persistent, if unnecessarily snarky.

Unnecessarily snarky? How?

Is it not important to keep the facts straight?

.

Klára Samková's talk: Should we be afraid of Islam?

" .... Islam is ... a system contradicting ... human naturalness, freedom, and dignity.

It's the same as Nazism, fascism, and communism used to be.

It has these characteristics despite its hiding behind the mask of a religion.

In reality, it is primarily a criminal (both in the sense of committing a crime and controlled by criminals) ideology and an unreformable system of governance.

... Islam likes to hide behind the religious mask .... its permanent, deliberate, and purposeful abuse of the Euro-American legal system and values that the civilizations built upon the Judeo-Christian foundations have converged to.

There's nothing better or more efficient than to abuse the value system of one's enemy, especially when I don't share that system. And that's exactly how Islam behaves."

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/kl ... d.html?m=1

.

"The “radical” Muslims aren’t the crazies with the long beards and the mad staring eyes spouting medieval gibberish that they happen to believe to be the word of God (and who am I to say they are right or wrong?).

No, by the proper use of the word “radical”, they would be those who believe they can transform Islam, with all its traditional beliefs and vile prejudices, into a faith that’s compatible with modern, tolerant Australia."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opin ... e07037d2a5

Avery interesting article:

THE MIND OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

An ideology of savagery

BY ROBERT MANNE

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/201 ... amic-state

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Muslims are apparently very fertile and comprise around 23% of the world's population.

Resurgent Islam is one of the most dynamic religious movements in the world. The Vatican's 2008 yearbook of statistics revealed that for the first time, Islam has outnumbered the Roman Catholics globally. It stated that, "Islam has overtaken Roman Catholicism as the biggest single religious denomination in the world."

An important player. Becoming the USA of religions - the top cat / big dog.