Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Compared to being awarded $240,000.....why is a fine justified at all?
She is an elected official doing her job as she decided was appropriate. Will you say the same thing about every other politician that refuses to do their job?
The Christian bakers were happy to make accomodations...they just did not want to be part of a same sex marriage. So, yah....there is the idea that the muslims are babied.
Maybe for publishing the women's names and the resulting death threats to them and the threats to remove the children from the home because of it? I find it funny that you consider a clerk, even if they are elected to be a politician. Is she able to vote on laws, propose bills, set policies or is she simply elected to do a job? I do not understand your system for electing clerks and coroners or dog catchers. She was punished because she refused to do her job after being ordered to by a court which gave her a means of accomodation. The judge was also a devout Christian who did not agree with same sex marriage however he does believe in the law. A Christian judge finding a Christian clerk in contempt of court does not sound like religious persecution to be unless you think the judge being a Catholic is not a Christian?
The bakers did not offer her accomodations they refused to serve her. Besides which the baker and these drivers are affected by different laws, one about businesses not allowed to discriminate and the other about employers and discrimination.
That the Muslim taxi drivers were given the choice of drive or be suspended and if suspended a second time get fired is not what I would call being babied. My summary is that you cherry pick the cases you use to make your point, ignore what laws apply and how those laws are implements
As I said in my earlier post I am not up to date on this case, do not know if accomodations were offered or even possible and certainly do not understand the huge settlements that seem normal in your civil courts. I also do not understand how issuing marriage certificates on behalf of the State or delivering a shipment of beer to a customer of the trucking company are violations of one's religion.
You realize that Kim Davis is an elected official doing what many other elected officials are doing or have done in this country, right? She does not have a boss that would simply fire her. To do so would require a recall election.
But it is interesting that Christian bakers get fined huge amounts of money, other Christian companies get shut down, etc....while Muslim truck drivers get a payday. I just find that interesting.
What Christian company was shut down? And people serving the state like elected officials have to do the job they are paid for - give or take a compromise.
Not surprising the situation hasn't arisen in the US but someone Christian who worked in printing should not be be fired for not wanting to print books that explained other religions for example. I would have said at one time, that person should be fired but I am persuaded that compromiise is the better way. As I said, Kim refused the compromise. When she accepted it, the matter was closed (or should have been).
The Christian baker matter was because they owned the business. If an employee was offended by same -sex cakes then a compromise might be found. but they owned the business. If the trucking company had refused to haul Bibles, or refused to deliver to churches, they would be open to the same penalties as the owners of the baking business.
So there are circumstances here, but you only see the muslims getting rewarded while Christians get persecuted. Well, see it that way if you must, but that view doesn't actually stack up.
Muslims seem to be given "most favored religion" status here in America. I do not believe Christians in the same situation would have won this case. Our Judicial system is becoming anti-Christian, but that's okay. Jesus said "these things must come to pass", and they are.
Compared to being awarded $240,000.....why is a fine justified at all?
Because human rights were being violated. The same if a Christian driver had been sacked (without a compromise being offered) for refusing to deliver books or videos he disapproved of, And that you would approve of.
Quote:
She is an elected official doing her job as she decided was appropriate. Will you say the same thing about every other politician that refuses to do their job?
Yes. Except politicians seem to escape being impeached. State minions gets jailed. Businesses get fined and the hoi polloi get sacked.
Quote:
The Christian bakers were happy to make accomodations...they just did not want to be part of a same sex marriage. So, yah....there is the idea that the muslims are babied.
As I say, it was not a question of accommodating employees. They owned the business. They were discriminating about who they offered their services to and who not - on religious grounds and against human rights. As I also said an employee refusing to bake same sex -wedding cakes might now be offered accommodation, but ..in a small bakery, it would be either bake or hike.
I disagree with the accommodation angle. I employ people, and while I haven't had any conflicts of interest with employees, I wouldn't make allowances for religion.
Someone tells they won't work in a church, because they are an atheist, would be down the road pronto. Same goes for the fairy tale crowd.
Someone tells they won't do job X, because of their beliefs, may as well be telling me they have no arms and legs.
An employee's beliefs shouldn't be allowed to effect my bottom line.
The jury found the company could have made accommodation but refused to do so. The company was in violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964. If a Christian thinks their civil rights have been denied.... they can also sue.
But they may not get anywhere. The Obama administration represented these Muslims. Went out of their way to do it. Like communism. We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
I disagree with the accommodation angle. I employ people, and while I haven't had any conflicts of interest with employees, I wouldn't make allowances for religion.
Someone tells they won't work in a church, because they are an atheist, would be down the road pronto. Same goes for the fairy tale crowd.
Someone tells they won't do job X, because of their beliefs, may as well be telling me they have no arms and legs.
I have a problem with it, too, in principle, but in the interests of helping people all round when there are problems, I must agree it has merits - so long as it is not taken as a right to amend your job description to suit yourself. The implications are, grab the accommodation with both hands and don't try it on. Maybe one official warning and then out and no Jury award. and that applies to people of any religion, or none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
But they may not get anywhere. The Obama administration represented these Muslims. Went out of their way to do it. Like communism. We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
That sounds a bit iffy to me The Govt should not have got involved in this, I should have thought. appeals can be made and if Govt. involvement has made this case unsafe, they could bitterly regret getting mixed up in it.
I do. I've worked as a journalist. I know award-winning, highly-educated journalists who have been fired from their jobs in cost-costing measures and corporate take-overs. They've been replaced by bloggers whose training consists of...... wait..... they have no training. They have access to a computer and the internet. A dumbed-down America reads stuff written by people who wouldn't know a Pulitzer from a Pullman.
Meghan Kelly was an attorney and Judge Andrew Napolitano has been practicing law for years. They are not just your fly by night bloggers.
But they may not get anywhere. The Obama administration represented these Muslims. Went out of their way to do it. Like communism. We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
The law that was violated was from the 60s
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.
It looks from this page that the company made zero attempt to accomodate the workers. If the law requires them to do so if there is no undue hardship and they do not then they have broken the law. It seems to me that it is a case of a employer violating a law and being punished for doing so. If the law is 50 years old why are people still so surprised if it is enforced and quick to blame a current president, athesist,muslims etc. It looks from this statement that the company thought that they were above the law. The bolding is by me. The company could have readily avoided the entire issue if they wanted to.
Again bringing up the Muslim cabbies, no government came to their defense and they were ordered to by their company to drive cabs with booze or dogs in them. That issue there was no readily accomodations hence the cabbies had the choice to drive or get a new job. If the Muslims in the case above got a job with Coors they would likely have had zero case to defend and the courts would not have even heard the case.
It is not about Muslim or Christian but about the merits of each case and which law they fall under.
I have a problem with it, too, in principle, but in the interests of helping people all round when there are problems, I must agree it has merits - so long as it is not taken as a right to amend your job description to suit yourself. The implications are, grab the accommodation with both hands and don't try it on. Maybe one official warning and then out and no Jury award. and that applies to people of any religion, or none.
That sounds a bit iffy to me The Govt should not have got involved in this, I should have thought. appeals can be made and if Govt. involvement has made this case unsafe, they could bitterly regret getting mixed up in it.
This is what the judge said. The government needs to stay our of the private sector and not favor one religion over another.
The company should have made concessions and they could have since they had other routes that didn't deliver beer, even the government needs to do the same and make concessions for the employee, if possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
