Melissa Klein, owner of Melissa’s Sweet Cakes. Image Credit: FRC/KATU News
Posted on 03/18/2016 10:38:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Two Muslim truck drivers who sued their former employer for religious discrimination after being fired for refusing to make beer deliveries have been awarded $240,000 by a jury.
And the Obama administration represented them in the case.
Fox News host Megyn Kelly was flabbergasted:
“The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case. But has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians trying to assert their religious beliefs.”
She then said to Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano:
“So in the case of the Muslim truck drivers, the Obama administration through the EEOC is all in. This is what they said:
‘We are proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices; it’s fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.’
But when it comes to the Christian bakers, it’s not as fundamental.”
Melissa Klein, owner of Melissa’s Sweet Cakes. Image Credit: FRC/KATU News
Napolitano was equally perplexed:
“That’s correct. It’s unfortunate when the government interferes in a private dispute over religious views, and takes sides, and chooses one religion over another.”
To their point, the Christian owners of “Melissa’s Sweet Cakes” were fined $135,000 by the state of Oregon for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. And Kentucky clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
Napolitano offered an explanation for the administration’s interest in the Muslim truck driver case:
“The way the feds intervened … they wanted this case because they wanted to make the point that they’ve now made.”
The U.S government and the courts can’t legally have one set of laws for Christians and another set of laws for Muslims and other religious groups. This court’s ruling throws into relief that not all Americans are legally recognized as possessing religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
FROM THE EEOC WEBSITE:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm
___________________________________________________
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.
Just think if the refusal was to deliver cupcakes. And they wonder why people are pissed...
Are they allowed to not deliver cakes to homosexual weddings?
What about delivering beer to a gay wedding?
Now THAT would be an interesting case ....
Would have been cheaper to clip the two of them.
Nah, it would probably be peach schnapps or something similar...
The muzzies had a lawyer.
The lawyer has an address.
The trial had a judge.
The judge has an address.
The muzzies have addresses.
‘Nuff said.
Is this some of that religious liberty I’ve been hearing about?
RE: Is this some of that religious liberty I’ve been hearing about?
Yes, but only for Muslims. Christians are not included (See: Colorado Bakers, New Mexico Photographers and the Little Sisters of the Poor )
In my experience, you do what the boss says when the boss says it. Failure to follow orders has always had unpleasant consequences, religious reasons or not. And by unpleasant circumstances I mean fired on the spot. [Not me] How these dimwits were allowed to drag their stupid religion into the middle of the argument seems more like a setup than anything else, but government is too anxious to validate islam for some strange reason instead of following the logic of the situation. UNREAL!
But the unfair treatment and double standards of Christians is peddling fear, right?
“...but government is too anxious to validate islam for some strange reason...”
Maybe I can help you out by offering you a hint: islam and Western civilization are totally incompatible.
There is no middle ground. It inevitably leads to armed conflict and only one ideology can prevail.
So would the drivers have to deliver alcohol to a homosexual wedding reception?
This right here is grounds for not delivering condoms, sex toys, birth control or any number of things. This case should also be used by nuns who dont want to give out birth control. It should also be used by the people who want to be doctors but dont want to preform a abortion to get their degree.
I asked the same question in Post #6 above.
A brave Republican candidate should bring this case up if gay marriage is brought up by the MSM.
The county clerk in Kentucky was not allowed her religious freedom in the workplace when she didn’t issue a marriage license to gays.
When there is a group like CAIR, and no CAC(Christian)R, you know there is no separation of church and state and the government just endorsed a religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.