Posted on 10/25/2015 12:57:01 PM PDT by American Faith Today
Feds Go to Bat for Somali Muslim Truck Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Beer
Jim Hoft Oct 25th, 2015 1:24 pm 4 Comments
The federal government awarded $240,000 to two Somali Muslim truck drivers who refused to deliver beer to customers.
The Muslims said it was against their religion. forced sharia (Rick Well)
The EEOC took up the case in 2013.
Liberty Unyielding reported:
Last month, it was a Muslim flight attendant who sued her airline after suspending her for refusing to serve booze. This month it’s two Muslim truck drivers, except in this case, handling booze — which is forbidden under Islamic law — was pretty much their entire job description.
The pair, Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale, had the backing of the federal government in their religious discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, who rightfully terminated them for refusing to make beer deliveries.
The Washington Examiner notes that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won $240,000 in damages to the former drivers, both of Somali heritage, who were fired in 2009.
The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights by refusing to accommodate their objections to delivering alcoholic beverages. “EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices,” EEOC General Counsel David Lopez announced Thursday. “This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”
Hey...
= :^)
I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I’d take it under advisement.
I agree. That does seem like the right way to word it on an employment application.
And yep, all of our little “alphabet” agencies have become too powerful for their own good. Who would have ever imagined growing government and growing government agencies would ever lead to such a thing?
Job includes, but is not limited to delivering alcohol and pork products to Dhimmis without collecting Jizyah tax.
Muslim Truck Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Beer, humblegunner wrote:
Isn’t (Gateways) Rick Wells the author?
Not only that but the way this got reported here as the EEOC “awarded” which has no cash to dole out. This point got lost. Because actually this government agency, EEOC headed by a David Lopez ruled their employer, Star Transport, is to pay that absurd claim of religious discrimnation.
Muslims are SPECIAL to Obama.....SPECIAL.....Christians not so much.
So, don’t hire Muslims or Somalis. Avoid any chance of a lawsuit. That should make them happy.
DEPORT ALL SOMALI MUSLIMS
back to the land of their birth
along with offspring ,
Adios !
Mr. Trump ; please place this organization on your hit list
of U.S. Gov orgs to be dismantled and done away with :
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Nothing but an advocacy for $$$$ org for aliens
Not only this case , but MANY others ....
U.S. tax payers pay the note , to non U.S. born plaintiffs
represented by THIS ORGANIZATION , to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars . Liberal progressive lawyer infiltrators within the U.S. gov .
Piss off & go to hell
Guarantee that the money goes to supporting Jihad/Sharia in America
Beer is a beverage, after all (hic) and a commodity ;-)
.. You would think they screened applicants a little ..
I grew up to the Beer Barrel Polka.. We needed a barrel we had a lot of relatives.
In 2007, the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minneapolis unanimously voted to impose stiff penalties against taxi drivers who refuse to transport passengers carrying liquor or riding with a guide dog. The drivers, again motivated by religious beliefs, could face a two-year revocation of their taxi permits for refusing those passengers service.
Reuters reported at the time, “A large number of taxi drivers in the area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslim Somali immigrants. Many say they feel the faith’s ban on alcohol consumption includes transporting anyone carrying it. Some also have refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.”
The Metropolitan Airports Commission said 4,800 incidents were reported in Minneapolis between 2002 and 2007 in which taxi drivers refused to pick up passengers with alcohol.
It would have been cheaper and easier to have just hired some white guys. Then you know the job would have been done right.
Problem is the Muzzies are probably the only ones who can pass the drug tests.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Unsurprisingly, there are major constitutional problems with the federal government’s actions concerning this issue imo.
To begin with, regarding the idea of an employer violating an employee’s constitutional rights, please consider the following. The Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Cruikshank, that case dealing with the scope of constitutional rights, that the Constitution protects a citizen’s enumerated rights only from state and federal government actions, not actions by other citizens.
So the EEOC actually has no constitutional basis for its religious freedom violation accusations against the referenced employer imo. And I don’t think that religious issues were the main reason that the employer fired the employees. After all, the employer had hired them!
The next major constitutional problem with the EEOC’s action is this. Regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generaton of state-sovereignty respecting justices had clarified the following. The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, which reasonably includes not interfering with an employer’s decision to fire employees.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So the corrupt federal government has no constitutional basis to interfere with an INTRAstate employer’s decisions on the basis of either alleged violations 1st Amendment protected rights or the Commerce Clause imo.
And since the EEOC has been mentioned a few times, please consider this. Even if the states had delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to police an intrastate employer’s decisions, the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected bureacrats like those running the EPA, FCC or EEOC. So Congress has a constitutional “monopoly” on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not imo.
But by delegating federal legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats, powers that Congress doesn’t have in the first place in this case, corrupt Congress is wrongly protecting such powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above.
Finally, it appears that the constitutionally undefined EEOC's job is to police all kinds of intrastate discrimination issues related to Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s & 70s. But the major constitutional problem with the federal civil rights acts are the following.
The only civil rights that the feds have the constitutional authority to legislatively protect are those rights based on constitutional rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect. So the low-information, Democratic-controlled (I think) Congress of the 60s and 70s actually had no constitutional authority to make laws addressing intrastate discrimination issues outside the scope of constitutionally enumerated voting rights.
In fact, this issue is another good example of the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, low-information Senate once again failing to protect the states as the Founding States had established the Senate to do. In this case the Senate wrongly helped to pass the constitutionally indefensible bills that led to the establishment of the EEOC and the civil rights acts.
Note that the Senate also failed to use its constitutional Article V power to lead Congress to propose civil rights amendments to the Constitution to the states. If the states had chosen to ratify such amendments, then Congress would have the constitutional authority to make such laws even if it cannot delegate such regulatory powers to non-elected federal bureaucrats.
As mentioned in related threads, the ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt, Constitution-ignoring, low-information senators who help to pass unconstitutional bills that hurt the states that they’re supposed to be protecting along with it.
And yet if the trucking company DIDNT hire him in the beginning for that same reason they would get sued for discrimination.
Thank you for sharing that.
Damn good argument.
So the low-information, Democratic-controlled (I think) Congress of the 60s and 70s actually had no constitutional authority to make laws addressing intrastate discrimination issues outside the scope of constitutionally enumeratedvotingrights.
Just a little extra information here. It may not mean anything. Judge James E Shadid rendered the verdict. His father was George P Shadid born in the USA 1929. A highly respected and successful man. His parents were both from the Lebanon and immigrants to the USA.
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.