Compare this story to the Kim Davis story

[NYcarbineer]

Why didn't the OP compare this case to Hobby Lobby?

I think we know why.

 

[SwimExpert]

"Chief U.S. District Judge James Shadid had found in favor of the commission in March, after the company admitted liability."

See what happens when you read past the headlines. Truth hits you.

 

[Conservative65]

2 Muslim drivers win $240K judgment in discrimination suit

Were they civil servants?

Irrelevant. Both centered around claims of religious beliefs. The Christian was told no and the Muslims are pandered to.

The difference is the Christian was infringing on others' Liberty.

The Muslims weren't.

The fact that you think they're the same speaks volumes.

The similarity is that they both claimed religious freedom. That you don't see they are the same on a higher principle speaks volumes about your hypocrisy.

 

[Conservative65]

Why didn't the OP compare this case to Hobby Lobby?

I think we know why.

Why don't you compare the Muslim case with Kim Davis. I KNOW we know why.

 

[Conservative65]

my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.

The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.

In small towns there may be one pharmacist in a 20 mile radius. You can't have a system where they get to pick and choose.

An Orthodox Jew or Muslim shouldn't work in a pork store. Anything else is an undue burden on not only the customer but on the employer.

I don't disagree with you, which is why I was careful to specify "as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant".

But in this case, I don't see any reason to think assigning the route to another driver would have been an undue burden, and court seems to agree.

We can't expect Muslims to do their damn job?

Do you have a copy of the contract they signed with a list of the items they would be required to transport? Didn't think so.

Kim Davis had such a contract, and had to swear to perform the duties therein. So you're singing her praises for violating her oath? Not surprising.

They were hired to deliver. Unless there was something saying they didn't have to deliver certain things, their JOB was to deliver whatever the boss said to deliver.