Two Muslim truck drivers sued their former employer, Star Transport, Inc. for firing them for refusing to deliver alcohol, citing their deeply held fundamental religious beliefs. Critics point out that these Muslim men should have known what they would be doing before they took the job, so why did they take the job? This is the same argument the critics of Kim Davis were making in regards to her refusal to issue marriage licenses (as part of her duty as an elected official) to gay couples in Kentucky.
The EEOC steps in to defend these Muslim men and wins their case, the employer is punished and forced to fork over $240,000 in damages.
In the words of EEOC General Counsel David Lopez:
"EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices, this is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”
What? What "religious freedom and tolerance"?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon refused to make a cake for a gay couple because catering to a gay wedding would violate their religious beliefs. The gay couple sues, the state government steps in and the cake bakers are punished for discrimination, and fined $150,000 for discrimination. The business as a result is gone. The EEOC, with its new mindset on religious freedom, was nowhere to be found rushing to the defense of Eric and Melissa Klein.
Lastly, John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office who defended the Muslim truck drivers,went on record saying,"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 almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case.
Seriously?
Using the logic employed by John Hendrickson and David Lopez, if an employer can make religious exceptions for themselves or their employees without causing undue hardship on themselves, why not allow, say, someone like Sweet Cakes to do the same thing as both employer and employee? Well, I'll no doubt be told it doesn't work that way.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act allows for special exemptions to be made for those who have religious objections to certain aspects of their job or as part of their business practice. But as is clear here, our government likes to pick and choose who's religious beliefs are worth defending and accommodating. As far as Kim Davis and Sweet Cakes by Melissa are concerned, it seems some beliefs, according to the government, are more fundamental than others.
The EEOC steps in to defend these Muslim men and wins their case, the employer is punished and forced to fork over $240,000 in damages.
In the words of EEOC General Counsel David Lopez:
"EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices, this is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”
What? What "religious freedom and tolerance"?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon refused to make a cake for a gay couple because catering to a gay wedding would violate their religious beliefs. The gay couple sues, the state government steps in and the cake bakers are punished for discrimination, and fined $150,000 for discrimination. The business as a result is gone. The EEOC, with its new mindset on religious freedom, was nowhere to be found rushing to the defense of Eric and Melissa Klein.
Lastly, John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office who defended the Muslim truck drivers,went on record saying,"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 almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case.
Seriously?
Using the logic employed by John Hendrickson and David Lopez, if an employer can make religious exceptions for themselves or their employees without causing undue hardship on themselves, why not allow, say, someone like Sweet Cakes to do the same thing as both employer and employee? Well, I'll no doubt be told it doesn't work that way.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act allows for special exemptions to be made for those who have religious objections to certain aspects of their job or as part of their business practice. But as is clear here, our government likes to pick and choose who's religious beliefs are worth defending and accommodating. As far as Kim Davis and Sweet Cakes by Melissa are concerned, it seems some beliefs, according to the government, are more fundamental than others.
Last edited:
