What happens when Muslims get fired for refusing to do their job?

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
We all know what happens to you if you are a Christian baker and you decline to make a gay wedding cake. Or if you are a State clerk and refuse to hand out gay marriage certificates. The left-wing mafia comes down on you as well as the justice system. Heck you might even end up in jail.

But what if you are a Muslim who gets fired for refusing to do his job???

Here's the story...

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.
FULL STORY
 

bybee

New member
We all know what happens to you if you are a Christian baker and you decline to make a gay wedding cake. Or if you are a State clerk and refuse to hand out gay marriage certificates. The left-wing mafia comes down on you as well as the justice system. Heck you might even end up in jail.

But what if you are a Muslim who gets fired for refusing to do his job???

Here's the story...

FULL STORY

Yup! I'm too angry to respond!
 

Quetzal

New member
We all know what happens to you if you are a Christian baker and you decline to make a gay wedding cake. Or if you are a State clerk and refuse to hand out gay marriage certificates. The left-wing mafia comes down on you as well as the justice system. Heck you might even end up in jail.

But what if you are a Muslim who gets fired for refusing to do his job???

Here's the story...

FULL STORY
I had my pitch forks ready, Knight. I was ready to take this to the streets and then... then I read a few articles about it. My initial stance is pretty straight forward, if the employees knew this was part of their job, why did they take the job? Maybe they were in a bind, I don't know. Here is another article that offers a few different perspectives.

Article Link

EEOC v. Star Transport Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill.)), arguing that the employer had failed to provide “reasonable accommodations” to the employees — i.e., accommodations (including an exemption from job duties) that could be provided without “undue hardship” to the employer or others. The court noted that Star Transport had indeed often “swap[ped]’ loads between drivers,” and Star Transport conceded that it could have easily accommodated this request, too, but argued (unsuccessfully) that it shouldn’t be liable for punitive damages.

This concession was important, and if Star Transport had fought the case, and shown that such a swap would indeed be difficult (and that its “forced dispatch” policy, which on its face generally required drivers to deliver what they were told, was consistently enforced), it should have won. But when accommodating an employee just requires a bit of extra administrative hassle, in the form of arranging a swap (given that most other drivers presumably wouldn’t care about whether they are delivering alcohol), the federal Civil Rights Act requires the employer to do this.
I am throwing a flag on this one. :yellow: Personally, it looks like they attempted to be accommodating. Maybe they couldn't this time, maybe there was another conflict. In the end, your job duty is to deliver materials. If you refuse to do it, you run the chance of losing your job. I feel that the courts missed this one.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I am throwing a flag on this one. :yellow: Personally, it looks like they attempted to be accommodating. Maybe they couldn't this time, maybe there was another conflict. In the end, your job duty is to deliver materials. If you refuse to do it, you run the chance of losing your job. I feel that the courts missed this one.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you agreeing with the employer or the employee?
 

Quetzal

New member
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you agreeing with the employer or the employee?
Sorry, in short I disagree with the ruling and side with the employer based on the information we have. It seems like the employer had been accommodating in the past but I think there was an instance when they couldn't? It is kinda vague but at any rate the employee seemed to be aware of their job duties and took the job. That is on them, not the employer.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Sorry, in short I disagree with the ruling and side with the employer based on the information we have. It seems like the employer had been accommodating in the past but I think there was an instance when they couldn't? It is kinda vague but at any rate the employee seemed to be aware of their job duties and took the job. That is on them, not the employer.
I agree.

I believe an employer should have the right to fire any employee for any reason whatsoever. You work at the pleasure of your employer. At least that's the way it should be.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
I agree.

I believe an employer should have the right to fire any employee for any reason whatsoever. You work at the pleasure of your employer. At least that's the way it should be.

I'm not sure about any reason, Knight. I would say a reasonable reason (poor perfomance, business is down, doesn't get along with others, workplace violence, etc). What if a male boss tells a female employee he wants to go out on a date with her and she refuses. He fires her for refusing the date. Is that just cause for firing her? :idunno:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I'm not sure about any reason, Knight. I would say a reasonable reason. What if a male boss tells a female employee he wants to go out on a date with her and she refuses. He fires her for refusing the date. Is that just cause for firing her? :idunno:
That employer is a moron and an idiot and will never be able to find good employees. It's his right to be stupid and run himself out of business.

I don't think the government should have the right to tell us who we must associate with.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
That employer is a moron and an idiot and will never be able to find good employees. It's his right to be stupid and run himself out of business.

I don't think the government should have the right to tell us who we must associate with.

Fair enough.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I'm not sure about any reason, Knight. I would say a reasonable reason (poor perfomance, business is down, doesn't get along with others, workplace violence, etc). What if a male boss tells a female employee he wants to go out on a date with her and she refuses. He fires her for refusing the date. Is that just cause for firing her? :idunno:
One more thing.... the women shouldn't wait to be fired. She should quit and run out of there as fast as she can.
 

bybee

New member
I agree.

I believe an employer should have the right to fire any employee for any reason whatsoever. You work at the pleasure of your employer. At least that's the way it should be.

A carefully constructed job description is an employers best friend. Review it with each employee, have them sign and date it. Then, if the employee doesn't perform according to the job description you have legal grounds for termination of employment.
Or, at least, it used to be that way.
 

Quetzal

New member
A carefully constructed job description is an employers best friend. Review it with each employee, have them sign and date it. Then, if the employee doesn't perform according to the job description you have legal grounds for termination of employment.
Or, at least, it used to be that way.
We have these, we call them "Employee Work Profiles".
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The employer had good reason to fire the employees. IF their religious or personal preferences makes it impossible to do the required tasks, they need to find a job that is more accommodating to their needs.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The employer had good reason to fire the employees. IF their religious or personal preferences makes it impossible to do the required tasks, they need to find a job that is more accommodating to their needs.
So why do you suppose the government stood on the side of these employees when they didn't stand with Kim Davis?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't think the government should have the right to tell us who we must associate with.
101010.gif


Me either.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
So why do you suppose the government stood on the side of these employees when they didn't stand with Kim Davis?

There's the rub, isn't it?


It's the same reason the Black Panthers weren't prosecuted by the Justice Dept. when they stood outside with clubs while people were trying to vote.

That's just the way it is under this POTUS.
 
Top