Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol

OBAMAMUSLIM2

Considering the sheer number of things that Islam bans (pork, alcohol, movies, music, chess, kites, etc…) a Muslim driver who refuses to drive a truck containing them is mostly useless.

When Muslim taxi drivers refused to drive passengers with seeing eye dogs or who carried bottles of alcohol, there was an uproar. But now Obama Inc. is using to claim that Muslim discrimination is a civil right that employers must accommodate.

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.

A trucking company may be obligated to accommodate religious observance by providing time off for holidays or prayers. It is not obligated to excuse employees from doing their actual job. And delivering alcohol is part of what being a truck driver means. If it’s against your religion, find a job that doesn’t involve delivering large quantities of foods and beverages.

In fact there is no actual prohibition that bars Muslims from driving a truck full of alcohol. There are prohibitions on drinking alcohol. Every Muslim corner store I have ever seen sells alcohol, alongside smuggled cigarettes and lottery tickets. Many Muslim countries allow the sale of alcohol.

These objections have little to do with the Koran and a great deal to do with Muslims imposing Islamic law on non-Muslims in Western countries. And Obama has chosen to collaborate in that assault on civil rights. Again.

The case is going in front of Judge James E. Shadid, an Obama nominee who has been hailed as the only Arab Federal judge in Illinois. That’s quite a coincidence, in the sense of not being a coincidence at all.

  • Softly Bob

    It's all about creeping Sharia of course. This has a two-fold effect. Firstly it's about inflicting Muslim values onto non-Muslims and secondly it's about economics. Firms that are forced to bow to the demands of Muslim employees are going to suffer financial penalties for doing so. They are going to either change their market or are going to have employ workers who are effectively on the payroll but are not expected to carry out certain duties.

  • Pulsar182

    roh roh…another Muslim jiyzah shakedown….

  • Jesus

    G-d help us all! Mussies taking over-next will be public beheadings!

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Of off duty soldiers on the street in broad daylight.

      Or will they go more for the ft hood shooter model?
      He was just promoted under this administration. http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/03/alleged-fort-ho

    • G. Drury

      AS long as the heads that are rolling are muslimes.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Look, the POTUS is an Islamist-in-Chief and that is that. For when someone works for a private company they are required to haul ALL legal products, otherwise they are subject to firing. Since when is a worker allowed to say they won't haul this or that, as long as it is not contraband?
    This is of piece with the same thing which Holder's DOJ is attempting to shove down America's throat, and it is all about submitting America to Sharia Law – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/06/02/holders-doj-a

    Could it be any clearer? Nope.Welcome to the Shariah States of America!

    Adina kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Alex W

      Bet the POTUS was being all Islamist-in-Chief when the EEOC took up the case of a Christian Pentecostal woman that was told she had to wear pants rather than a skirt at Burger King, despite their being no health or safety concerns. Right?

    • Dave

      Notice how this truck driver is being defended for refusing to deliver alcohol citing religious observance, yet, Christian companies are being forced to provide abortion coverage and the pill despite their observance?

  • RebeccaJean

    And the question remains. Is this administration truly stupid, as this issue would seem to suggest. Or is Obama a closeted Muslim scratching the back of his co-religionists as they attempt to gain a foothold in institutionalizing sharia, as this issue could also suggest.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      He's a marxist of muslim heritage.

      The way you say it, it might be considered 'racist' or something….
      (sarcasm) of course his muslim loyalties are at work, just like in Egypt and every other decision he makes.

  • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

    Is it at all possible that there was no burden on the company to accommodate, and therefore this is a real case of discrimination?

    I don't like it when Muslims ask for unreasonable accommodation, but to knee jerk absolve this company when the real facts of the EEOC investigation are not known seems a rush to judgment.

    This company operates over 600 conventional tractors. Perhaps these two drivers are different than those that operate the corner stores. I do not know and neither does anyone here.

    There are plenty of reasons to bash political Islam, and plenty of opportunities. To my mind, this may not be one, at least not yet, until all the facts are known, and this post seems just a piece of red meat that is not helpful, and not when the other side does it either, which it does.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There's always a burden. The difference is whether the company should accommodate religious practices or whether it should have to pick and choose what products it handles based on the willingness of Muslim employees to deliver some products but not others.

      Let's say that the company can work around 2 Muslim employees, can it work around 200? Can it refuse to hire more Muslims on the grounds that it will not be able to work around them?

      • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

        The law says that it must be undue. Where two do not make it undue, 200 certainly might. As I read the article and the EEOC press release, the investigation said there was no practical burden at all to schedule these guys differently.

        I think this is blown out of proportion, at least until the facts are known. I do not believe Star Transport will become the slave to political Islam, and perhaps if it had accommodated then it would have amounted to nothing. I am not willing to say, as many are, that these firings were justified SOLELY because these drivers are Muslims.

        I could change my mind when the facts are out, but that is how I feel now. As I read it, the EEOC sounded as if this may not be a close case.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Any restriction on the nature of the work is arguably undue. These firings were not justified because the drivers were Muslims, but because the drivers used Islam to justify not doing their job.

          They were not being forced to drink liquor. They were being asked to drive a truck with liquor in it.

          Their contention that they may not do so is an application of Islamic law to non-Muslims.

          • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

            Arguably? That reduces this all to speculation and that is the very point. You make it seem as if these drivers are lying, yet have you presented ANY evidence? Arguably, there is discrimination, too.

            It is not application either, but accommodation. There IS a difference. Where has any non-Muslim here been denied their freedom of religion? That is the genuine issue. In effect, you are doing the same thing as the Islamists do when they argue for defamation of religion.

            I think there are far more serious instances than this to disseminate, especially when the ultimate facts are far from established, because it makes a premature judgment of this case solely based on the religion of the drivers. To me, that is wrong.

            It does not take away from many of the other posts you make, most of which I find agreement with.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The issue isn't whether the drivers are telling the truth. It's likely that they were fired for not doing their job.

            That's not discrimination. They weren't fired for being Muslim. They were fired because they thought that Islamic law should apply to non-Muslims and refused to do their job.

            If they were being forced to drink alcohol, which is not relevant to their jobs, and were fired for refusing to do so because it violates their religion, they would have a solid case.

            That is not what happened here. They were fired for refusing to perform a task that is essentially what their job is, on the grounds that they don't think non-Muslims should be allowed to drink liquor either.

          • Alex W

            So, do you think the case Shelton v. Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey was wrongly decided? There the EEOC decided that a Christian nurse who refused to wash instruments used during an abortion (note, she was not actually required to perform an abortion) was wrongfully terminated because there was no reason her tasks couldn't easily be switched.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Shelton v. Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey"

            As I understand it she had not been assigned to do that when she accepted the original position. That is the distinction.

            Did these Muslims accept a position that had no connection to alcohol and then get reassigned? That would make a difference. It would not be a slam dunk still, but at least they'd have some basis to complain without being seen as sharia agitators. Even then, driving a delivery truck is not really comparable to cleaning up after abortions. Wait, I understand that if you're a leftist it is.

          • Alex W

            You misunderstood it. They offered her another position when she refused to perform the tasks that her position required (cleaning and prepping equipment for emergency abortions), and she didn't want to take that other position either.

            My preferred answer would be that we get rid of this law. I'm an atheist and I've worked for an employer that required me to do a prayer circle before our shift. I don't need a law to protect me from that, if it really bothered me, I'd just quit.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You misunderstood it. They offered her another position when she refused to perform the tasks that her position required (cleaning and prepping equipment for emergency abortions), and she didn't want to take that other position either."

            Fair enough, I'll read it more thoroughly if I get a chance.

            "My preferred answer would be that we get rid of this law. I'm an atheist and I've worked for an employer that required me to do a prayer circle before our shift. I don't need a law to protect me from that, if it really bothered me, I'd just quit."

            I think the intent of the law was to more clearly articulate the principal of equal protection under the law in terms of religious persecution. I wouldn't mind getting rid of it either because it's caused more problems than it's solved as far as I can tell.

            On the other hand some of the cases have merit, but not purely based on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are cited in some cases because many people see their religion as the source for their morality. I think religion is acceptable to use for context, but it's not a complete argument on its own.

            Religious arguments were made both for and against abolishing slavery. The constitution itself is clearly influenced by morality taught in the Bible, but showing something is being taught in the Bible is not a complete argument.

            We can't deny this part of our history, So it makes sense that we consider other sources to weigh against what we've established as law.

            And then the communists infiltrated our government and society and started introducing ideas that are stealth attacks against us and most of our traditions, trying to make us look like hypocrites. What good is equal protection if you don't have equal results? And so forth.

            So I don't give a damn about anyone's religious feelings. I care about the constitution and I don't mind if someone wants to present a theory about something and refers to their religious beliefs. That sets context but it takes a lot more than that. Or it should.

            But now we have unspoken principals about people feeling like life should be perfectly "fair" and so forth, so if some supposed oppressed class comes up with victim rhetoric and mentions equality and the constitution, the arguments they make don't need to be very robust before some activist judge starts doing what progressive judges seem to like to do. Which sucks.

            It's bad enough when congress panders but I expect more from judges.

            As far as your prayer circle goes…generally that would be wrong. But prayer itself does not necessary imply religion. If they had you stand around and repeat the corporate motto, that could be construed as prayer too.

            But there are certainly limits. I don't know enough about your experience to comment further, but as a non-atheist I nonetheless don't think our positions are that far apart.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Until we're out of funds for further jizya tax, and their foots are on our bloody stumps that used to hold our heads (ala Daniel Pearl) the muslims will not be satisfied.

        We're the next Byzantine Empire. It used to be they wanted to take down Israel before facing the great satan. Now, Obama has changed that.

    • RebeccaJean

      Was the statute put in place so that people could have days off to observe their religion or for prayers? Or was it put in place to cover every little nuance, jot and tittle of ones religion. Could a Catholic refuse to drive a truck containing birth control devices? I think that it is unreasonable to expect an employer to have to locate someone else to do your job because of these types of issues.

      • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

        Perhaps, but there are too many assumptions you and others make as it pertains to THIS case.

        • RebeccaJean

          I have made no assumption. Was the law put in place for simple observance of ones religion or was it put in place to preclude you from doing an aspect of your job that you find morally objectionable due to your religious beliefs. My contention is that it is the former. Prove me wrong.

        • RebeccaJean

          Assumptions about what? You can go to the EEOC website and get info on the case and why it was filed. I must be misunderstanding you.

          • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

            Sorry, I went out and enjoyed the day. I thought you were assuming that the statute's purpose should be for what you said in the first sentence as compared to the second.

        • Mary Sue

          I suppose you'd excuse a pharmacist for refusing to sell birth control, because USING birth control is against their religion?

          • Alex W

            The EEOC has argued exactly that in Menges v. Blagojevich, 451 F.Supp.2d 992 (C.D. Ill. 2006).

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Perhaps, but there are too many assumptions you and others make as it pertains to THIS case."

          I guess we can't be called to serve on the jury if it goes to trial. Oh no, what have we done?

      • Erniesam

        It's very simple: when you're a truck driver, you transport everything your boss tells you to, exept when the content is illegal. If you have objections to certain products, whatever the reason (religion, conscious objections whatever) you have to find another job! You're just not qualified for this particular job and the boss can't use you. It doesn't matter if it's 1 employee or 600! Such behavior qualifies as refusing to work and that's grounds for firing. It's very simple. It has nothing to do with religion.

        Another thing: religious holidays? The employee is in no way obliged to give workers free just because of their religion. The worker can ask for some days leave (be it Muslim, Jew, HIndu whatever) and the boss may be so kind to let them. Funny, I've never heard of a riot by Jews, Hindus or Buddhists to get religious holidays free or refusal to do some work.

        I guess we all know what the deal her is, right?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Could a Catholic refuse to drive a truck containing birth control devices?"

        We all know the answer to that. As if alcohol consumption is clearly evil but abortion is pro-life for the narcissistic mother and therefore something we must all support with a smile.

        Or maybe it's sharia in action again.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Ignoring for the moment that the government has no proper business requiring "reasonable accommodation" in the first place, the fact that these two drivers refused to perform the basic requirements of their jobs ipso facto placed an undue burden on the employer. Do you expect him to completely re-program his entire dispatch system to accommodate two troublemakers (which is what they are, or they wouldn't have applied for these jobs) by not assigning them to any scheduled deliveries of alcohol (or whatever else Islam decides people shouldn't have)?

    • Mary Sue

      oh sure, but if a pharmacist refuses to give a teenage girl the morning after pill, watch out!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Is it at all possible that there was no burden on the company to accommodate, and therefore this is a real case of discrimination? "

      It's either a burden on the company directly, or on the co-workers who must take up the slack with fewer choices of their own. Unless they volunteered, in which case you would not have heard anything.

      There is no chance this is unjust discrimination. It is legitimate and wise discriminating against people who demand to be treated as superior.

      Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. See discernment, judgment, etc. Christians can't even reverse to administer abortion drugs, but Muslims can refuse service for any involvement whatsoever of anything they deem to be against their religious beliefs. Guess what else is against their religious beliefs? Rebellion against sharia is against their beliefs and there is no clear line in between throwing you in jail for drinking alcohol and refusing to deliver it. It's simply that at the moment they don't have the power to do so.

      It's up to us to draw that line. Use the US constitution for that line. Nobody forced them to work there. It's part of the job. The company has obligations to its owners and the owners have rights in this case that exceed the supposed rights of anyone and their religious beliefs in conflict with lawful job tasks and assignments.

      It's just more BS class warfare. If they cared that much, they would not have even applied for the job. Grow up you silly dupe.

      • Alex W

        "Christians can't even reverse to administer abortion drugs"

        Assuming you meant "refuse" rather than "reverse", of course they can. That was litigated by the EEOC in Shelton v. Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, and the EEOC won, the Christian nurse was declared wrongfully terminated.

        I'm going to go as far as to say you are lying, even if you didn't know you were wrong, you knew you hadn't actually attempted to find out if your statement was true. Shame on you.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I'm going to go as far as to say you are lying, even if you didn't know you were wrong, you knew you hadn't actually attempted to find out if your statement was true. Shame on you."

          It's true that in a lot of cases they have been protected, but the trend is to try to deny this freedom. I was a bit hyperbolic, I'll grant you that.

          How about this: "Christians can't even refuse to administer abortion drugs without fear of being challenged."

          Comparing their situation and conflating it with Muslims who want to use sharia principals (compelling others to obey allah) is missing a lot of crucial points.

    • Deep Space

      I used to read an EEOC newsletter on a regular basis and it is a tricky area. And as I have stated below would a Christian have the same recourse if asked to carry a cargo of pornography? I guess the problem there is that there probably is no clear biblical injunction against pornography per se but just more general injunctions against immoral or 'impure' behavior.

  • Rubiconcrest

    A Muslim cannot make up rules just to harass employers. They could say they cannot drive a truck that was used to carry alcohol previously or that they cannot enter a warehouse where Beer is stored or they cannot drive the truck past stores that are selling alcoholic products. Where does it end?

    • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

      Do you have evidence they made up rules just to harrass the employers in this case? That would certainly change the scenario.

    • Craig Campbell

      Perhaps they are best suited for a job shovelling manure.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "They could say they cannot drive a truck that was used to carry alcohol previously or that they cannot enter a warehouse where Beer is stored or they cannot drive the truck past stores that are selling alcoholic products. Where does it end?"

      In Saudi Arabia.

  • Anonymous

    I agree that the trucking company has a right to fire these Muslim drivers.

    I would also note that to be consistent, a hospital would have a right to fire Christian doctors or nurses who refuse to perform or assist with abortions.

    • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

      Unless it was not an unreasonable burden to accommodate them.

      • Brian

        Why should they be accommodated? They are living in the USA and not in the Middle East. They have to abide by the laws of the land. If they did not want to drive a truck that carried alcohol, then they should be fired. No one can take a job and make "demands". What if they had to transport pork? Should the boss be given a list of what they can transport? If they don't like it, they can return to their country of origin..

      • PDK

        This smells of shakedown in the short run and creeping Sharia in the long run.

        You liberals better wake up and smell the slop you are cooking.

        If you liberals are so concerned with why don't you put up a stink about the Obama administrations foot stomping upon non-liberal, white taxpaying citizens.

        Mature up or our posterity will pay your debt.

        "From the Sanctuary-The PDK Herald/Crier Project"; thank you.

    • Dennis

      So, "ANON", refusal of assisting with and/or performing an abortion EQUATES to refusal to transport alcoholic products? PATHETIC.

  • Graeme

    Oldschool, fascinating test of the premise of Mr Greenfield's article, and a very constructive well argued exchange between you – so rare in 'internetland'!

    This point though I think is not fair: "I think there are far more serious instances than this to disseminate, especially when the ultimate facts are far from established, because it makes a premature judgment of this case solely based on the religion of the drivers."

    Mr Greenfield has presented a very good case for regarding this as another example of stealth Jihad. And as it appears to be being backed by the Obama Administration and is being heard by the areas only Arab judge, to me, that's definitely a story that needs to be written. But like you said (or didn't to some extent), as much as we are aware of stealth Jihad, we can't rule out that facts may emerge that this case may prove to be otherwise. As we're at war though, Mr Greenfield does a stirling service flagging up this as an 'enemy action'. In war, the burden of proof goes against the enemy.

  • Doggwood

    This would be less hypocritical if it were not in sharp contrast to the Obamacare mandates being imposed upon Christian religious institutions regarding the providing of abortifacients and similar violations of church dogma. Seems that some religions are to be accommodated and others are to be beaten into submission.

    As with the latest IRS guidelines about who to stonewall and who to audit, Obama has implemented a new, extreme template of unequal treatment under the law. It's ironic that the first black president chooses to make himself a retrograde symbol of increasing inequality. So much for "progress".

  • ObamaYoMoma

    This is a perfect example of the Islamization of America, as Muslims never ever migrate to assimilate and integrate. Instead, they migrate to eventually dominate and subjugate via the imposition of sharia. And how do they do it, they do it by exploiting the stupidity of useful idiots like Tony Blair, GWB, and BHO.

  • S.Smith

    Don't hire Muslims to start with (or will they then also sue for " discrimination" ?) Will prevent lots of problems.

  • FreeThinker

    I guess the administrator for this site is an Islamic loving trampler of the 1st Amendment right to free speech, as he/she deleted my opinionated comment. I should have known that with all the bs political correctness in the world today, you can no longer give your true views and opinions on things. Administrator, you are part of what's wrong with the world today.

  • aprilnovember811

    Obama is a Muslim. He's an infiltrator. A Muslim Brotherhood stooge. He should be arrested and frog marched out of the White House, for the entire world to see.

  • FreeThinker

    Let me try this a different way. Basically, I can't stand people who are mainly self-serving in their religious beliefs. They claim to be this or that only when it works for them. Does anyone believe for a minute that these two drivers pull their trucks over 5 to 7 times a day, pull out their prayer rugs and lay them down facing East. then get down and pray, according to Muslim practices? I seriously doubt it. But that's just my opinion. My opinion is based on first-hand experience and interactions with many Muslims, or should I say self-proclaimed Muslims. Even if driving a truck with alcohol in the trailer goes against Muslim beliefs, which I just don't buy, wouldn't a responsible and sensible man (a real man) rather feed his family and pay his bills before worrying about such a minor infraction of the Muslim faith, that it costs them their job?

  • snarks alot

    Will there be an IRS audit for the trucking company?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission"

    How does this serve "equal opportunity?" Equal opportunity to force my religious values on others. Is that in the constitution yet? I wonder what would happen if a Muslim was fired for refusing to deliver abortion pills. I think he'd get the same protections. Obviously nobody else can expect this status.

    Sharia is here.

    • Eugene Volokh

      What do you think of Menges v. Blagojevich, 451 F.Supp.2d 992 (C.D. Ill. 2006), holding that requiring pharmacists to dispense "morning after" pills stated a case under the very same Title VII religious accommodation provision? Or do you think that the plaintiffs in that case must all have been Muslims?

      Religious accommodation requirements, like them or not, have been around since 1972, as a result of a statute enacted by Congress. They are routinely used by people of all religious groups. Maybe the law should be changed to remove such requirements; but they are most certainly not just available to Muslims (or even predominantly used by Muslims). I touch on this in more detail here, but you can of course find more information about this in lots of places.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Quite different.

        Businesses can choose not to sell a product for religious reasons.

        • Alex W

          The business wanted to sell, the pharmacist was the one that refused. It was exactly the same.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The business wanted to sell, the pharmacist was the one that refused. It was exactly the same."

            A medical professional defying their professional oath by providing the means to terminate a life is exactly the same as driving a truck that contains alcohol. I see. Actually it's not.

            Unless the alcohol was being delivered to someone who was going to to use it to kill someone and the drivers knew this happened each time the delivery was made. And that also assumes the drivers took an oath to make certain their job performance always favored the preservation of life.

            Actually the pharmacist could arguably refuse to drive the trucks, but based on the oath rather than religion. Abortion is a lot more controversial than drinking liquor you leftist psycho.

          • Alex W

            You don't understand how birth control pills work, do you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You don't understand how birth control pills work, do you?"

            Your question suggests that perhaps you don't.

          • Alex W

            "Unless the alcohol was being delivered to someone who was going to to use it to kill someone and the drivers knew this happened each time the delivery was made."

            Birth control pills are almost exclusively prophylactic, pomegranate juice is more of an abortifacient than birth control pills. Alcohol kills more than BC does.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Alcohol kills more than BC does."

            1) Not directly.

            2) You seem to be conflating prophylactic birth control medicines – that in fact have other health applications as well – with abortion pills.

          • Alex W

            When BC kills, it doesn't do it directly, it simply weakens the uterine lining, making it more difficult for an egg to attach. Why you think that's relevant to the analysis is beyond me. We're talking about the morning after pill, a BC pill which is prophylactic in nature, as the responsive comment referred to.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "When BC kills, it doesn't do it directly, it simply weakens the uterine lining, making it more difficult for an egg to attach. Why you think that's relevant to the analysis is beyond me."

            I don't. You do. You injected it in to the thread.

            "We're talking about the morning after pill, a BC pill which is prophylactic in nature, as the responsive comment referred to."

            An abortion pill is NOT prophylactic in nature except to delusional people who aren't comfortable with drawing a clear line about where life begins.

            By your standard, all abortions are "prophylactic in nature." If I kill you for thought crimes, I can call that prophylactic in nature because I'm preventing whatever future harm you'll cause.

            pro·phy·lac·tic (prf-lktk, prf-)
            adj.
            Acting to defend against or prevent something, especially disease; protective.
            n.
            1. A prophylactic agent, device, or measure, such as a vaccine or drug.
            2. A contraceptive device, especially a condom.
            [French prophylactique, from Greek prophulaktikos, from prophulassein, to take precautions against : pro-, before; see pro-2 + phulassein, to protect (from phulax, guard).]

            That means impeding a process and or taking precautions before. Impeding a life process and causing death, well that's not fundamentally prophylactic. That's a sleazy legal argument that is used in order to falsely conflate truly legitimate prophylactics with drugs that are not "prophylactic in nature."

            Guarding and undoing are not equal. Undoing life is not the same as keeping an egg and sperm from joining in the first place.

            So when you called me a liar you were really projecting.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Blagojevich is not a business owner.

          • Alex W

            Walgreens is, and they were a third-party defendant aligned with the state.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Walgreens was complying with a Blagojevich directive. It was a state action, not a normal business operating practice.

            Existing Walgreens practice was to allow employees to decline before Blago kicked the door in.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Religious accommodation requirements, like them or not, have been around since 1972, as a result of a statute enacted by Congress."

        Religious accommodations are fine if the burden of proof is on the alleged victim. And assuming we haven't been indoctrinated to see all "foreigners" as "oppressed victims" and these cases as opportunities for leftist "social justice."

        But so many of us have.

        Plus I outlined distinctions between the cases below in another comment.

        "Maybe the law should be changed to remove such requirements; but they are most certainly not just available to Muslims (or even predominantly used by Muslims)."

        The laws don't explicitly favor the Muslims but in practice many judges, prosecutors and other officials do.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Apparently, Obama, Inc. is trying to bankrupt all companies that don't conform to the Islamization of America. Hey, isn't that what the Obama IRS was also trying to do to the Tea Party because they are refusing to conform to Marxism?

  • Alex W

    Reminds me of Shelton v. Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, when the EEOC under Clinton sued a hospital that fired a Christian nurse for refusing to wash instruments used during an abortion and won.

  • Zyrone

    Maybe if Mecca and the dome of the rock were gone, that would put a crimp on things worldwide?
    Seems like time for a change.

    • Raymond in DC

      That's an image we don't even see on the silver screen, never mind envision happening in real life. I recall a disaster movie from a few years ago that climaxed with world-wide destruction. Lots of images of US and European landmark sites crumbling, the pyramids, etc. but – by the admission of the producer – they elected not to depict even a single Arab or Muslim site destroyed. I suppose they thought it wouldn't be safe to do so.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Lots of images of US and European landmark sites crumbling, the pyramids, etc. but – by the admission of the producer – they elected not to depict even a single Arab or Muslim site destroyed. I suppose they thought it wouldn't be safe to do so."

        Their threats work for them. That's why we need to work so hard to overcome this situation.

  • http://twitter.com/ctmommy @ctmommy

    So a Catholic truck driver doesn't have to deliver birthcontrol pills because contraception is against his religion?

    • Alex W

      If it's not burdensome to transfer that load, yes. They can refuse to sell BC pills if they work in a pharmacy where there are other techs that are willing to sell, the EEOC sued and won over that. Christian nurses can even refuse to prep instruments used in an abortion if there are other nurses easily available, also an EEOC brought case. Must be that Christian extremism.

      I'd love it if these types of episodes meant that we repealed this law. I'm an atheist, and I've worked for a warehouse owner who had tons of crazy rules about what I did and how I dressed, and they even required I join prayer before each shift. Legally, could I have gotten out of that? Probably. But I took the job knowing what it might involve, and I was free to quit if I didn't like it. If they want their employees to pray, it shouldn't matter that I object, my rights are no more or less important than theirs.

    • Kwicko

      Good question. Should a Catholic pharmacist be fired if he refuses to fill a prescription for birth control? Should a Catholic hospital be sued by the EEOC if they refuse to provide birth control coverage to employees (make reasonable accommodation to them)

      I take issue with several of the author's points. He claims that every Muslim corner store he's ever seen sells smuggled cigarettes. Is that something he can cite evidence for, or just some xenophobic BS he spews based on nothing but racism and hatred of Muslims?

      Also, he claims the judge involved is "Arab"; does he know anything about the man, his background, his heritage, his life? Or is he just basing something off his name? What if I made wild-ass stereotypical assumptions about someone with the name "Greenfield", for instance; how would I be branded if I did such things?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        That's Senator Durbin's description of the judge. The extensive scale of the smuggled cig business has been documented before.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "So a Catholic truck driver doesn't have to deliver birthcontrol pills because contraception is against his religion?"

      Incorrect. Maybe if the entire delivery was in support of abortion and the driver had not been assigned this initially, he MIGHT have a case. But his case would be stronger than these Muslims objecting to a beverage that is a part of mainstream life in our civilization.

      Also a medical professional would have an even stronger case because of the oath they take. They could argue that alcohol is unhealthy for the consumer but they'd still be expected to make better decisions about where they accept employment.

      So far the 2 cases this one has been compared in these comments have failed to hit at the heart of the issue, which is; this is a fundamental part of their job and they accepted work under those terms. The burden of proof is on them and based on what I've seen, they have no case outside of the fact that as Muslims they want to be considered victims of islam-o-phobia just because of their hurt religious feelings.

  • Raymond in DC

    I recall an incident long ago when I was working with the US Post Office between college years. One day I was tasked with a special deliver: a parcel containing pork. Jewish guy that I am, I especially didn't like that the package was leaking and I was getting it on my hands. Could I have dared refuse to deliver said package and keep my job? Unlikely. I did my job and gave my hands a good cleaning.

    I think the company involved should not settle, but rather should fight this lawsuit. And other companies should support their refusal to accommodate sharia rules.

    • Alex W

      Yes, you could have refused to deliever the package if the route could have been handled by another without much burden on the USPS.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Yes, you could have refused to deliever the package if the route could have been handled by another without much burden on the USPS."

        Sounds more like a health issue than a religious one. The package should have been handled as hazardous if any biological materials were leaking. Who would suggest re-routing a health hazard without identifying it as such?

        • Alex W

          I was answering a question, if you have a problem with a premise of the question, take it up with the original poster, not me.

  • pinnie99

    Unconstitutional group of barbaric heathens….Trucking co should sue the seething mussie all the way back to mecca…They were given work that someone else would have done. As usual they spit in your face. We do not need them to work anywhere, touch anything we ingest,..or be near our populous. They are a cancer. They come here for one reason …to disrupt our way of life and liberty. If they R shunned …they might leave. Mussies are incompatiable with R Constitution. They have no desire to assimilate. Either they are stupid, or developmentally challenged… either way …Who needs it?

  • ML/NJ

    So wouldn't this mean that any Muzzie is entitled to a salary from any Beer Distributor for doing nothing?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "So wouldn't this mean that any Muzzie is entitled to a salary from any Beer Distributor for doing nothing?"

      Not yet. It will take them a few more years of "progress" to get there.

  • kafir4life

    A long time ago, I was given the choice of violating the Sabbath by a quasi-governmental transportation company, or feeding my family. Even the union (that I was forced to join) said "tough". Work Saturday or you can be fired. I chose to work. Is it only moon god worshippers that are protected?
    I don't have that job any longer, nor do I belong to a blood sucking union. What I do now is NEVER hire a muslim. NEVER shop in their stores. NEVER do business with those that hire muslims.

    If you see a muslim, watch a muslim!

    aLLAHU'S SNACKBAR!! Pass the ham, moham!

  • Bigdata

    I am shocked about Chess and Kites, these are games and they have negative notion about these games also?

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Bigdata

  • Brujo Blanco

    Muslims do not want to be disrespected but want the full backing of law to disrespect others. We are certainly In danger of having Sharia imposed upon us. Islam is being placed in a.position of special power over others. We must not comply.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Muslims do not want to be disrespected but want the full backing of law to disrespect others. We are certainly In danger of having Sharia imposed upon us. Islam is being placed in a.position of special power over others. We must not comply."

      That's the paradox; they believe it is their religious right to disrespect non-muslims.

  • Deep Space

    My understanding of the law as it pertains to "accommodation" is that a reasonable effort has to be made. In this case, I'm not sure what kind of case the Muslim employees have since they ostensibly took the job without prescribing what sort of Islamic objections they might have as to carrying a legal cargo. A company can't 'accommodate' an employee on this basis – however, would a Christian have a similar basis for complaint if he or she was required to transport an objectionable cargo? I wonder if Muslims would have a case against zoning laws that allowed liquor stores or bars in their towns or cities simply on the basis of Islamic laws or practices?

  • Aliaa

    WOW , why all that hatred to Muslims, regardless we are all born from Adam and Adam was created from earth but everyone's right should be respected, The driver religion prevent him from drinking, carrying, buying Alcohol , then fine, that should be respected as Christian and Jewish rights are respected in Muslim countries, and those who believe that those Muslims over there should go back to Mecca or wherever, Those Muslims over there are american citizens just like you, but convert to Islam. if you guys believe that they don't have the right to practice their religion or even to live there, then you too don't have that right , because all the American are immigrants, colonists , who robbed the native Americans of their own land, you keep talking about Sharia ? who mentioned Sharia , you know nothing about Islam , you know nothing about Quran , just the false information you take from media, go and read and get rid of the stupidity and the rust in your mind, read by yourself don't let others read for you , and you will find out the Islam is the religion of peace, the religion of mercy , Muslims do not hate anybody, Muslims believe in all messengers of God, there is a whole chapter in Quran about Mary the Virgin peace be upon her, our Lord said in Quran that the people of the book are brothers to you , but those people of the book mentioned in Quran are not you , because I see the hatred coming out from your comments, you are not the people of the book our Lord told us about, I don't know what kind of people are you.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      " you are not the people of the book our Lord told us about, I don't know what kind of people are you."

      Your lord is Satan. It's foolish to listen to him.

  • Obama_Ointment

    Did ya hear the one about the 2 guys making out in Mohammads cab?
    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/31/two-men-sa

  • Dennis

    Who the hell is the owner of Star Transport and who the hell makes the operating decision —PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, THE GOVERNMENT, OR THESE REFUSE-NICKS from pre-Electrified countries?
    http://www.aviationpros.com/news/10391835/twin-ci
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/10/more-on-t
    http://www.startribune.com/local/11586646.html

    Excuse me , I'm going to vomit now.

  • Dennis

    Who the hell is the owner of Star Transport and who the hell makes the operating decision —PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, THE GOVERNMENT, OR THESE REFUSE-NICKS from pre-Electrified countries?

  • Ivan

    So, you can use religious belief not to deliver alcohol, but you can't use religious belief to keep from paying for abortions. Company or individual it still is a double standard.

  • jon

    Obama seen praying the Islamic Prayers!

    check this footage here http://youtu.be/Pxbk9qlblfs

  • harry W

    Theres nothing more important than workplace safety. NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS!

    • Ammar Oo

      LOL pathetic

      • TheFlashingScotsman

        If for no other reason, I’d never hire a Muslim simply because I don’t want to work with one.

    • TheFlashingScotsman

      My thoughts precisely, Harry. You can ALWAYS find some reason to not hire someone. If you suspect a person even MIGHT be Muslim, find a reason not to hire them. It’ll save lots of trouble down the road.

  • Ammar Oo

    I guess religion and business can’t be mixed :) , but if you are talking about alcohol and religion then you should read your holy book first :).

  • Jotham Whitler

    What? This is just insane! If these muslim drivers doesnt want to deliver alcohol, then fine. The company may need to hire other drivers to do the job. No biggy! But the Obama Inc. just want to be part of it and sensationalized it. https://www.compunetcredit.com/

    • Daniel F. Melton

      But hiring two more drivers will probably push ‘em over the obamacare limit and cause huge health care expense for the company, probably causing ‘em to increase their rates and possibly causing them to shut down. This will throw everybody on to unemployment and then welfare since the “recovering” economy is still in the tank, but look on the bright side, it’ll get some of those EEEeevil smoking diesel trucks off the road so we can starve in a pristine environment.

  • traceydavidb

    So they sue a company that fires someone who won’t deliver alcohol but applaud the governor of Arizona who vetoed a bill that would have kept a baker or photographer from being forced to provide services for a gay wedding? Can anyone say ‘hypocrite’?

  • MrJimsez .

    Has this judge Recused himself yet? or is he fully as corrupt as Obama?

  • american first

    This is so unfair. The judge should be off the case. An employer hires an employee to do a job, if the employee cant do the job, they need to resign. .. muslims smoke but can’t drink supposedly but delivering alcohol is not prohibited. What a bunch of crap. Stop bashing American companies for doing no wrong. Work is work. Do the job or find another one!

  • jhsif

    ACLU? hello? Equality screamers?! Where are you screechers of separation church and state?! If these were Christians it’d never make it THIS far! Obama would probably laugh and sue the Christians! Don’t ya just LUV equality?! hee hee hee

  • chiefpontiac

    Obama protects Muslims for their religious convictions but if gays sue a business for not wanting to participate in their perversions, it’s illegal….

  • Pinkfloyd Fan

    Sharia law will be imposed soon.

  • catfood

    I see an appeal or two in the works here , sounded like cause for firing

  • catfood

    I hope the company learned to hire Americans and not rag heads

  • Yassir Sanchez

    Who exactly voted for this asshole? They should have to walk around woith a scarlet “O” on their chest so we can laugh at them

  • Allah

    Why are they complaining about alcohol in none-mohammedan country?

  • Allah

    A lot of mohammedans drink alcohol too even in Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as in Pakistan

  • Allah

    Why are there too many mohammedans in the US UK Europe and beyond ?