SpaceCoastVol
Jacked up on moonshine and testosterone
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 57,458
- Likes
- 71,815
I don't want to spend too much space giving you the facts because they don't fit your agenda, but here you go.
2 Muslims didn't want to deliver beer. The company often changed their assignments to accommodate their religious beliefs. The company fired the 2 workers. The 2 workers sued.
The company admitted liability because it's ability to to make an accommodation was unquestioned because it had actually done so. Therefore, the jury received this case on a question of damages, only. Truckers were fired 6 years ago. 240k in back and front pay doesn't seem off the mark.
Two completely different cases. One is a business owner of an establishment that sells is goods to the public. The owner decided not to serve someone due to their sexual orientation. They weren't being forced to do something other than what they were in business to do. The business owner decided not to serve them because of their sexual orientation. The 2 truckers were being forced to deliver alcohol when the company was capable of making an accommodation.
Why should the company be held liable? Why can't the company fire them and be done with it?
I don't want to spend too much space giving you the facts because they don't fit your agenda, but here you go.
2 Muslims didn't want to deliver beer. The company often changed their assignments to accommodate their religious beliefs. The company fired the 2 workers. The 2 workers sued.
The company admitted liability because it's ability to to make an accommodation was unquestioned because it had actually done so. Therefore, the jury received this case on a question of damages, only. Truckers were fired 6 years ago. 240k in back and front pay doesn't seem off the mark.
Two completely different cases. One is a business owner of an establishment that sells is goods to the public. The owner decided not to serve someone due to their sexual orientation. They weren't being forced to do something other than what they were in business to do. The business owner decided not to serve them because of their sexual orientation. The 2 truckers were being forced to deliver alcohol when the company was capable of making an accommodation.
No they weren't.
Common misconception.
Please try to understand what you are talking about
