Muslim truckers

#26
#26
ClearwaterVol said:
It was a smartass off the cuff remark. I am not surprised you latched on to it. McVeigh was not a god fearing man, but his ideology dovetailed nicely with the various militia groups that want to overthrow the government. Those groups more closely identify with the right.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I was unaware that you had a personality.

Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#29
#29
PKT_VOL said:
Why should the company be held liable? Why can't the company fire them and be done with it?
Click to expand...
Because nice guys finish last. Betcha they won't have this policy anymore... work your assigned shift or look elsewhere for employment
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
Obsessed said:
Muslim truckers can't read.

Makes me wonder how they got their license
Click to expand...

I don't know if they still do it but here in Tennessee one can/could ask for an oral exam. The DL officer would read the test to whoever was taking it.
 
#36
#36
SpaceCoastVol said:
Because nice guys finish last. Betcha they won't have this policy anymore... work your assigned shift or look elsewhere for employment
Click to expand...

If an accommodation can be made, without undue hardship, it must be made. That is the law and has been for 40 years.
 
#39
#39
They are takin over container loads. If you see a raggedy old freight liner pulling a container, check and see whose driving it. Just an observation
 
#41
#41
ClearwaterVol said:
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.
Click to expand...


Poor job by you. I see nothing to suggest they deserve a penny.

The only point you made is that the business owners are screwed in both scenarios.
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
"10-4 Achmed you got a copy on that fine piece of hajib at the Racetrack?"

"10-4 big buddy in a not homosexual way even though we engage in homosexual acts, she showed some ankle last weekend after I ordered up some halal biscuits and gravy!"

"Roger that big buddy! I hope she doesnt go above the ankle else I'll have to honor kill her and her family and blow up a random venue full of innocent civilians".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#43
#43
FLVOL_79 said:
"10-4 Achmed you got a copy on that fine piece of hajib at the Racetrack?"

"10-4 big buddy in a not homosexual way even though we engage in homosexual acts, she showed some ankle last weekend after I ordered up some halal biscuits and gravy!"

"Roger that big buddy! I hope she doesnt go above the ankle else I'll have to honor kill her and her family and blow up a random venue full of innocent civilians".
Click to expand...

Ridiculously underrated.
 
#44
#44
ClearwaterVol said:
If an accommodation can be made, without undue hardship, it must be made. That is the law and has been for 40 years.
Click to expand...
I'll betcha they could easily get around that. As powerful as the gubbamint is, they cannot tell companies how to operate their business on a day to day basis.

The "accommodation" I believe you are referring to is the ADA, not operationally. If you believe otherwise, can you get me every holiday off? Then you would have to define "undue hardship". There's enough gray there to keep our resident lizard boy busy for years.
 
Last edited:
#45
#45
ClearwaterVol said:
Because congress has passed laws saying that you cannot discriminate based upon religion. This means that if the company, without undue hardship, can make reasonable accommodations that would allow the worker to continue to work and observe his religion, it must do so. The trucking company admitted that it could, but elected to fire the two workers anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm well-aware of the 'is'.

My question was an 'ought'.
 
#46
#46
People sure like to ***** when they are being discriminated against, but are unwilling to grant the same protections to other groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#47
#47
allvol123 said:
Poor job by you. I see nothing to suggest they deserve a penny.

The only point you made is that the business owners are screwed in both scenarios.
Click to expand...

The company admitted the two employees were wrongfully terminated. That entitles them to lost wages and attorneys fees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
Why is it ok to cultivate, harvest, and distribute opium, but not ok to transport alcohol?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#50
#50
This entire thread is an epic fail of wishing there could be a double standard or Christian persecution to cry about. This shouldn't even be news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top