Two Muslim men were hired as truck drivers. They later refused to make any deliveries that involved alcohol and were fired. The Obama administration helped them sue their employers on the grounds of religious freedom. When the Christian bakers refused to bake a cake on those same grounds, they were opposed by the Obama administration.
Help me understand the logic
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
I can see a difference in the two cases but I'm not a lawyer and aren't sure if that's what made for the different outcomes. Obviously one involves a baker dealing with the general public and the other involves an employer dealing with employees. There may be established labor law that allowed for the outcome of the later case.
The case was one of religious liberty and undue burden. The administration argued that the company could have found other routes that did not require alcohol to be transported even though the Muslims knew that the company transported alcohol. By that same logic, the gay couple could easily have found other bakeries. The administration sides with the Muslims in one case and against the Christians in another case, both involving religious liberty and accommodation.
I understand that you don't understand the difference between the two. Ask a lawyer if there's a difference between the two cases.
Yeah ok lol. Maybe the Somalis had better lawyers, who knows. If nothing else, it gives you something else to complain about not that there was any shortage before.
As you stated at the outset, you're just not getting this. If you think these aren't legal matters then I understand why you have no clue.
The Obama Administration came out against the bakers. State law cannot trump federal law or the Constitution and the administration could have supported the bakers any number of ways. They offered no religious liberty defense or even an accommodation defense. Nice try.
lol You're the one seeking answers not me, enjoy doing your research. I explained a very basic difference in the two cases with my first post. As usual you think it's a conspiracy theory like most things that you think that you have the answer for. Also you think that the president ("The Administration") takes an interest in every case that some governmental agency gets involved in which is just another example of your conspiracy paranoia. I hope that you don't own a car or a gun.
Customers of private businesses aren't subject to EEOC rules. Customers aren't employing the businesses or the owners of businesses they go to. Employers are subject to EEOC rules. If these guys were working for Jack Daniels, and they knew they would be hauling alcohol exclusively, I think this decision would have been different. If they are working for a trucking company that contracts out for lots of different types of loads, they could easily meet a request by a small portion of their drivers to not take specific types of products that the employees have a religious concern about. It's not a hardship for the company to make this concession, hence, the trucking company was found to be at fault.
BTW, the EEOC covers employment regulations. They could not file a case on the behalf of a private business or a customer of a private business
BTW, the EEOC covers employment regulations. They could not file a case on the behalf of a private business or a customer of a private business
Disagree as to what the administration could do with the un-linked bakers to which you speak. Found this on bigot bakers and photogs:
THANKS to the Supreme Court's decision last month in Obergefell v Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, gays and lesbians are now free to marry their sweethearts in Mississippi and other bastions of conservatism. But that doesn't mean religious florists and wedding photographers in Hattiesburg or Sioux Falls, South Dakota must now supply goods and services for gay weddings. Most conservative states don't prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So same-sex couples who live in those states won't have legal grounds for an anti-discrimination complaint if they're denied flowers or photos by vendors of faith. The Christian photographer in New Mexico who refused to take snaps of a lesbian commitment ceremony, as well as the pious bakers in Colorado and Oregon who sparked similar controversies by declining to bake cakes for same-sex nuptials, all ran afoul of their states' anti-discrimination laws. No law, no lawsuits.
The EEOC is an administration agency. They defended this on religious liberty grounds and accomodation. They provided no support (even verbal support) for the bakers on those same grounds (I know the EEOC has no jurisdiction on the baker's case) Surely this hypocrisy is not that hard to understand.
Oh that's good. You say there's no conspiracy theory and then you state you favorite conspiracy theory, lol. That's as good as it gets, well done. To shine some light into your darkness, try reading mule-eer's post.
Your completely ignoring my point. The Administration defended one group on the grounds of religious liberty and provided no support (they even came out against the bakers) for the bakery. This is not about state law. It is about the Obama administrations reaction to both cases.
There is a difference between a business serving customers and employees working for a business.
IMHO however... this company should be allowed to fire these 2 guys. You get hired to a job, you know the duties, you don't get to play a religion card to get out of them.
IMHO however... this company should be allowed to fire these 2 guys. You get hired to a job, you know the duties, you don't get to play a religion card to get out of them.
I don't understand the difference. We either have religious liberty and accommodation or we don't. It should apply to everyone equally.
You don't see the difference between a business serving populace versus an employee working for that business?
Jim Crow, whether legislated or not, is still Jim Crow.
The SCOTUS has ruled that privately held companies like Hobby Lobby have individual rights. They don't lose their religious liberty by opening their doors up to the public.
What a deal.... get a job with a company that delivers alcohol.....refuse to deliver alcohol........force the company to fire you.....and sue the company. BINGO...BIG BUCKS.
And that's fine, however they can't use their "religious liberty" to discriminate against any one.
Obviously, the company didn't just haul alcohol. If they did, then they couldn't accommodate the drivers' requests.
What if they're a small shipping company without the ability to route other drivers for those deliveries?
Stories like this drives me nuts.
Religious liberty is in our First Amendment. Would a church be discriminating against someone by not performing a gay marriage? Would a mosque be discriminating against someone by not allowing a Jewish party at the mosque? SCOTUS already held that Hobby Lobby could not be forced to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs that violated their religious beliefs and therefore discriminate against those employees that want those drugs.
There is frequently tension with Constitutional rights that butt up against each other. The courts have striven to find ways to accommodate both rights using the undue burden rule.
Star Transport is a pretty large trucking firm, and they operate in all 50 states. Under EEOC, they have to provide reasonable accommodations. If they were indeed a small company without the ability to offer these guys loads that did not contain alcohol, the accommodation would not be reasonable. Now if this were a large company, but it was Jack Daniels or Budweiser for example, I think we also see a different outcome to this case. It would be unreasonable for the drivers to think they would be hauling anything but alcohol.
When a company starts making different rules for different employees is when they get in trouble. No HR Dept in a company would allow that to happen.
How do you define "reasonable accommodations" ? The fact is that the EEOC does indeed pick and choose. The pick and choose game goes on under every administration, be it Repub or Dem.