I am pretty sure this will get reversed on appeal but, still, it is insanely stupid what some juries come up with. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...0000-discrimination-case-151030180528942.html Two musKim truck drivers refused to do their jobs claiming transporting alcohol, not consuming just driving a truck with alcohol in it, violated their religious freedom. The idiotic jury agreed and gave them $240,000. This is exactly like that bigoted trash woman in Kentucky who refused to do her job. This nonsense must end. Either do your job, the whole job including the parts you don't like, or find yourself a new job. How do numb nuts not understand this?
You're comparing the infringement of gay rights to a truck of booze? Really? The employer knew that they were Muslim when hiring them. The employer then insisted they transport alcohol. When the employees expressed concerns they got fired. It is the act of unfairly firing them that is where the case lies. If an employer hired two Jewish employees, knowing they were Jewish, and insisted those Jews handle bacon and then fired them if they declined, would your reaction be the same? I think not. People would say it is discriminatory, and rightly so.
Do your job or find another job. If you feel your religion prohibits you from doing the job then get a different job. You have no right to take a job and then refuse to do the job. Also, the employer would get sued if they simply refused to hire muslims. This outs employers in a no win situation and that jury was filled with morons.
How is this kind of thing supposed to work on a big scale, then? Does the company have to stop delivering alcohol, discriminate against Muslims when hiring to make sure they can continue to deliver it, or what?
No. It tells Muslim drivers during the interview stage that part of their work involves delivering booze. The driver therefore has the choice to turn down the job if he so chooses.
What is next? Jewish and Muslim cashiers refuse to ring you up at the check out counter if you bought bacon? We have pork and alcohol free check out lines? This is monstrously retarded. Either do your job or find yourself a different job if you dislike the job.
I foresee a new phase in the hiring process: the one where you sign a document that says you will voluntarily resign if your duties conflict with your religious beliefs.
Reading the article, he's not far off. If something is a potential part of your job and legal, be it transporting alcohol or marrying same-sex couples, then it's in your remit to do it. Sure the company ought to consider people's beliefs, not least having the Muslim, Jew or Vegan workers always cart something like bacon about is pretty much bullying. However, in this case something stinks - Muslims aren't supposed to help others with sin, which means you do not take jobs where anything could be considered helpful in that, and for me taking a job in a transportation firm pretty much means you're breaking that almost immediately. The vast majority of Muslims in the West have found some form of accommodation, that these two didn't shouldn't mean the transportation firm gets screwed just because they're applying the "but we're special" bullshit.
Everyone should check their religion, or lack therof, at the company door at the start of the work day, or find another job.
I just see them not hiring Muslims full stop in the future. Along with several other businesses. So yay for increased discrimination.
That would make sense. But nothing in the report says that didn't happen, or even suggest in the slightest that it was relevant for the verdict.
Wouldn't work. Any aid in someone commiting a sin is frowned upon if they're being strict in following the Koran. So it's a minefield, as any one that intent in finding sin will find it somewhere. As a side note, a family member used to have a Muslim underling who decided fasting meant he had no energy to anything but turn up to get paid. I'm thinking these two fall under the same "awkward cunt" category as that guy did.
Now you're being sloppy. The First Amendment speaks of making laws and investing public offices, not hiring or firing private employees.
It's a shame there is no judgement as there would have been in an English case (if there is, I can't find it). The articles suggest though that there were many driving jobs that could have done that did not involved booze and the firm decided to fire them instead. That seems a little unfair to me.
They knew the conditions and requirements of their job. If they weren't willing to do what they applied and were hired for as their job, then fuck them.
Actually, the article strongly suggests that the verdict says it is illegal to ask people to do their job if it violates their religion, or to fire them if they don't, period.
So you're saying freedom of religion doesn't extend to the workplace? There's a significant train of thought in the US that says it does. This may be of interest.
Can someone please highlight to be where "their job" was just about delivering booze? You all seem to be of the view that transporting booze was part of the job remit. In actual fact the haulage firm in question is a firm for hire. This means that customers hire them to drive their goods. So no, it's not a given that they were told at the hiring process that "you will have to drive booze around". That would only be determined if a company hired them to transport alcohol for them...and with the company clearly transporting all manner of goods, you're saying that it's unlikely that they could've been hired without any discussion of alcohol? It seems to me that it is entirely possible they were hired without any discussion of alcohol and, what's more, the court acknowledged that there were other jobs within the firm that they could have done at the time. Given the choice between assigning them different tasks and firing them, you don't think the latter course of action is more extreme and disproportionate?
No, freedom of religion does extend to the workplace, but the First Amendment is only related to that fact in spirit. Your source pretty much says so in the second sentence, too.
Unless told specifically that they wouldn't, they should expect that they would be hauling any legal goods their customers wanted.
So your argument is that anyone of a particular religion should stay away from all manner of jobs that may at some point involved something of risk? That's like saying that a Hindu should've take a job as a postman just in case someone mails a packet of beef jerky.
If he can't deliver beef jerky, then yes. In both cases, it is not some remote chance but extremely likely that such a conflict will arise.
That's not right. What the law requires is a "reasonable accommodation" of your employees religious beliefs. What's reasonable is going to vary considerably based on context. If Anheuser Busch fired Muslim employees for refusing to deliver alcohol, that would be allowed because delivering specifically alcohol is central to their business. A company that transports a wide variety of goods, on the other hand, can probably easily accommodate a request to avoid scheduling some fraction of its drivers for alcohol deliveries so long as it has any significant number of drivers. And, of course, accommodations that impose a discriminatory burden on others will usually be unreasonable, and accommodations of government officials can't reasonably include allowing them to act unconstitutionally in their official capacities.
You cannot accept employment as a delivery person and then refuse to deliver goods on religious grounds. If your beliefs do not allow you to perform the job, then you must resign the job.
So all the decisive factors here weren't included in the article. From what it says, it seems equally likely that the employer couldn't reasonably accommodate them, or that they were being dicks trying to get rid of Muslim employees. Everything revolves around the judgment of reasonableness then, doesn't it?
Very interesting discussion, this. In part because of El Chup's reasoning when he asks: 'So you're saying freedom of religion doesn't extend to the workplace?' What definition (sorry to play the definition card, but it is crucial) of freedom of religion do you use? Or rather, what interpretation of that freedom? Freedom of religion, as I see it, guarantees the right to think whatever you want to think, and to practice that belief - in a peaceful manner. That does not mean practice whatever you think your religion wants you to practice, or whatever it even specifically states: if your religion states you must discriminate against other religions, kill unbelievers and gays, that should not fall under the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is not absolute. In the case at hand, if you get a job at a firm that transports any kind of goods, you must be prepared to perform that job. It should not be up to the employer to take into account any and all religious objections employees may have - that would require them to be experts in every recognised religion. It can be expected, however, of a person not to take a job where can be expected to perform tasks that may require him to do things objectionable to his religion. Perhaps there were a lot of other tasks those employees could have done at the time - but perhaos there was nobody else available to do that particular task. In any case - it would be up to the employee to prevent putting himself in this position. You don't become a butcher if you're a vegeatarian, you don't become an executioner if you have an objection to killing - you don't start working at WallMart if you object to selling pork, and you don't become a civil servant if you don't want to marry gay people. Exceptions have to made when the rules change: e.g. when a state that does not condone gay marriage suddenly has to, for example. That will still force people who do not want to, to marry gay couples, but you can work around that by finding those employees something else to do, unless they are willing to change their position. It's the same for any change in requirements for a job - if you can't meet the criteria, you get a certain amount of time to adjust. If not, you're out of a job.
One can argue reasonableness all day long. An employer could find it exceedingly difficult to coordinate every shipment with every driver's beliefs. If *I* ran a trucking business, a prospective employee would have to agree to deliver any and all legal goods or they're not getting hired.
Yep. Freedom of religion means you can think and practice as you like; it does not place a burden on others to accommodate you. If your beliefs don't allow you to perform a job, you can't have that job. An employer *may* be willing to make some accommodation for your beliefs, but this is *entirely* at his discretion. But if there is no choice but to do the job or to refuse, then you forfeit the job.
