A Muslim Iman that I actually like and wish the best. . . but

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And yet it is imposing on religious rights.

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

Kim Baker didn’t loose her job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Kim Baker didn’t loose her job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama never acted on behalf of Christians who didn’t want to participate in gay weddings. The little sisters of the poor had to take obama to the Supreme Court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

Yeah, but her emails......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

Who does the EEOC work for?

The happy gay couple couldn’t get another baker? There were no other bakeries?

And again, the little sisters of the poor successfully sued obama at the Supreme Court, when El Deuce tried to force Catholic nuns to pay for birth control and abortions. Perfectly in keeping with the second amendment! Pass no law which restricts the free exercise of religion, whatever.

The constitution was given a stay of execution as soon as that horses ass left the Oval Office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device