Obama Sues to Allow Illinois Muslims to Skip Work W/O Being Fired

So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.

This is what has happened in the Land Of Lincoln with the US Government vs the Star Transport trucking company. A couple of Muslims signed a contract to work for a trucking company, a contract that says that drivers will take any load that a company administrator assigns and will deliver that payload. Period. The terms of employment are known ahead of time among all employees.

But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.

The Obama administration is suing the trucking company for violating these Muslims’ freedom of religion because after they refused to take the load as per the contract they signed, they were properly and logically fired.

Of course, there is nothing in Islam that would prevent a Muslim from transporting alcohol. Some Muslims say that drinking alcohol violates their religious tenets, but no one was demanding they drink it and their transportation job would not be for their consumption. It is for other Americans’ consumption.

Their refusal had nothing at all to do with their personal religious needs and is nothing more than another Muslim attempt to enforce on all Americans a sharia-like ban on alcohol.

After all, taken to its logical extreme, the transportation of all alcohol would have to be banned just to avoid “offending” some wandering Muslim.

In the mean time, Obama and his fellow leftists are forcing Christians to cater to gays even though they say that doing so violates their Christian religion, Obama is trying to force Churches and Christian organizations to pay for contraceptives and abortions, and Obama is calling Christians haters and bigots for wanting to follow their religions.

So, Muslims can refuse to do work claiming religious objections and escape from being fired for their refusal and that is freedom of religion, but if Christians try anything similar, they are attacked, called names, and forced to violate their religion anyway under penalty of law.

So, now, as far as Obama is concerned, a Muslim can get a job here in the US, then claim he wants to stay employed even though he doesn’t want to do any of the work and Obama will force businesses to comply, because: Islam. In Obama’s America, employers will have to pay Muslims just to be Muslims.

No wonder people think Obama is a Muslim.

The Left Corrupts and Steals a Culture, It Doesn't Convince
The Convicted Terrorist Obama Hired as Navigator in Illinois
  • JWH

    Wow. Warner has to really reach for his outrage here. This story’s more than a year old, and Warner is just getting to it? As far as the substance of the story, here’s some perspective from somebody who knows the law at issue:


    • warnertoddhuston

      Coming from a guy that brings up Boooosh every five seconds to be attacking me for “old news” is hilarious.

      • JWH

        I think it’s been a long time since I brought up Bush in this forum, actually.

        • Brucehenry

          I was gonna say, “Like when?”

          • JWH

            I’ve commented a couple times recently on Wizbang, but I’ve been pretty quiet on this forum for the last few months.

            PS. Jim, before you append your next insult here, could you do something useful and go kill that groundhog for me? It’s frickin’ freezing here.

          • jim_m

            Stop whining. It’s supposed to snow here this weekend.

          • JWH

            I’ve got snow on the way, too. It’s colder than a congressman’s conscience here.

          • jim_m

            Congressmen have consciences? Who knew?

            I just checked and we have 2-4 inches on the way tonight and more for the weekend.

        • jim_m

          I don’t know when the last time was that you brought it up, but then I would have to consider your views important enough to pay attention to them.

          • JWH

            And a merry end of February to you, too, Jim_m.

          • jim_m

            And to you 🙂

    • Shari Peterson

      Nothing new however. What they don’t get is that there are two Islams, one supported by the west that is extremist (Wahhabist) – like Muslims that would complain about delivering alcohol, and the other that is dwindling because it’s because destroyed by the west – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. etc. etc.

      It’s a huge dupe.

  • Brucehenry

    How does Warner feel about pharmacists who don’t want to fill prescriptions for Plan B? I mean CHRISTIAN pharmacists, of course. He’s ON their side, right? Objecting to doing a work-related task for religious reasons is for Christians. Fuck everybody else.

    • Retired military

      The difference is that Obama would sue to get the pharmacist fired. The same way you have the cake makers who don’t want to make cakes for gays have been told they are discriminating against folks instead of having their religious freedoms stood up for. And no one told the cake makers that as a condition of their employment they would have to make cakes for gays.

      There are arguments on both sides of the street and as usual Obama is choosing to take sides rather than stay neutral or treat everyone equally.

      • Brucehenry

        Warner condemns Muslims who don’t want to do specific tasks because of religion, but defends Christians who don’t want to do specific tasks because of religion.

        When Christians do it, it’s a noble stand for religious freedom. When Muslims do it, it’s a “demand for sharia.”

        I’m not aware of any stand the president has taken in the ONE case about the wedding cake kerfuffle.

        And pharmacists ARE aware that they are expected to fill prescriptions as written by doctors.

        • jim_m

          So you are OK with the muslim healthcare worker who refuses to wash her hands according to hygiene policy because it would force her to roll up her sleeves and expose her arms, which she claims is against her religion.

          I hope you and your family members enjoy your well deserved nosocomial infections.

          Because it would be wrong to force them to do simple tasks that they object to. Damn shame if it would shorten your life.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. I’m not OK with anyone who takes a job and then says he can’t do this or that for religious reasons.

            What I am laughing at here is Warner’s outrage about Muslims refusing to do something their bosses require when he is fully in support of Christians doing the same exact thing.

            Years ago I hired a pizza cook from Jordan. After orientation and training in which he agreed to perform ALL the duties required, he began refusing to do certain tasks, like cleaning restrooms. The son of a bitch REFUSED to show any respect to my assistant manager, a young woman. I told him to hit the freaking road. Never heard another thing from him after his last check.

          • Retired military

            Warner is doing exactly the same thing Obama is doing. Except Warner has pointed out that transporting alcohol isn’t against Islamic law. Obama has tried insisting nuns have birth control covered in their health care.

          • so when the baker says they DON”T WANT TO TAKE the job … why do you object and say theu must ?

          • JWH

            Quick note:

            I would not be OK with this, as allowing her not to wash would not be a reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodations tend to be things an employer can do to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs without significantly affecting business operations and a whole host of other things.

            Best thing I can think of (off the top of my head) was something that came up a few years ago. A factory had a policy where they had employees wear a sticker that displayed the number of days since a lost-time accident. The factory had a really good run for a couple years. 400 days without an accident. 500 days without an accident. Once they got into the 600s, a Christian employee got nervous. He didn’t want to war the sticker that said “666 days without an accident” because that was the number of the Beast. His employer fired him.

            IMO … the employer should have just let the guy not wear the 666 and made an exception to its really picayune policy. And it’s a good case of a place where a reasonable accommodation could be made.

        • Retired military

          Not Obama personally but dem politicians in general.
          Also you have Obama personally bringing up the gay marriage stuff as well as Catholics, abortion, and birth control.
          As for the Muslims and their religion. I don’t believe that it is against Islam to transport booze. Please point out to me the Islamic doctrine which states as such. I could easily do so with the Catholic doctrine ref abortion.

        • DaveTheLoveable

          Fisrt of all, the baker DID bake the cake (they were repeat customers) he just refused to put the two groom decorations on the top, so he did fulfill his contractual agreement. These muslums did not; they signed a contract with thier employer and failed to live up to thier word. Second, as I understand it, muslums disapprove of homosexuality MUCH more than christians do -so what whould have happened if aformentioned baker was a muslum as apposed to a christian? Would it be ok for them to discriminate on religious grounds?

        • Edward Jonson

          Muslims are extremely dangerous and don’t belong in the U.S. Do some research on what these animals are up to.

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently Warner’s scary-Muslim articles are being linked to at some nutjob site somewhere. Congratulations to him for getting more clicks.

          • how about some links to non-scary Muslims in the news stories … today, Islam is a horrid intolerant religion … anyone that thinks its not is simply ignorant or blind or both …

        • heh idiot, he isn’t condemning the Muslims in this story he’s pointing out that Obama is defending Muslims in one case and attacking Christians in the other …

    • JWH

      I don’t find Warner’s feelings on the pharmacists particularly relevant. However, absent a “conscience clause,” the pertinent question in both cases — the Muslim truck drivers and the Christian pharmacist — is whether the business can reasonably accommodate their desires.

      And in both of those cases, it’s a fact-specific inquiry. I think think of situations in which granting the Muslim truck drivers a reprieve would not be a reasonable accommodation. And I can think of situations in which accommodating the Christian pharmacist would be perfectly reasonable.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes, as your Volokh link demonstrates.

        I’m just pointing out the double standard when conservatives espouse “religious freedom” for Christians while being OUTRAGED when Muslims demand it.

        • Retired military

          As warner points out Obama is much more guilty in this matter than warner is.

      • jim_m

        I would not be a reasonable accommodation if the company had not been notified of the issue previously and if the employee had placed the company in a situation where they had no other people who could fill in. In which case it would be fair to discharge the employee.

        But if the employee had expressed these concerns previously and there was not any clear understanding that they could not refuse to do this job then there is no grounds to discharge them.

        • JWH

          That seems nice and tidy, but it can get a little fuzzy. Let’s say, for example, the trucking company mostly does, say, alcohol shipments. A new employee comes on in 2004, and he’s from the RockingChair Religion, which has peculiar views about furniture. He is allowed to handle rocking chairs, but his religion forbids all adherents to come into contacts with sofas.

          He works at the alcohol-trucking company for a few years. In 2010, they take on a new contract with ACME Sofas. the contract goes well, and in 2011 then they take on a contract doing delivers for Bondalace Sofas. At this time, sofa contracts make up 35 percent of the trucking company’s business.

          The employee who follows the RockingChair Religion goes to his manager and asks that he not be put on any of the sofa jobs. His manager says no, he can’t make that accommodation and fires the dude.

          And therein lies a complication to your definition of reasonable accommodations above: The company’s business changed in between the time the RockingChair Religion employee was hired and when he requested his accommodation.

          • jim_m

            Not so difficult. The employee needs to inform his employer that he will have issues with the new customer.

            In the same manner the issue with dispensing plan B prescriptions can be handled.

            The business climate is always changing. If you want your rights to be respected you have to stand up for them and not just at the 11th hour.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            Excellent scenario! However, the scenario implies that the company would be sizable with a good number of trucks which implies that it should be easy enough to have the driver only do alcohol loads, which is fine with the driver. My assumption thus means the company must accommodate.

            To be fairer and not make the assumption, if the alcohol business hasn’t declined, then presumably there would be no problem with keeping the driver doing alcohol loads as he did before the new additional business. Company still must accommodate.

            Tougher scenario: business in alcohol declines so now they do mainly furniture. If this backs the company into a corner, the employee must yield, or agree to find other employment since the company can’t reasonably accommodate him.

            So, after all this speculation, I agree completely with your assessment that it must be a fact specific inquiry.

          • JWH

            Right you are. If the company’s business mix, over time, changes to 100 percent furniture, then trying to accommodate him becomes an undue burden on the business.

    • 914

      Do we really care about how you want us to evaluate how Warner feels? Let us count the ways and say hell no!

    • LiberalNightmare

      Cant wait to see the Obama administration sue a muslim organization to force it into compliance with civil rights laws.

    • warnertoddhuston

      No, I am against the pharmacists. Just as I am against these Muzzies and for the same reason. You take a job KNOWING what the job entails, so you can’t decided you don’t want to do parts of it. As to the Chrstns who don’t want to take a gay wedding–THAT is the difference. They are refusing to TAKE the job. Not taking it and reusing to do part of it.

  • GarandFan

    It’s all in the “nuance”. All those penumbras and emanations.

    • SteveCrickmore075

      “You saw the president yesterday. I thought he was very forward-leaning, as they say in diplomatic nuanced circles.” —Goerge W. Bush, referring to his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, July 23, 2001

      • LiberalNightmare

        “After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next,”

        Sarah Palin, Nevada – October 21, 2008.

        • SteveCrickmore075

          Russia did `partially withdraw from Georgia afterwards, we will see about the Crimean penisula?

          • LiberalNightmare

            Sure they will. They wouldn’t want to cross one of Obama’s red lines now would they?

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Obama this time didn’t give much of a ultimátum. He may have learned from his previous mistakes. The Crimean penisula is much different than Georgia. It has quite a long history being part of ‘Mother Russia’. If the Crimeans had a vote in a plebiscite, since it is predominately Russian in population 60%, 40% other, it would probably vote to join Russia or be an orphan or independent rather than continue with the Ukraine.

          • LiberalNightmare

            That’s a nice rationalization.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            This is a big story, so we will see how it plays out. Putin has a good hand, but he doesn’t hold all the cards. His economy is dependent on gas and oil exports, and 76 percent of the gas he pipes out of Russia goes to Germany, Turkey, Italy, France, Britain and other European countries.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/26/why-putin-hates-fracking.html

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Don’t worry. John Kerry has put on his magic hat and warned Putin. The mien of Barney Fife with the gravitas of Elmer Fudd.

          • jim_m

            Obama will do nothing. In fact he is already doing nothing and shirking his duties as president. My prediction: Ukraine will fall to Russia and obama will fail to have a single meeting with his advisers on the issue.

            President Obama had no public events on his schedule today, yet skipped a meeting of his national security team at the White House todayas they huddled over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

            Seen leaving the meeting at the White House were Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, and CIA Director John Brennan.

            Vice President Joe Biden reportedly joined the meeting via video conference, while Obama was briefed later by National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

            Obama special adviser John Podesta was seen at the West Wing in mid-afternoon, but he was apparently leading family members on a tour.

            There was no word from the White House on whether Obama would issue any statement.

            State Department on Secretary of State John Kerry today contacted acting Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov, meaning that Obama has still not had any president-to-president contact with Ukraine since 2012.

            They don’t care one bit about potential enemies strengthening their position. We will see activity only when obama needs to find a way to surrender our nation.

          • jim_m

            He has a better hand than obama and is willing to play it to its fullest effect. obama is a coward and is unwilling to stand up to anyone but the weakest of dictators, already on the way out. He is incapable of taking a stand and making it meaningful (see the multitude of red lines drawn and then crossed).

            Putin knows that he can invade just about any neighbor with impunity. I wager that if he chooses to do so in the Ukraine and set up a puppet government as his predecessors did in Hungary in 1956 there will be nothing meaningful coming out of barry’s mouth. (He’ll be too busy kissing Putin’s ass)

  • The paradox is when muslims open a restaurant that refuses to serve gays.

    • JWH

      Only in one sense. Federal public-accommodations law does not single out sexual orientation is impermissible discrimination. However, local or state laws may do so.

      • Not a perfect paradox, I was thinking of he contrast of the AZ legislature voting to allow businesses to not serve gays (which their governor wisely, IMHO, vetoed) vs. allowing the Muslims to decide what products they will deliver.

        • jim_m

          I think the characterization that the bill allowed businesses to not serve gays is over broad. The bill allowed businesses to not serve individuals in ways that violated their religious conscience. There is a difference between baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding and baking a birthday cake. No one (OK, excepting 7th Day Adventists) object to birthday celebrations. I can see a justifiable objection to facilitating a wedding that you find religiously objectionable. However, I cannot see any justification in objecting to serve a gay person otherwise.

          • JWH

            One thing that bugs me about both the photographer and the bakery. I can see suing a photog or baker if they’re the only baker in town, or if all the photogs or bakers in an area have agreed they will not provide services to any same-sex marriage.

            But Masterpiece Bakery is in the middle of Denver. Elane Photography is in Albequerque. In both areas, you can presumably find a baker or photographer who won’t refuse your business. So why not go to one of those businesses?? These lawsuits strike me as being less about justice and more about retribution.

        • JWH

          Actually … the AZ bill would have (putatively) allowed Muslim businesses to decline to serve gays as well.

          • Which was pretty much the conflict or paradox raised by my point. The head liberal, Obama, sued to allow Muslims to refuse to do work based on their religious beliefs while presumably liberals were opposed to the AZ bill allowing business to refuse service based on religious beliefs.

    • LiberalNightmare

      … or a muslim taxi driver refuses to pick up gays at the airport?

      This example isn’t a stretch of the imagination.

      Didnt muslim taxi drivers at the chicago airport attempt to refuse service to people carrying alcohol from the duty free shop? I also seem to remember that the muslim cabbies didnt want to carry people with seeing eye dogs.

      I always like to see what happens when liberal victim politics meets up with opposing victim groups.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Schadenfreude is underrated.

        • LiberalNightmare

          Its almost as good as saying “I told you so!”

          Lately, we are getting a good helping of both.

      • jim_m

        Yep. They were refusing anyone with a service animal. I guess the handicapped people lose out to the people who want to cut off everyone’s heads. The left will never stand up to the muslims because they are too afraid of provoking them.

  • 914

    Barry is all for helping his kin but to hell with millions of other Americans jobs and health care even if they like it and want to keep it period.

    Screw this impostor organizer

  • Vagabond661

    Please let there be Muslim bakeries who make wedding cakes.

  • Red Five

    There’s another element to this and all similar issues, one which should be obvious to the President if he were really the “Constitutional scholar” he claims to be. The 1st Amendment protection of freedom of religion is meant to protect against government interference only, not against private citizens or businesses. This Muslim who claims to be shirking his duties over religious reasons has no leg to stand upon, according to the law.

    On the flip side, the Christian bakery which decided not to make the cake for the homosexual wedding was perfectly within its rights to do so, as are all the pharmacists who refuse to sell Plan B, as long as their job description allows them the flexibility to do so (i.e. they own the drugstore, or they’re the managers who can make such decisions).

    If you don’t like it, you can just go to a different bakery, or pharmacist, or get a job with a different delivery service. That’s what the free market is all about.

    • Brucehenry
      • Red Five

        I don’t really care. Perhaps the trucking company tried to reasonably accommodate the Muslim drivers, and they still refused to do their job as stipulated in their employment contracts; none of the stories linked here make any attempt to explain that element of the story. The point I was making had to do with the “freedom of religion” aspect, which ties directly to the 1st Amendment, which only states what Congress shall or shall not do, and says nothing about private businesses or citizens. And, as stated in the original post, there is nothing in Islam which would seem to prevent a Muslim from driving a truck holding a shipment of alcohol, or preventing a Muslim taxi driver from shuttling a drunk back home from the bar. THAT is what makes this about special privileges, not simple religious freedom.

        • Brucehenry

          Shorter Red Five: “I’m not interested in any information that doesn’t conform to my preconceived notions.”

          Also, do you expect anyone to believe that YOU know all the intricacies of Muslim dogma? Do you know how many different schools of Islam there are? Presbyterians would tell you there’s nothing in Christianity to prevent one from having a blood transfusion — a Christian Scientist may differ.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            Why don’t you give Red Five a reference in the Koran that says they can’t do something like drive a truck transporting alcohol?

          • Brucehenry

            Because I don’t pretend to know all the dogma of all the various Muslim sects and schools of thought.

            You do know that Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi, Alawite, Sufi, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to describing the hundreds of varieties of Islam, right? So some (assumedly) Christian telling me that there is “nothing in Islam” which forbids this or that is like a Muslim telling me that there is “nothing in Christianity” that prevents, say, divorce, or eating meat on Friday, or baptism by sprinkling rather than by immersion. That Muslim simply wouldn’t know what he was talking about.

            Neither does Red Five.

            So that’s why.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            Actually, I didn’t know there was a different Koran for each of the varieties of Islam. Or was that a lame attempt at misdirection on your part? If there was a legitimate problem with being involved with alcohol, it is reasonable to assume that some Muslim would have quoted the Koran to support that claim by now.

            I’m not very opposed to the adjustments these drivers want, depending on some additional information:
            1. Is this a new request after being on the job a long time, or did they make the request early in their employment (or the first time they had a truck with alcohol)? (sincerely held beliefs)
            2. How hard is it for the company to tweak the driving assignments to accommodate the drivers? (undue hardship on the company)

          • Brucehenry

            Are you deliberately trying to be a dumbass?

            There is only one Bible yet there are hundreds if not thousands of Christian denominations, sects, and cults who all interpret it differently. Do YOU know all the different ways the Bible and its commandments are interpreted throughout Christianity? Because I don’t.

            Do you know which Christian varieties prohibit divorce? Some do, you know. Some prohibit alcohol consumption. Although many find nothing in the Bible to prohibit alcohol consumption, some of the Christian sects do. And they claim the Bible tells them so.

            Similarly, genius, there is only one Koran but hundreds if not thousands of varieties of Islamic thought. Some are more strict about their followers having contact with alcohol than others are — among many other differences. They all claim to find their mandate in scripture, yet some see commandments where others see suggestions, or nothing at all — just as in Christianity. Or Buddhism, for that matter.

            As for your two points of information, they are addressed in the Volokh link JWH posted days ago. That’s pretty much the law right now, so congratulations, Clarence Darrow, you are in the mainstream of legal thought in America.

          • I’d say you have the dumbassery pretty much wrapped up (and way too tightly) around here…

          • Brucehenry

            Oooh, ya burnt!

            Is my face red, or what?

          • Never seen your face, but your ass certainly is on show.

          • Brucehenry

            And I haven’t seen you since your last post here, which inspired a whopping three comments. So now I see you’ve returned to your usual duties, staying busy being useful like always.

          • jim_m

            It fits your pinko politics.

          • Brucehenry

            You guys are on a roll. Stop, my sides are splitting.

          • Why don’t you just to back to the village you have deprived of its drooling idiot?

          • Brucehenry

            No apostrophe necessary in “its.” You’re welcome.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            To fisk your asinine response:
            One Bible, hundreds or more denominations: if we are discussing alcohol with any of this cast of thousands, regardless of their specific opinion I would expect them to give Bible (Holy Book for Christians) references to support their beliefs. They might have a different belief than I do, but if they give a reference and a reasonable rationale for their belief relating to that reference, that’s good enough for me. Same analysis for discussing divorce.

            So, of course various Muslims will have differing beliefs regarding any given subject of discussion. But when a Muslim says its against their religion to do something, I expect them to give some reference from the Koran (their Holy Book) to support their statement. For any religion with a Holy Book, presumably that book is more authoritative than some leader’s opinions (unless they are derivative from that book, with explanation from references in that book).

            You don’t have to be Clarence Darrow to understand the law. In the USA it is intended that the Constitutions and the law are written so that a regular citizen can read the law, understand it, so they can know what the law is.

            It’s ironic how ignorant you claim to be about about all the possible interpretations that could exist within a religion, yet are so certain that anyone with an opinion different than yours is “stupid” or worse.

            I’d say that Rodney has you well pegged.

          • Brucehenry

            And have you read everything there is to read about this case? Are you certain that these Muslims have NOT cited a passage of the Koran, or some other scripture, to support their claim? Maybe their explanation of why they find this objectionable on religious grounds has not found its way onto the wingnut blogs you read, ever think of that?

            Or have you considered the possibility that these guys may not feel the need to persuade YOU? I’m pretty sure that you are not one of the judges on the appellate court hearing their case.

            And if they have no justification in scripture for their claim, or think they don’t, why the lawsuit? Are they just lazy?

            I don’t claim anyone with a different opinion is stupid, but I do suspect stupidity in some blowhard who claims there is “nothing in Islam” to support these guys’ position, when said blowhard has no expertise in the subject, evidently, beyond what he’s read on Pam Geller’s blog.

            And I suspect stupidity in a fellow blowhard who makes a dumb remark like “I didn’t know there was a different Koran for each variety of Islam,” as if said fellow blowhard has read the Koran and all the Hadiths and is an authority on every single possible facet of Muslim dogma. Which I’m pretty sure you ain’t.

          • jim_m

            Are you certain that these Muslims have NOT cited a passage of the Koran, or some other scripture, to support their claim?

            Actually, it is not required to cite a specific passage of scripture to have a valid argument that you should be exempted from a law based on sincere religious belief. That has been upheld in every state and federal jurisdiction and is not a requirement for establishing that your religious rights are being violated.

          • Brucehenry

            Thank you. I didn’t know that. but it is all the more reason to dismiss the arguments of Red Five, Ken, and indeed Warner himself, since he makes the same claim in his article.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, I wasn’t following the discussion here but figured that someone (someone else) was making some sort of claim that people had to have a scriptural basis for their religious claims.

            The Catholic doctrine against birth control is not found directly in the Bible but is found more in the writings of Aquinas.

            Virtually nothing form Mormon doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon but is found in subsidiary writings of their church founders.

            In Illinois you can claim a religious exception from having your child vaccinated by simply claiming you have a religious objection. You never have to explain why or what that objection is. The courts have upheld this as they are very circumspect in posing any limits on religious freedom.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            A scriptural reference isn’t necessary, but it is the most straightforward way to meet the burden of “sincerely held belief”.

          • jim_m

            Not required anyway in a court. So if it is not required it is not relevant to meeting what you refer to as a burden of proof.

            All that is required is to make the claim that it is your religious belief. As I pointed out there are many religious beliefs that are not found in scripture.

            In fact your statement that there should be a burden of proof to establish sincerity of religious belief is by its very nature an undue imposition on religious expression. The courts have been very clear that an individual does not have to justify their religious beliefs in order to have the right to maintain them.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            I didn’t say the individual needs to establish sincerity of religious belief. I said “sincerely held belief”. Just like you don’t need to prove you’re innocent to be found Not Guilty; but if you can prove you’re innocent, it is the most direct and powerful way to get a Not Guilty verdict.

          • jim_m

            Again: a person does not have to prove a sincerely held belief. They only have to claim it in order to gain protection of the 1st amendment.

            If there is a court here it is not addressing the claim of religious belief. The court would be addressing whether or not the accommodation represents an undue burden on the employer.

            The belief is accepted at face value. No proof is required. Any employer choosing to not accommodate such a belief leaves themselves open to a civil rights suit and must be able to demonstrate an undue burden.

            You are placing the burden on the wrong party. You are simply wrong here.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            JWH gave a link to a discussion of this law by the Volokh Conspiracy. There is a link within that discussion that gives more detail.

            The discussion shows that the actual law only mentions religious beliefs, not just beliefs. Court rulings have extended the law’s coverage to “moral and ethical beliefs” that are sincerely held, similar to traditional religious beliefs. (see the section 2 below from Volokh’s discussion.)

            It is also clear from the discussion that whatever the belief is, it must be sincerely held (if Volokh is correct).

            It appears your assertion that no proof is required is incorrect. It is also clear that non religious beliefs are protected only because they are held in a way similar to religious beliefs.

            An extreme example: if a person claimed he couldn’t be involved with alcohol and the company must make accommodation, his claim would be dismissed if the company could produce a photo of him drinking an alcoholic beverage in a bar. (note: this is my opinion of how the law would work, it is not based on an actual case.)

            2. The right to reasonable religious accommodation: An employer
            must give religious employees special exemptions from generally
            applicable job requirements if the requirements interfere with an
            employee’s sincerely felt religious obligations and such an exemption doesn’t impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); TWA v. Hardison,
            432 U.S. 63 (1977). And it doesn’t take a lot of hardship to create
            “undue hardship” — “To require [an employer] to bear more than a de
            minimis cost in order to [accommodate an employee] is an undue
            hardship.” The EEOC and most lower courts have agreed that this applies
            not just to religious objectors but also people who have “moral or
            ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held
            with the strength of traditional religious views,” 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1
            (adapting the Welsh v. United States standard). See, e.g., Protos v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 797 F.2d 129 (3d Cir. 1986).

          • jim_m

            Even in your example you tacitly admit that the burden of proof is not on the employee but on the employer. The employee need only assert the belief but does not need to offer much more than the statement of belief to back himself up. A person is not required to go to church every week in order to qualify for protection of their religious beliefs.

            Also, your example may be relevant but not if the photo is old. The employee could claim a change of heart and that he had recently begun to abstain from alcohol. All a person need do is make the claim of when this belief was taken and there is little that the company can do.

            Actually, the undue hardship IS rather difficult to establish for a court. I had an employee that was visually impaired (due to diabetes and getting progressively worse). It took over 6 months of documentation and other effort to be able to terminate her for her incapacity to do the job.

            And the notion of de minimus cost is vague. For a company like my current one that takes in billions of dollars in revenue, de minimus cost could run into the many thousands of dollars. In the case of my employee above, it was a company that made tens of millions in annual profit. We spent thousands of dollars seeking an accommodation for her visual impairment, this on the advice of legal counsel that said if we did not she would have grounds for an ADA complaint.

            For a small company of less than 100 employees it would likely be a lower cost threshold but the fact remains that de minimus does not mean free.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            As a matter of fact, I have read both the complaint and the answer for this case. Have you? Both were written to be generic without revealing the details of their claims, so we can’t know the details yet, unless someone talked to the press and caused a story to be published. I haven’t seen any such stories (with more details).

            We’ll have to wait until the case unfolds to learn the specifics of the case.

            About your other statements:
            Obviously the drivers don’t have to persuade ME! I don’t think anyone in the world thought that. But that’s probably beyond you. The drivers do have a burden to show that their belief is sincerely held; the simplest most direct way is to make a reference to something in the Koran, since they claimed the belief is based on their religion.

            “..suspect stupidity when some blowhard who claims there is “nothing in Islam”.. Red Five probably doesn’t literally think that, but it is a good way to throw down the gauntlet to get someone to “put up or shut up” by citing a reference that disproves the statement. That’s probably too subtle for you, however.

            “And I suspect stupidity in a fellow blowhard who makes a dumb remark like “I didn’t know there was a different Koran for each variety of Islam..” This was my way of showing how foolish your misdirection was when you spouted that how could someone know all the varieties? It doesn’t matter how many varieties of believers there are, there’s only one book, and if a believer is sincere, there will be a place in the book that says something relating to their professed belief. My effort to expose your foolishness pales in comparison to the effectiveness of your comments in doing so.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL dude you win you’re an expert on Islam, how to argue, the law, and especially this case, having read, you claim, everything there is to read about it.

            Of course as Jim points out, in the law there is no requirement to cite scripture in a complaint of this type. But keep right on bloviatin’.

            Obviously you are not persuaded by these guys’ arguments, since as far as you know they haven’t cited scripture in support of it. But as you admit above, they don’t have to persuade YOU. And since scriptural support isn’t required in their court case I have to ask WHAT’S YOUR POINT?

            So snarking that you “didn’t know there was a different Koran for each variety” was “your way” of yada yada, huh? Some might, of course, call that a “straw man,” since no one made any such claim.

            You imply that since they have no scriptural support (according to you and your vast knowledge of Islam I guess) their claims are not sincere. That must mean they’re just plain lazy, right? Is this something peculiar to Muslims, or is it generally found in the brown or not-Christian population, according to Ken?

            I can do straw men, too.

            One more thing: “Red Five probably doesn’t literally believe that…” Then why did he say it? Warner said it too. In the article. In italics. I think both of them DO literally think that, since Warner, at least, has a history of asserting stuff of which he knows nothing. This Red Five character is likely a kindred spirit, as are you, apparently.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            It seems that you are put off by: my consideration of the beliefs of Muslims, my consideration of the logic of an argument, my consideration of how the law applies, and my consideration of the legal documents of the case.

            I suppose that leaves only one type of comment that would satisfy your standards: one in which I do nothing other than call you names. However, I’m not willing to make that accommodation (pun intended).

  • haveittodayray

    A time to be concerned America. Enough is enough. This is
    the main issue of the 21st Century. Over 500,000+ Muslim refugees
    mainly from Somalia under the refugee immigrant resettlement program are being
    relocated throughout America. Did you
    vote for that? No one voted for this!
    Awareness is the issue folks, put the word out. Most families are simply far too busy just
    trying to survive, working two jobs, raising their children and do not have a
    clue what is taking place. Our mainstream news will not inform you due to
    political correctness. I have done the research
    for you. First, Google “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood” this is the doctrine to destroy America from within,
    and guess what they are succeeding. One
    only has to look at England, Belgium, France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of
    Europe to understand the immigration issue.
    It is sad, what Paris has become, have you been there lately? Multiculturalism is literally destroying
    Europe. There are now over 700 “Islamic no go Muslim Zones” within England,
    France and Germany. Islam is not a religion but a political ideology; it is the antithesis
    of a free society. Take a look at
    Dearborn, Michigan (they now have Muslim zones, where the police are afraid to
    enter. The Muslim immigration and mosques continue with Maine, Tennessee,
    Minnesota, New York, Indiana, S. Dakota, California and Colorado taking in most
    of the immigrants so far, your state could be next. I have no issue with the peaceful Muslim that
    wants to integrate into our culture and follow our laws. The
    problem lies in that they want to dominate and force Islam and Sharia law upon
    us all. Why should America be forced into adapting to their culture? This is our America; we should not have to
    change one iota to accommodate them. “When good men and woman are quiet, evil
    always wins”. Forget about be
    labeled a racist, or being politically correct. The time has come to speak up
    and take a stand. Again for the facts
    and truth just Google “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood” a real eye opener. They are
    making inroads into our schools, universities, cities and towns and even our
    own government. They want Sharia law and
    even our textbooks changed to put a more favorable light on Islam. When Jews, Christians, Priests, Infidels are being murdered and Churches are being
    burned down and recently 59 students locked up in a school room, the building
    was set fire allowing no one to escape and anyone trying to escape was
    slaughtered by Islamic militants, where
    is the condemnation from the nearly 3 million Muslims that are here? For the
    majority of them there is total silence and none condemn the atrocities that
    continue to go on in Europe. That alone speaks volumes on their real
    intent. Europe is losing the battle all
    ready and America will be next. What you
    do today will affect your children and grandchildren and future generations of
    America yet unborn. Stand up and be counted to defeat this real threat upon America. Voice your opinion, let your congressmen,
    senators, and school boards, and know how you feel on the issue. Forget about
    being labeled and do what is right for America.
    We need a permanent solution, time is running out. Let us not become the
    next Europe. Thank you.

  • No wonder people think Obama is a Muslim. He is, not a smidgen of doubt about it. Thanks Warner, you speak the truth.

    • jim_m

      Please. The only god obama believes in is himself.