Oh those double standards...

"CHICAGO: Two Muslim truck drivers have been awarded a whopping USD 240,000 in damages by a US jury in a religious discrimination lawsuit after they were fired for refusing to make beer deliveries."

http://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/Musli...575475.cms


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

Thank goodness nobody asked them to deliver gay wedding cakes.

(10-31-2015 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Thank goodness nobody asked them to deliver gay wedding cakes.

Like this?

http://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

Outrageous.

I'm not seeing the double standard but I do think it is wrong.

(10-31-2015 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Thank goodness nobody asked them to deliver gay wedding cakes.

Actually this is the proximate result of laws enacted by fundys to avoid having to do their jobs because"jesus'.

A lot of these laws were enacted to allow pharmacy clerks to refuse to fill prescriptions they didn't want to fill. Even if their boss orders them to fill all prescriptions that have a valid prescription.

This one is 100% on the fundys.

The double standard is that it was legal for Muslims to "deny service" based on their religious beliefs.
i.e. not provide the service of delivering alcohol

But it was not legal for Christians to deny service based on their religious beliefs
i.e. not provide the service of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Why is it ok for one religious group to deny service based on their beliefs and not another?

(10-31-2015 04:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The double standard is that it was legal for Muslims to "deny service" based on their religious beliefs.
i.e. not provide the service of delivering alcohol

But it was not legal for Christians to deny service based on their religious beliefs
i.e. not provide the service of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Why is it ok for one religious group to deny service based on their beliefs and not another?

That's easy.

A business owner is required to make reasonable accommodations to account for the employees religious beliefs.

But a business cannot refuse to provide a service to one group but not to another.

---

So in the first case, the business owner didn't make a reasonable accommodation. In the second, the business owner didn't provide equal services.

---

This reasonable accommodation rule was put in by the fundys.

(10-31-2015 04:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 04:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The double standard is that it was legal for Muslims to "deny service" based on their religious beliefs.
i.e. not provide the service of delivering alcohol

But it was not legal for Christians to deny service based on their religious beliefs
i.e. not provide the service of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Why is it ok for one religious group to deny service based on their beliefs and not another?

That's easy.

A business owner is required to make reasonable accommodations to account for the employees religious beliefs.

But a business cannot refuse to provide a service to one group but not to another.

---

So in the first case, the business owner didn't make a reasonable accommodation. In the second, the business owner didn't provide equal services.

---

This reasonable accommodation rule was put in by the fundys.

No those laws were first put in place for minority religions. They were used to protect prayer time, holidays, and certain work week restrictions which are not "fundy"

(10-31-2015 04:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 04:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The double standard is that it was legal for Muslims to "deny service" based on their religious beliefs.
i.e. not provide the service of delivering alcohol

But it was not legal for Christians to deny service based on their religious beliefs
i.e. not provide the service of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Why is it ok for one religious group to deny service based on their beliefs and not another?

That's easy.

A business owner is required to make reasonable accommodations to account for the employees religious beliefs.

But a business cannot refuse to provide a service to one group but not to another.

---

So in the first case, the business owner didn't make a reasonable accommodation. In the second, the business owner didn't provide equal services.

---

This reasonable accommodation rule was put in by the fundys.

This wasn't your argument when the District Clerk in Kentucky was asked to do something in her job (drive a beer truck) that conflicted with her religious beliefs. You wanted her fired for failing to do her job, but you don't hold 'truck drivers' to the same bar... yet if the company didn't want to hire Muslim truck drivers because they wouldn't do "all" of the jobs, you'd once again claim discrimination.

The bigger question is, where is your outrage about Muslim bakeries who refuse to do gay weddings?

In addition, you have no ******* clue 'who' put that rule in place but I can assure you (mathematically) that it wasn't a group as small as 'fundies'.

Your bigotry with regard to all things Christian is incredibly obvious.

Incredibly

Someone needs to send those Muslim Drivers a Honey Baked Ham for Christmas.

This sets a precedent that will have far reaching consequences for the free market. This ruling has opened up Pandora's box in regard to the employer/employee contract.

(10-31-2015 04:17 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Thank goodness nobody asked them to deliver gay wedding cakes.

Actually this is the proximate result of laws enacted by fundys to avoid having to do their jobs because"jesus'.

A lot of these laws were enacted to allow pharmacy clerks to refuse to fill prescriptions they didn't want to fill. Even if their boss orders them to fill all prescriptions that have a valid prescription.

This one is 100% on the fundys.

Fundys? Really? Hating takes so much energy, you must be literally exhausted.

(10-31-2015 08:48 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Someone needs to send those Muslim Drivers a Honey Baked Ham for Christmas.

Or round up some of Memphis's finest pork shoulder and FedEx it to them.

(10-31-2015 07:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 04:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 04:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The double standard is that it was legal for Muslims to "deny service" based on their religious beliefs.
i.e. not provide the service of delivering alcohol

But it was not legal for Christians to deny service based on their religious beliefs
i.e. not provide the service of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Why is it ok for one religious group to deny service based on their beliefs and not another?

That's easy.

A business owner is required to make reasonable accommodations to account for the employees religious beliefs.

But a business cannot refuse to provide a service to one group but not to another.

---

So in the first case, the business owner didn't make a reasonable accommodation. In the second, the business owner didn't provide equal services.

---

This reasonable accommodation rule was put in by the fundys.

This wasn't your argument when the District Clerk in Kentucky was asked to do something in her job (drive a beer truck) that conflicted with her religious beliefs. You wanted her fired for failing to do her job, but you don't hold 'truck drivers' to the same bar... yet if the company didn't want to hire Muslim truck drivers because they wouldn't do "all" of the jobs, you'd once again claim discrimination.

The bigger question is, where is your outrage about Muslim bakeries who refuse to do gay weddings?

In addition, you have no ******* clue 'who' put that rule in place but I can assure you (mathematically) that it wasn't a group as small as 'fundies'.

Your bigotry with regard to all things Christian is incredibly obvious.

Incredibly

Damn Tom, need some water for your burn?!?


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(11-01-2015 11:00 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 07:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 04:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 04:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The double standard is that it was legal for Muslims to "deny service" based on their religious beliefs.
i.e. not provide the service of delivering alcohol

But it was not legal for Christians to deny service based on their religious beliefs
i.e. not provide the service of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Why is it ok for one religious group to deny service based on their beliefs and not another?

That's easy.

A business owner is required to make reasonable accommodations to account for the employees religious beliefs.

But a business cannot refuse to provide a service to one group but not to another.

---

So in the first case, the business owner didn't make a reasonable accommodation. In the second, the business owner didn't provide equal services.

---

This reasonable accommodation rule was put in by the fundys.

This wasn't your argument when the District Clerk in Kentucky was asked to do something in her job (drive a beer truck) that conflicted with her religious beliefs. You wanted her fired for failing to do her job, but you don't hold 'truck drivers' to the same bar... yet if the company didn't want to hire Muslim truck drivers because they wouldn't do "all" of the jobs, you'd once again claim discrimination.

The bigger question is, where is your outrage about Muslim bakeries who refuse to do gay weddings?

In addition, you have no ******* clue 'who' put that rule in place but I can assure you (mathematically) that it wasn't a group as small as 'fundies'.

Your bigotry with regard to all things Christian is incredibly obvious.

Incredibly

Damn Tom, need some water for your burn?!?


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

As the world's biggest water carrier, he should have plenty of water available.