Author Topic: EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-  (Read 4979 times)

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14974
Christians Still Fail to Understand Religious Freedom
 

 Posted:  10/29/2015 9:30 am EDT    Updated:  37 minutes ago  
  
    
 

 
 
 
The conservative media is always looking for a reason to be outraged. Unfortunately, the origin of the outrage is often a lack of information. For example, Megyn Kelly of Fox News took to the air earlier this week to discuss a court case that she feels proves President Obama and liberals are waging a war on Christianity.

 "A jury has awarded a big pay out to a pair of Muslim truck drivers who were fired after refusing to deliver alcoholic beverages; citing their religious convictions. The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case, but has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians."

 The conversation that follows between Kelly and Judge Andrew Napolitano would have you believe that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was going out of its way to help establish religious freedom for Muslims while ignoring or actively fighting against these same freedoms for those of Christian faith.

 A quick look at the cases at the EEOC exposes just how uninformed Kelly is since their press releases show the EEOC has been involved in a number of cases defending Christians.

On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.

On 8-27-15 the EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-metric time clock due to his religious beliefs.

On 8-21-15 the EEOC sued the National Federation of the Blind for terminating a Hebrew Pentecostal employee who refused to work on the Sabbath.

On 8-20-14 the EEOC sued for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired because his religious beliefs required him to attend church on Thursday and Sunday evenings.

On 12-23-13 the EEOC won a $40,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was fired for refusing to wear pants since it was against her religious beliefs.

On 11-4-13 the EEOC won a $70,000 settlement for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired shortly after requesting a schedule change to attend an annual religious service.

On 1-23-13 the EEOC won a $25,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was refused a job because her religious beliefs call for her to wear a dress instead of the pants required by the company dress code.

 Demonizing the president and liberals is par for the course when it comes to conservative media, but the idea that the EEOC has some anti-Christian agenda is insulting and ignorant.

 Of course, rather than cite any of these cases and rationally discuss what the law does and does not allow for when it comes to religious freedom, zealots like Kelly errantly compare the religious freedom of these Muslim drivers to the Colorado cake baker who was found in violation of the law for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

 While it may look like these cases are similar, the reality is they are quite different in one important aspect -- discrimination. The job of the cake baker is to bake cakes. When he refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple he is not doing so because his religious beliefs say he can't bake a cake -- he would likely have no issues baking this exact same cake for a heterosexual wedding. He is doing so because his religious beliefs suggest there is something wrong with this couple. In the end, he is not refusing to bake a cake, he is refusing service to someone based on who they are. That is discrimination.

 The job of the Muslim truck driver is to drive a truck. Neither operator refused to drive a truck that day. What they refused to do was transport alcohol, since doing so was against their religious beliefs. If conservatives want to compare this decision to the Colorado cake baker the apt comparison would be that the cake baker has the right to refuse to include words on a cake that are against his beliefs. The baker could also refuse to provide a cake on Sunday or use alcohol in a cake based on his religious freedom. They are free to object to the specifics of the service if it falls outside of their religious convictions. They are not allowed to discriminate against a person for who they are.

 Clearly this is a topic that the general public needs more information on as religious freedom is one of the most important rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately the conservative media continues to leave their viewers less informed by constantly misrepresenting the legal definition of this right.

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14974
On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.


If I own a business that operates 7 days a week, why should I be forced to hire you when you just told me you won't work on Saturdays? I have Bill and Bob who've been with the company a year and finally get weekends off, but because you won't work on Saturdays, which I need covered, the government fines me? GTFOOH

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Christians Still Fail to Understand Religious Freedom
 

 Posted:  10/29/2015 9:30 am EDT    Updated:  37 minutes ago  
  
    
 

 
 
 
The conservative media is always looking for a reason to be outraged. Unfortunately, the origin of the outrage is often a lack of information. For example, Megyn Kelly of Fox News took to the air earlier this week to discuss a court case that she feels proves President Obama and liberals are waging a war on Christianity.

 "A jury has awarded a big pay out to a pair of Muslim truck drivers who were fired after refusing to deliver alcoholic beverages; citing their religious convictions. The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case, but has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians."

 The conversation that follows between Kelly and Judge Andrew Napolitano would have you believe that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was going out of its way to help establish religious freedom for Muslims while ignoring or actively fighting against these same freedoms for those of Christian faith.

 A quick look at the cases at the EEOC exposes just how uninformed Kelly is since their press releases show the EEOC has been involved in a number of cases defending Christians.

On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.

On 8-27-15 the EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-metric time clock due to his religious beliefs.

On 8-21-15 the EEOC sued the National Federation of the Blind for terminating a Hebrew Pentecostal employee who refused to work on the Sabbath.

On 8-20-14 the EEOC sued for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired because his religious beliefs required him to attend church on Thursday and Sunday evenings.

On 12-23-13 the EEOC won a $40,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was fired for refusing to wear pants since it was against her religious beliefs.

On 11-4-13 the EEOC won a $70,000 settlement for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired shortly after requesting a schedule change to attend an annual religious service.

On 1-23-13 the EEOC won a $25,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was refused a job because her religious beliefs call for her to wear a dress instead of the pants required by the company dress code.

 Demonizing the president and liberals is par for the course when it comes to conservative media, but the idea that the EEOC has some anti-Christian agenda is insulting and ignorant.

 Of course, rather than cite any of these cases and rationally discuss what the law does and does not allow for when it comes to religious freedom, zealots like Kelly errantly compare the religious freedom of these Muslim drivers to the Colorado cake baker who was found in violation of the law for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

 While it may look like these cases are similar, the reality is they are quite different in one important aspect -- discrimination. The job of the cake baker is to bake cakes. When he refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple he is not doing so because his religious beliefs say he can't bake a cake -- he would likely have no issues baking this exact same cake for a heterosexual wedding. He is doing so because his religious beliefs suggest there is something wrong with this couple. In the end, he is not refusing to bake a cake, he is refusing service to someone based on who they are. That is discrimination.

 The job of the Muslim truck driver is to drive a truck. Neither operator refused to drive a truck that day. What they refused to do was transport alcohol, since doing so was against their religious beliefs. If conservatives want to compare this decision to the Colorado cake baker the apt comparison would be that the cake baker has the right to refuse to include words on a cake that are against his beliefs. The baker could also refuse to provide a cake on Sunday or use alcohol in a cake based on his religious freedom. They are free to object to the specifics of the service if it falls outside of their religious convictions. They are not allowed to discriminate against a person for who they are.

 Clearly this is a topic that the general public needs more information on as religious freedom is one of the most important rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately the conservative media continues to leave their viewers less informed by constantly misrepresenting the legal definition of this right.

I wouldn't have baked the wedding cake either.

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14974
I doubt I could bake a wedding cake..

The Ugly

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21286
I wouldn't have baked the wedding cake either.

I'm with you here, but mostly because I don't like government forcing you to serve anyone. Of course this is law, so my Libertarian take is illegal.

Felt the same way with the smoking in bars bullshit, and I f**king HATE cigarette smoke. Should be up to the proprietor, though, and what he/she decides is best for business. Not sure how bike, hot rod, or similar custom fab-type businesses skirt this, but I know Jesse James simply refused to build choppers for people he didn't like (Fred Durst and Stallone, for example). Wonder if they could've sued?

So, I guess if it were my bakery, knowing I was obligated, I'd have just baked the nastiest, ugliest cake ever vomited at any wedding, queer or not. What're they gonna do, tell all their gay friends to stay away?

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
How is more information going to help people making a decision based upon superstition?

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
How is more information going to help people making a decision based upon superstition?

Hey doc!!  Long time no speak.  How're things?

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Hey doc!!  Long time no speak.  How're things?


Good.

Healthy and the kids are doing well. One is trying to drive me freaking crazy and is too stubborn for her own good. :)

TuHolmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
  • Darkness is fated to eventually be destroyed...
I'm with you here, but mostly because I don't like government forcing you to serve anyone. Of course this is law, so my Libertarian take is illegal.

Felt the same way with the smoking in bars bullshit, and I f**king HATE cigarette smoke. Should be up to the proprietor, though, and what he/she decides is best for business. Not sure how bike, hot rod, or similar custom fab-type businesses skirt this, but I know Jesse James simply refused to build choppers for people he didn't like (Fred Durst and Stallone, for example). Wonder if they could've sued?

So, I guess if it were my bakery, knowing I was obligated, I'd have just baked the nastiest, ugliest cake ever vomited at any wedding, queer or not. What're they gonna do, tell all their gay friends to stay away?

You can not "service" someone for being a dick.

As long as it's not because of race, creed, country of origin, gender, or sexual orientation, it's not a problem.

You can simply say, they were being "insert poor action" and you're good.

You just can't say it's because of one of the aforementioned reasons.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
I'm with you here, but mostly because I don't like government forcing you to serve anyone. Of course this is law, so my Libertarian take is illegal.

Felt the same way with the smoking in bars bullshit, and I f**king HATE cigarette smoke. Should be up to the proprietor, though, and what he/she decides is best for business. Not sure how bike, hot rod, or similar custom fab-type businesses skirt this, but I know Jesse James simply refused to build choppers for people he didn't like (Fred Durst and Stallone, for example). Wonder if they could've sued?

So, I guess if it were my bakery, knowing I was obligated, I'd have just baked the nastiest, ugliest cake ever vomited at any wedding, queer or not. What're they gonna do, tell all their gay friends to stay away?

It's more a case of the Government limiting the capacity to impose or enforce our religious values upon others.

I can't appreciate any distinction between our own fundamentalists and those in places enforcing Sharia Law. Our home-grown variety would be worse given the power and opportunity. The level of intolerance people practice in the name of Christianity is frightening and reminds me of the Bible when Jesus chastised the Pharisees for conducting themselves in a manner that drove people away from God.

I don't believe there is a threat to American freedoms and rights greater than religious fundamentalism.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Good.

Healthy and the kids are doing well. One is trying to drive me freaking crazy and is too stubborn for her own good. :)
God bless you man!!  

My little one is now turning 6 years old....my baby is now a little girl.   Man is the kid smart though!!  

She's gettin a little sass of her own now, but hey I'm barely a parent with only one kid (in kindergarten) so I'm not complaining LOL!!