This is the kind of stuff that just chaps my A@#

[Wizzard]

https://youtu.be/I3q61Y85oCw

[Grumpy]

Cranks me also, but what can we expect when the Prez is a freakin Muslim.  

Crap, now they will probably lock me up for my opinion.

[old2soon]

I don't know HOW to "act" surprised anymore. Pissed off I have down pat.  They-mooslim drivers-knew going in they had to delver alcohol as their job. Had the gubmint NOT stepped in they would not have won. cursed glad I have good blood pressure meds. RIDE SAFE.

[baldo]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

[dinosnake]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

Wow, a misreported story, told with twisted truths.

What a surprise!!

Not 

[Robert]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

It would be up to a court to decide what Snopes claim in being half true is. It all boils down to religious freedom regardless of who or what position they hold. Snopes is making decisions it has no business making and in doing so shows bias. Propaganda comes in many forms, call it half truths, opinion what ever but Snopes has proven in the past it has a bias and is not factual all the time.

[Romeo]

Apparently ya'all didn't get the memo. Snopes is God.

[Chrisj CMA]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

Bottom line...Obama and his band of idiots have shown their hand more completely.  It's all fair to punish a Christian for standing up for their faith, but not ok to treat mooslims the same way.  

The government has no business getting involved and even worse picking sides

[Wizzard]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

Bottom line...Obama and his band of idiots have shown their hand more completely.  It's all fair to punish a Christian for standing up for their faith, but not ok to treat mooslims the same way.  

The government has no business getting involved and even worse picking sides

Agree 100% Even snopes struggled to spin this one.

[..]

From the Snopes web page

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) represented Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale in a lawsuit over their former employer's failure to accommodate their religious beliefs, and a jury awarded the pair a combined total of $240,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and back pay.

[..]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

Please clarify what you are disputing with the posting of the snopes link.

[Moonshot_1]

As I read the press release from the EEOC on this, the issue was that Star Transport had a record of allowing drivers to swap loads and a record of making other kinds of accommodations for their drivers.

Had they had a policy of forced dispatch and a record of enforcing it, then it would have been a different outcome. The drivers would have known this going in that there would be no option but to deliver the loads given.

But Star Transport was allowing for reasonable exceptions for swapping loads for their drivers, I would think a religious or moral position against alcohol, if considered a genuine position, should be allowed as well.

What is missing in this story is the history of the drivers. Did they have a good driving and work record? Or was this refusal to deliver alcohol just the straw that broke the camel's back?

If these guys otherwise had an exemplary record of employment with Star, I'm kinda good with the decision.  

[..]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

Wow, a misreported story, told with twisted truths.

What a surprise!!

Not 

http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

Should the trucking company have been found at fault?

[Patrick]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

It would be up to a court to decide what Snopes claim in being half true is. It all boils down to religious freedom regardless of who or what position they hold. Snopes is making decisions it has no business making and in doing so shows bias. Propaganda comes in many forms, call it half truths, opinion what ever but Snopes has proven in the past it has a bias and is not factual all the time.

[Wizzard]

There are a few on here that make a lot of noise when they "think" they are right, but get real quiet when they get proven wrong.  ???

[The emperor has no clothes]

There are a few on here that make a lot of noise when they "think" they are right, but get real quiet when they get proven wrong.  ???

There are also some on here that are tired of arguing the same crap over and over again 

[Wizzard]

There are a few on here that make a lot of noise when they "think" they are right, but get real quiet when they get proven wrong.  ???

There are also some on here that are tired of arguing the same crap over and over again 

I never posted it to argue. It makes a point that all things are not equal. Even snopes defense was lame.

[The emperor has no clothes]

There are a few on here that make a lot of noise when they "think" they are right, but get real quiet when they get proven wrong.  ???

There are also some on here that are tired of arguing the same crap over and over again 

I never posted it to argue. It makes a point that all things are not equal. Even snopes defense was lame.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I'm just saying you might be mistaking some's silence. 

[dinosnake]

There are a few on here that make a lot of noise when they "think" they are right, but get real quiet when they get proven wrong.  ???

There are also some on here that are tired of arguing the same crap over and over again 

I never posted it to argue. It makes a point that all things are not equal. Even snopes defense was lame.

The Snopes defense wasn't "lame" by any means, it's just that the self-righteous here don't want to listen to it.

The Snopes article points out that the law was being applied EQUALLY to all citizens, the "problem" here is their pariticular flavor of religion.  If the plantiffs were anything BUT Islamic then I'm sure the court's decision would make more sense to many, but laws are supposed to be blind that way.

[Wizzard]

There are a few on here that make a lot of noise when they "think" they are right, but get real quiet when they get proven wrong.  ???

There are also some on here that are tired of arguing the same crap over and over again 

I never posted it to argue. It makes a point that all things are not equal. Even snopes defense was lame.

The Snopes defense wasn't "lame" by any means, it's just that the self-righteous here don't want to listen to it.

The Snopes article points out that the law was being applied EQUALLY to all citizens, the "problem" here is their pariticular flavor of religion.  If the plantiffs were anything BUT Islamic then I'm sure the court's decision would make more sense to many, but laws are supposed to be blind that way.

Self righteous?? you talking about yourself? I could have made the same defense on the Cake people,, but then I suppose that would have been self righteous? And if i want to think that the snopes defense was lame,, then I will. You can think what you want to think but then the rest of us have the same right.

[Wizzard]

There are a few on here that make a lot of noise when they "think" they are right, but get real quiet when they get proven wrong.  ???

There are also some on here that are tired of arguing the same crap over and over again  

I never posted it to argue. It makes a point that all things are not equal. Even snopes defense was lame.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I'm just saying you might be mistaking some's silence.  

BTW,, i knew they would not be silent forever  

[dinosnake]

Self righteous?? you talking about yourself? I could have made the same defense on the Cake people,, but then I suppose that would have been self righteous? And if i want to think that the snopes defense was lame,, then I will. You can think what you want to think but then the rest of us have the same right.

That's true.  But if you want the law to work for everyone, yourself included, then it must...work for everyone equally.  That's what America is all about, equality without favorites.  If people want different...then, exactly, what are they looking for?

[CajunRider]

The bottom line:

When it comes to Christian beliefs...

Gay/Lesbian group sued bakery for refusing to bake wedding cake for gay/lesbian wedding due to religious beliefs. 

White house spoke out against the bakery.  Religious beliefs, at this time, didn't matter.

Bakery lost.  http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

When it comes to Muslim beliefs...

Muslim group sues delivery company due to getting fired when refusing to deliver alcohol for religious beliefs. 

White house spoke out against the shipping company.  Religious beliefs, at this time, were of the upmost importance. 

Delivery company lost. (See link above...)


This is called a "Double Standard". 

[3fan4life]

Not so fast.....

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truck-drivers-lawsuit/

From the article:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) represented Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale in a lawsuit over their former employer's failure to accommodate their religious beliefs

Who does the EEOC work for?

[saddlesore]

   And if a doctor refuses to do an abortion for religious beliefs?
   

[dinosnake]

What double standard??

Maybe I'm missing something.  In BOTH cases the courts found that the defendants were treating the plaintiffs differently than other folk strictly due to their religious beliefs:

A) the cake maker treated the lesbian couple differently than other couples, even a dog "couple", by refusing to make a cake for them only and exclusively because they were gay;

B) the shipping company treated the Muslims differently than other drivers by failing to assign them alternate loads when requested, even though they openly do that for other drivers, and then punishing them for that.

So who is applying  the double standard?  Not the courts.  

[Challenger]

Cake maker's religious belief prevented her from making a cake for a same sex couple. She lost in court.
Truck drivers religious belief prevented them from delivering beer. They won in court.  Who's religious beliefs should count?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Cake maker's religious belief prevented her from making a cake for a same sex couple. She lost in court.
Truck drivers religious belief prevented them from delivering beer. They won in court.  Who's religious beliefs should count?

Judges and juries make F'd up decisions all the time. What should we do ?

[Wizzard]

Cake maker's religious belief prevented her from making a cake for a same sex couple. She lost in court.
Truck drivers religious belief prevented them from delivering beer. They won in court.  Who's religious beliefs should count?

Judges and juries make F'd up decisions all the time. What should we do ?

Elect a new judge.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Cake maker's religious belief prevented her from making a cake for a same sex couple. She lost in court.
Truck drivers religious belief prevented them from delivering beer. They won in court.  Who's religious beliefs should count?

Judges and juries make F'd up decisions all the time. What should we do ?

Elect a new judge.

I'm no legal expert, but I think most of them are appointed. I know juries sure aren't elected. We have a pretty good system, it would be nice if it was better. I'm not sure having judges become more like politicians is going to help. 

[Bighead]

What about the lady ( I forget which state ) that refused to issue marriage lic. To gay couples because of religious beliefs? There was no accomidations made for her she was told issue them or be fired. Truck drivers should have been told the same deliver your load or be fired. That would be equal. But the clerk spent some jail time for not issuing lic. Didn't win her case. So no things aren't equal. In either case. No matter which side of the political line you stand.

[The emperor has no clothes]

What about the lady ( I forget which state ) that refused to issue marriage lic. To gay couples because of religious beliefs? There was no accomidations made for her she was told issue them or be fired. Truck drivers should have been told the same deliver your load or be fired. That would be equal. But the clerk spent some jail time for not issuing lic. Didn't win her case. So no things aren't equal. In either case. No matter which side of the political line you stand.

Yeah but they are a little different situations. She was a government worker who was refusing to obey the law.

[Bighead]

Just depends on which way you see things. They could have just as easily offered for her to do something else.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just depends on which way you see things. They could have just as easily offered for her to do something else.

I'm not sure what you mean. She was in charge of that by law.

[dinosnake]

Just depends on which way you see things. They could have just as easily offered for her to do something else.

She REFUSED that option when given to her and THEN told her subordinates that they couldn't do the job, either.

In other words, she very intentionally attempted to hold everyone in her district hostage to her particular decision, and only her decision, based exclusively on her personal religious beliefs.  That is DIRECTLY opposed to the First Amendment's guarantee when it comes to the operation of our government, who was her employer.

[DirtyDan]

do your job or you are fired, both of them

dan

[Xtracho]

do your job or you are fired, both of them

dan

But the liberal apologists don't see it that way. The flail about doing their dead level best to justify it.

[dinosnake]

do your job or you are fired, both of them

dan

But the liberal apologists don't see it that way. The flail about doing their dead level best to justify it.

And the conservatives are too stubborn to see that they sued because they WANTED to do their job, only with just a bit of consideration that the boss was willing to give, and had given, everyone else, but somehow didn't apply only to them.  

OK, an equivalent example: devout Christian requested Sundays off for prayers.  Boss always works with everyone else's schedule request, gives other workers Saturdays off if needed...but not this time, refuses this one because he didn't think a Christian should ask for that.  Worker says that he must go pray on day of worship, worker is fired for not showing up.  Law says worker had right to ask for day off for prayer.

So, now what do you say?

People here are all too often looking at the person and THEN applying the law...with a bit of personal bias.  The law is supposed to be blind, even our statutes representing her are blindfolded as she weighs the scale of justice.  I wonder what happened to the America that I was told, as I was growing up, we should aspire to.

I work in an industry with many people of many different backgrounds and many religious.  People constantly get days off for their religious holidays, but one group not getting such an adjustment?  We'd call it it for what it was; sorry you can't see the unfair treatment in giving almost everyone something but not giving it to a few., just because.  Would you do that to your kids?

(Edit: please excuse typos, auto correct doing it's own thing!)

[Xtracho]

I wonder what happened to the America that I was told, as I was growing up, we should aspire to.

Yeah I agree....what happened that we have devalued life to the point of abortion being as routine as a trip to the grocery store. That personal responsibility has devolved into blaming everyone else for one's actions. That the constitutional freedoms guaranteed us all by the Founders have been, and are still, under attack for nothing more than the political agendas of some. That thugs have plaques placed in their honor while LEO's that sacrifice their lives in the line of duty are brushed off and forgotten. That tens of thousands of foreign refugees are getting the red carpet treatment while thousands of vets live homeless and in squalor; with an average of 22 committing suicide daily.

Yeah....what happened?

[Roidfingers]

The judge that ruled in favor of the Muslims was appointed by Obama. The judge was from Illinois but if you research his father you will find that he is Lebanese.