Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Obama Admin: Religious Freedom for American Muslims, Not American Christians - Michael Brown

  1. #1
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,272
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1

    The Obama Admin: Religious Freedom for American Muslims, Not American Christians - Michael Brown

    If we've learned anything here in America in the last few months, it is this: When your religious faith comes in conflict with your job, if you are a Muslim, your faith is protected and sacred; if you are a Christian, it is not.

    We all know what happened to Christian bakers, florists, photographers and county clerks who refused to participate in same-sex "marriages" because of their religious faith. They were found guilty by the courts and fined or punished or even imprisoned.

    And we know where the Obama administration stood on these issues, to the point that last year, Attorney General Eric Holder instructed attorneys general nationwide that they were not obligated to defend state laws—meaning, specifically, bans on same-sex "marriage"—if they found them to be discriminatory.

    But when it comes to freedom of religion for Muslims, the results in the courts are different, the reaction from the administration is different, and even the response from the media is different.

    Back in April, some Muslim cab drivers in Cleveland refused to drive taxis carrying ads for the upcoming gay Olympic Games.

    Did it receive nationwide attention and condemnation? Hardly.

    As one website asked, "Where is Eric Holder suing the cab companies for homophobia? Where are the courts forcing the drivers to ignore their beliefs as they do with Christians? Crickets. Muslim cabbies, for religious reasons, are refusing to drive cabs with signs promoting the Gay Games on top of airport cabs."

    That case, however, didn't make its way to the courts, but another case involving the religious freedoms of Muslims did make it to the courts, and it was decided in favor of the Muslims.

    As reported by Fox News, "A jury has awarded $240,000 in damages to two Muslim truck drivers who sued their former employer for religious discrimination after they were fired for refusing to make beer deliveries."

    Now brace yourself for the next line: "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) won the case on behalf of the Obama administration."

    What? The same Obama administration that actively stood for the redefining of marriage, regardless of its effect on the religious rights of Christians, stood up for the religious rights of these Muslims?

    Not only so, but the EEOC was gushing with pride after the decision was announced, as reported on the official government website: "EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance."

    You've got to be kidding.

    Honestly, I almost had to rub my eyes as I read this, asking myself if this was some parody website making a poor attempt at satire.

    Yet it gets worse.

    One of the EEOC attorneys who tried the case, June Calhoun, said this: "This is an awesome outcome. Star Transport (the truck company in question) failed to provide any discrimination training to its human resources personnel, which led to catastrophic results for these employees. They suffered real injustice that needed to be addressed. By this verdict, the jury remedied the injustice by sending clear messages to Star Transport and other employers that they will be held accountable for their unlawful employment practices. Moreover, they signaled to Mr. Mohamed and Mr. Bulshale that religious freedom is a right for all Americans."

    So, the company was guilty of failing to provide training to ensure that the Muslims were not discriminated against, but when it comes to Christians, companies must provide training to ensure that those who identify as LGBT are not discriminated against, even it means discriminating against Christians.

    How bizarre can this get?

    Said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason, "We are pleased that the jury recognized that these—and all—employees are entitled to observe and practice their faith, no matter what that might be"—unless, of course, that faith happens to be Christian and the belief in question has to do with something far more fundamental than making beer deliveries, namely the meaning of marriage.

    To further highlight the inequality Christians are facing today, remember that when gay couples have asked Christian bakers to bake cakes for their ceremonies, the bakers who refused have been found guilty by the courts, but when a gay baker refused to bake a cake opposing same-sex "marriage" for a Christian customer, the Christian was found guilty.

    To be sure, there are some moments of sanity when freedoms for Christians have been preserved even at the expense of Muslims, but the stance of the Obama administration is clear: When it comes to the religious rights of Muslims, they should be jealously protected; when it comes to the religious rights of Christians, they should be zealously rejected, since the government has zero tolerance for bigotry.

    Oh, the irony.

    http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/...can-christians

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to fuego For This Useful Post:

    Femme* (11-06-2015)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    I think part of this is that the people involved don't really think that delivering beer has anything to do with sin so they don't feel convicted by the fact that Muslims or whoever are opposing it. So there is no knee-jerk reaction based on feeling convicted involved. The gay parade thing is harder to understand, that seems to involve straightforward discrimination. Muslims get to avoid it, Christians don't. I suppose being a Christian isn't "special" enough, one has to be a member of some other religion or cult to qualify for "special treatment". Just my 2 cents

  4. #3
    I think the key distinction is whether or not the recognition of religious liberty results in denial of service. In the case of the beer deliveries, the question would be whether it would be feasible for the employer to assign another deliverer for the beer. How large was the firm? How many employees were available, during that shift? Also, was the primary function of the business to deliver alcoholic beverages? If so, then it would not be feasible for the employer to keep on the payroll those who refuse on religious grounds to deliver such beverages. If, on the other hand, the business routinely delivers a variety of products, only a small subset of which are alcoholic, then it seems to me to be not too much of an imposition on the business to arrange things so that those with no objections are assigned to the delivery of those products. (Again, assuming that it's a large firm with numerous delivery staff.)

    If the firm refused to deliver a product to a particular class of customer, even though it regularly delivers the same product to other customers, then (in my view), the government probably should step it. If, however, the firm simply declines to deliver a certain product, to all customers, then that is simply a business decision, and the government should not be involved.

    At a personal level, I think people should make a greater effort to identify those situations which really entail a violation of their beliefs. For example, I understand those who don't want to drink alcohol, but what is the problem with delivering alcohol, in a country where anyone can walk into a liquor store and buy whatever alcohol they want? And if I'm in the bakery business, and a customer asks me to place a statement on the cake saying that "Rush Limbaugh is a great humanitarian", what's the big problem? Of course I disagree with the words, but I'm in the business of making cakes in accordance with customer specifications, so I should accommodate the customer.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Whether or not they were hired to deliver also beer or signed a contract along the way where it said they had to do so, should of course matter. There is no mention of Christians being fired for the same reason then losing in court. So it may or may not have something to do with the religion involved.

  6. #5
    * Toxic Troll - Negative Nancy Farm Truck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,139
    Thanked: 675
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    The gay parade thing is harder to understand, that seems to involve straightforward discrimination
    How come they don't have any gay parades in highly populated muzlum cities such as Dearborn, MI ???

  7. #6
    FT, maybe you haven't seen it, but the correct spelling is "Muslim"..

    You seem to make up colorful spellings as you go.. but it comes across as a slam.
    You've shown you're not some bumpkin and you're capable of using a reasonable vocabulary, so it's not ignorance.

    If we are being Christ like, we need to be respectful, whether or not they are respectful to us. Will you, please, in future, be more cosiderate?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Chevrolet Malibu warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.