Posted on 10/30/2015 2:17:29 PM PDT by Enlightened1
A jury has awarded $240,000 to two Muslim men who say they were fired from an Illinois trucking company after refusing to deliver alcohol.
A judge found Morton-based Star Transport Inc. violated the religious beliefs of Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdikarim Hassan Bulshale. A trial to determine whether they were entitled to damages ended Oct. 20 with the jury's judgment.
A 2013 lawsuit filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the men wouldn't deliver alcohol because it was against their religious values as practicing Muslims. The lawsuit claimed the company didn't provide them "with a reasonable accommodation and by terminating them because of their religion."
The Peoria Journal Star reports it's not clear whether the men will get the money because Star Transport has gone out of business.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Who's going to appeal it? The trucking company exists no more.
These men won't get a penny.
Don’t give up yet and lose hope as sooner or later this crap will come to a head. People will only take so much before they get irate and my hunch is, what may be called the final Crusade may be just over the horizon. It may not start here but in the Middle East with all those goofballs. Probably an event similar in nature to the early Crusade but not necessary associated with any Christian believes. I see that the trucking outfit went out of business what is bad in one way but good on the other hand that this bum can’t collect.
Heck - I would go out of business to avoid paying the creeps. They weren’t asked to DRINK the alcohol for goodness sake. The iceberg has already sunk as it couldn’t take anymore “tip of the iceberg.” What on earth kind of jury was that? I guess I don’t want to know!
Good luck collecting the $$! Star Transport in Morton went out of business March 16, 2015...probably because they didn’t get their liquor/beer deliveries done on time! ;-)
http://www.cinewsnow.com/news/local/Star-Trucking—296897901.html
http://www.pjstar.com/article/20150319/news/150318919
Wonder when the Kleins are going to get their settlement check for being forced to violate their religious beliefs by homosexuals who demanded they bake a wedding cake for them or else? Especially when they proceeded to do everything they could to destroy their business after they refused?
Why not outlaw beer altogether...and pork...and make Islam compulsory?!? Our judicial system has been destroyed by progressive insanity!?!
And if I’m hired to do a job and don’t want to I’ll get fired in a heart beat!
Yeah, I guess they will have to limit their lawsuit celebration party to one bottle of Jack Daniels.
Actually, since there was no money to be gained, the ONLY REASON to go through with it was to establish a LEGAL PRECEDENT.
Well, not from the trucking company.
If the muslims don’t like it here, GO BACK HOME. Your culture is stone age barbarism. We don’t want you, we don’t like you and we will not submit.
"A judge found Morton-based Star Transport Inc. violated the religious beliefs of Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdikarim Hassan Bulshale."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
Patriots beware that this is not the same kind of constitutional problem, imo, as the states violating the 1st and 14th Amendment protections of Christian business owners.
From a related thread . . .
The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights ...
Unsurprisingly, there are major constitutional problems with the federal governments actions concerning this issue imo.
To begin with, regarding the idea of an employer violating an employees constitutional rights, please consider the following. The Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Cruikshank, that case dealing with the scope of constitutional rights, that the Constitution protects a citizens enumerated rights only from state and federal government actions, not actions by other citizens.
So the EEOC actually has no constitutional basis for its religious freedom violation accusations against the referenced employer imo. And I do not think that religious issues were the main reason that the employer fired the employees. After all, the employer had hired them!
The next major constitutional problem with the EEOCs action is this. Regardless what FDRs activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generaton of state-sovereignty respecting justices had clarified the following. The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, which reasonably includes not interfering with an employers decision to fire employees.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So the corrupt federal government has no constitutional basis to interfere with an INTRAstate employers decisions on the basis of either alleged violations 1st Amendment protected rights or the Commerce Clause imo.
And since the EEOC has been mentioned a few times, please consider this. Even if the states had delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to police an intrastate employers decisions, the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected bureacrats like those running the EPA, FCC or EEOC. So Congress has a constitutional “monopoly†on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not imo.
But by delegating federal legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats, powers that Congress does not have in the first place in this case, corrupt Congress is wrongly protecting such powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above.
Finally, it appears that the constitutionally undefined EEOC's job is to police all kinds of INTRAstate discrimination issues related to Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s & 70s. But the major constitutional problem with the federal civil rights acts are the following.
The only civil rights that the feds have the constitutional authority to legislatively protect are those rights based on constitutional rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect. So the low-information, Democratic-controlled (I think) Congress of the 60s and 70s actually had no constitutional authority to make laws addressing intrastate discrimination issues outside the scope of constitutionally enumerated rights.
In fact, this issue is another good example of the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, low-information Senate once again failing to protect the states as the Founding States had established the Senate to do. In this case the Senate wrongly helped to pass the constitutionally indefensible bills that led to the establishment of the EEOC and the civil rights acts.
Note that the Senate also failed to use its constitutional Article V power to lead Congress to propose civil rights amendments to the Constitution to the states. If the states had chosen to ratify such amendments, then Congress would have the constitutional authority to make such laws even if it cannot delegate such regulatory powers to non-elected federal bureaucrats.
As mentioned in related threads, the ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt, Constitution-ignoring, low-information senators who help to pass unconstitutional bills that hurt the states that they are supposed to be protecting along with it.
Yet Christians who stand by their principles get fined and extorted by weight and power of government.
Poetic justice.
This country is so FITA.
they were terminated because they would not deliver what they were told to deliver. insubordination. not because they are muslim.
besides if the company delivers alcohol these pious muslims knew it was haram for them to even take the job in the first place.
“We are in a fight with Islam? Hell no, we have been defeated.”
Not really. It’s another leftist, muzzie-loving judge reserving his spot on one of our lampposts, from sea to shining sea.
Of course christian bakers who refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals because it violates their religious scruples are hounded into court, then driven out of business and even threatened with prison.
Muslim immigrants, holding jobs Americans could use, get fat cash settlements because they didn’t know the job might involve hauling things that offend them?
Nothing to see here .. except maybe Civil War II.
unbelievable! We are so screwed as a nation.
Perfect storm, jury was a bunch of Ill. Marxist. FWk em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.