Christians fined for NOT baking cake! Muslims awarded for NOT delivering beer

[phrodeau]

In February 1992, Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee to go from McDonalds. Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her nephew's car, which was pulled over so she could add sugar to her coffee. While removing the cup's lid, Liebeck spilled her hot coffee, burning her legs. It was determined that Liebeck suffered third degree burns on over six percent of her body. Originally, Liebeck sought $20,000 in damages. McDonalds refused to settle out of court. However, they should have. Liebeck was ultimately awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because she was found to be twenty percent at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages.


Welcome to America

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P01760

A third-degree burn is also referred to as a full thickness burn. This type of burn destroys the outer layer of skin (epidermis) and the entire layer beneath (the dermis). Large, full thickness, third-degree burns heal slowly and poorly without medical attention. Because the epidermis and hair follicles are destroyed, new skin will not grow.

 

[NYC_Man]

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P01760

like getting a burn from e pressure cooker and in return suing the brand or supermarket u bought the beans from, the gas company and the electrical company because your stove is plugged to it and the company that made the pressure cooker. Am i right ?

 

[about_average]

like getting a burn from e pressure cooker and in return suing the brand or supermarket u bought the beans from, the gas company and the electrical company because your stove is plugged to it and the company that made the pressure cooker. Am i right ?

You'd be right if the pressure cooker company had been cited several times by the product safety commission for having a faulty valve.

McDonalds had been cited several times for serving the coffee too hot, had been told to reduce the temperature, reduced the temperature when rechecked, then raised it again, resulting in the several citations, including after the woman was burned.

Not to mention in the previous 10 years there had been over 700 people burned my their coffee and McDonalds had settled claims in amounts in the range of $500,000

You also left out that the $2.7m punitive damages was reduced by the judge to $480,000.
The original $2.7m was arrived at by the jury upon the lawyers suggestion that they make it one or two days worth of coffee sales, which were over $1m per day.

I love how those bits of information is left out when people use the suit as an example of lawyers run amok.

Welcome to America where, occasionally, companies have to take responsibility for their actions.

All that aside, what part did an employee's religion play in the matter?

 

[NYC_Man]

You'd be right if the pressure cooker company had been cited several times by the product safety commission for having a faulty valve.

McDonalds had been cited several times for serving the coffee too hot, had been told to reduce the temperature, reduced the temperature when rechecked, then raised it again, resulting in the several citations, including after the woman was burned.

Not to mention in the previous 10 years there had been over 700 people burned my their coffee and McDonalds had settled claims in amounts in the range of $500,000

You also left out that the $2.7m punitive damages was reduced by the judge to $480,000.
The original $2.7m was arrived at by the jury upon the lawyers suggestion that they make it one or two days worth of coffee sales, which were over $1m per day.

I love how those bits of information is left out when people use the suit as an example of lawyers run amok.

Welcome to America where, occasionally, companies have to take responsibility for their actions.

All that aside, what part did an employee's religion play in the matter?

common sense

Is a truck company where sometimes alcoholic beverages might be transported. Your job is to transport from point A to point B. If you don't like whats transported then maybe you should try to find a different job or perhaps move to an isolated island so you won't have any alcohol near you. Or do what the rest of the muslims do in NYC, work in dellis and sell alcohol, lotto tickets, pork, etc. Nothing discriminatory in this case. Just people suing and calling discrimination every chance they get.

Common sense, no?


Responsibility because people lack common sense. Like some warning labels they have to put in order to remind the stupid not to do stupid things. Like not using a hair blow drier while showering or while taking a bath because if stupid does that then they will sue. Maybe they are not stupid after all, because they do get millions in lawsuits.

 

[Aella_]

As I see it, the US has gone nuts with this practice of suing each other. And I see that the rest of the world is following in their steps. For example, I recently saw a youtube video where some people from another country were actually Practicing how to feign being hit by a car, in order to sue the Insurance Company.

My final take on this case is that about_average is entirely right: that by law, the Court reached the right decision, in both cases. On the other hand, I also agree with NYC_Man: if I were an entrepreneur in the US, I'd be very careful about who I'd employ.

It's madness, imo, what's happening over there: on one hand some business-people either lack patience, or abuse their position and fire people over ridiculous things,; like in this case, they could have all sat down and reached a compromise. On the other hand, some people initiate lawsuits over equally silly things. And in both (L/R wing) cases, it's all happening under the umbrella of PC-nness.

 

[NYC_Man]

As I see it, the US has gone nuts with this practice of suing each other. And I see that the rest of the world is following in their steps. For example, I recently saw a youtube video where some people from another country were actually Practicing how to feign being hit by a car, in order to sue the Insurance Company.

My final take on this case is that about_average is entirely right: that by law, the Court reached the right decision, in both cases. On the other hand, I also agree with NYC_Man: if I were an entrepreneur in the US, I'd be very careful about who I'd employ.

It's madness, imo, what's happening over there: on one hand some business-people either lack patience, or abuse their position and fire people over ridiculous things,; like in this case, they could have all sat down and reached a compromise. On the other hand, some people initiate lawsuits over equally silly things. And in both (L/R wing) cases, it's all happening under the umbrella of PC-nness.

Going by the first post i fail to see how the court was right.

True they could have reached a compromise but in this case they didn't. Maybe the person assigning the truck drivers had something personal against them, maybe they didn't who knows. But to jump on discrimination bandwagon because you are not white or christian then thats just wrong and taking advantage of an already faulty system. You are hired to do a job and you better do that job or you will be fired. Those drivers refused to do a job they were assigned, they got fired because of it.

 

[hazbeen]

this is more then SUING a truck company

its about SUING and being aided by US Gov to win=Muslim

and

being SUED and aided bu US Gov to LOSE=Christian

There is NO difference between the two....no matter how you try, there is NO DIFFERENCE and we all said this was going to happen

 

[Aella_]

Going by the first post i fail to see how the court was right.

True they could have reached a compromise but in this case they didn't. Maybe the person assigning the truck drivers had something personal against them, maybe they didn't who knows. But to jump on discrimination bandwagon because you are not white or christian then thats just wrong and taking advantage of an already faulty system. You are hired to do a job and you better do that job or you will be fired. Those drivers refused to do a job they were assigned, they got fired because of it.

I read the eeoc press release and it gives their reason for voting in favor of the muslim plaintiffs. Seems to me that they were quite fair/unbiased.
In saying that, tbh, if I were an entrepreneur, I'd hire non-religious people. Less of a headache.

"Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.
- According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/31578-EEOC-Sues-Star-Transport-Inc-for-Religious-Discrimination
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

 

[Aella_]

There is NO difference between the two....no matter how you try, there is NO DIFFERENCE

We'll all remember what you said, BB, next time you start complaining about muslims taking over the Eu.

 

[hazbeen]

I read the eeoc press release and it gives their reason for voting in favor of the muslim plaintiffs. Seems to me that they were quite fair/unbiased.
In saying that, tbh, if I were an entrepreneur, I'd hire non-religious people. Less of a headache.

"Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.
- According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/31578-EEOC-Sues-Star-Transport-Inc-for-Religious-Discrimination
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

you would be sued for discrimination

and

while you think its fair, you could apply the same to the Christian bakers

BTW, Muslim bakers refuse to bake the same cakes AND THEY NEVER EVER GET SUED....and FINED......why is that?

WE KNOW WHY!

 

[about_average]

There is NO difference between the two....no matter how you try, there is NO DIFFERENCE and we all said this was going to happen

Yes, we all know you're mental processes are slow, but give it time to filter in and you'll understand.

 

[about_average]

True they could have reached a compromise but in this case they didn't. Maybe the person assigning the truck drivers had something personal against them...

Oh, well then, that's ok.

But to jump on discrimination bandwagon because you are not white or christian then thats just wrong and taking advantage of an already faulty system.

Only in this case the system worked as designed, they were compensated for being fired for abiding by their religious beliefs.

If they were fired for something else, like fucking up deliveries, wrecking trucks, whatever, then the company would have documented that and won the case.

I'm still waiting to hear what Stella Liebeck's law suit has to do with hiring religious people.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Got it, thx. Makes a lot more sense to me now, why, in both cases, the ultimate Court decisions were fair


And this is, by far, the winner.

Where does it stop?

The ability of other people to tell you what you can, or cannot, do with your life, with your sweat equity, with your blood, toil, sweat and tears?

Can you be forced to put in bathrooms for the sexually insane and washing stations for the religiously insane along with the mandated diaper changing stations and wheelchair ramps?

 

[about_average]

BTW, Muslim bakers refuse to bake the same cakes AND THEY NEVER EVER GET SUED

I know you won't, but I'll ask anyway, cite?

 

[Aella_]

Just to appease BB:

On the other hand, I can also understand some people's frustration over some of these lawsuits.
There was this case about a muslim stewardess who refused to serve alcohol to passengers. The airlines tried to accomodate her, but then the other stewardesses complained that it made their job increasingly hard/complicated.
This lawsuit was ridiculous, imo, in contrast to the truckers' one (where we're talking about a large company with many employees). Demanding special privileges on a small packed aircraft, where at least 1/3rd of passengers Do ask for alcohol!

 

[hazbeen]

I know you won't, but I'll ask anyway, cite?

ever WONDER why we dont see the MSM doing to Muslims what they do to Christians?

I DONT!


https://www.google.com/#q=muslims+refuse+to+bake+cake+for+gay+wedding

 

[hazbeen]

Yes, we all know you're mental processes are slow, but give it time to filter in and you'll understand.

there is a difference

trus

CHRISTIANS ARE BEING ATTACXKED AND MUSLIMS APPEASED

it wont work

build a clock!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, first they came for the Jews...

 

[hazbeen]

Gay bakers dont bake cake for Christians

Would they DENY MUSLIMS a CAKE?


https://www.google.com/#q=gay+bakers+refuse+to+bake+cake

 

[hazbeen]

Its ALWAYS and ONLY one way

and that way is ONLY ONE WAY

 

[about_average]

There was this case about a muslim stewardess who refused to serve alcohol to passengers. The airlines tried to accomodate her, but then the other stewardesses complained that it made their job increasingly hard/complicated.

Actually, the airline did accommodate her. There's more to the story.

"So, in June, she asked her supervisor at ExpressJet for a religious accommodation. Flight attendants have many responsibilities — getting passengers seated, performing safety demonstrations, checking overhead compartments. Would it be possible for one of Stanley’s colleagues to serve drinks while she did something else?

Yes, she was told. A supervisor “accommodated Ms. Stanley’s request by directing her to make arrangements with the other flight attendant on duty such that when a customer requests to be served alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request,” according an Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint Stanley filed last week.

For a while, all went well: “The requested accommodation does not interfere with Ms. Stanley’s performance, is a reasonable religious accommodation and has not caused any undue hardship upon ExpressJet,” according to her complaint.

Yet, in early August, an airline employee filed an internal complaint against Stanley. Stanley was not doing her job when refusing to serve alcohol, the employee alleged, also calling attention to Stanley’s “headdress” and a book she carried with “foreign writings.”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-to-serve-alcohol-files-federal-complaint/

I bolded the crux of it. If it was really a matter of her not doing her job, why complain about her headdress and "foreign writings"?

 

[Aella_]

Actually, the airline did accommodate her. There's more to the story.

"So, in June, she asked her supervisor at ExpressJet for a religious accommodation. Flight attendants have many responsibilities — getting passengers seated, performing safety demonstrations, checking overhead compartments. Would it be possible for one of Stanley’s colleagues to serve drinks while she did something else?

Yes, she was told. A supervisor “accommodated Ms. Stanley’s request by directing her to make arrangements with the other flight attendant on duty such that when a customer requests to be served alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request,” according an Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint Stanley filed last week.

For a while, all went well: “The requested accommodation does not interfere with Ms. Stanley’s performance, is a reasonable religious accommodation and has not caused any undue hardship upon ExpressJet,” according to her complaint.

Yet, in early August, an airline employee filed an internal complaint against Stanley. Stanley was not doing her job when refusing to serve alcohol, the employee alleged, also calling attention to Stanley’s “headdress” and a book she carried with “foreign writings.”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-to-serve-alcohol-files-federal-complaint/

I bolded the crux of it. If it was really a matter of her not doing her job, why complain about her headdress and "foreign writings"?

Uhmm, ouch. You're right.

 

[hazbeen]

Actually, the airline did accommodate her. There's more to the story.

"So, in June, she asked her supervisor at ExpressJet for a religious accommodation. Flight attendants have many responsibilities — getting passengers seated, performing safety demonstrations, checking overhead compartments. Would it be possible for one of Stanley’s colleagues to serve drinks while she did something else?

Yes, she was told. A supervisor “accommodated Ms. Stanley’s request by directing her to make arrangements with the other flight attendant on duty such that when a customer requests to be served alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request,” according an Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint Stanley filed last week.

For a while, all went well: “The requested accommodation does not interfere with Ms. Stanley’s performance, is a reasonable religious accommodation and has not caused any undue hardship upon ExpressJet,” according to her complaint.

Yet, in early August, an airline employee filed an internal complaint against Stanley. Stanley was not doing her job when refusing to serve alcohol, the employee alleged, also calling attention to Stanley’s “headdress” and a book she carried with “foreign writings.”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-to-serve-alcohol-files-federal-complaint/

I bolded the crux of it. If it was really a matter of her not doing her job, why complain about her headdress and "foreign writings"?

its understandable

It wasnt the Swedish tree fellers that CAUSED 9/11

 

[hazbeen]

I know you won't, but I'll ask anyway, cite?

I did

 

[chillywilly2]

So, now that the deliver boys don't have to deliver alcohol. can the trucking company advertise for truck drivers and specify, no Muslims need apply