If you’re a couple of Muslim truck drivers and refuse to do your job of hauling beer for religious reasons, you’re awarded $240,000. But if you’re a Christian baker and refuse to bake a particular cake for religious reasons you are sued, forced out of business and fined beyond reason. And the same source is responsible for both outcomes – the Obama administration. In the case of the truck drivers, the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stepped in and won the case for them. In the second, this same administration prosecuted the bakers to the fullest extent of the law, reports BizPac Review Tuesday.
Following the jury’s decision, the EEOC released a statement saying, “We are proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices,” the statement said. “It’s fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.” Apparently this sentiment does not apply to a Christian baker who declined to decorate a same-sex wedding cake because to do so would violate his religious belief.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst said on “The Kelly File” Monday that “it’s unfortunate when a government interferes in a private dispute.” He added, “I don’t like the idea of the government getting involved.” Napolitano pointed out that when it does, it in effect “picks winners and losers” in private disputes.
Because the Muslim drivers knew when they accepted the job they would be delivering alcoholic beverages, Napolitano believes this case was a setup. “The way the feds intervened in the case, they wanted this case because they wanted to make the point that they’ve now made,” Judge Napolitano said.
According to the Universal Free Press Sunday, the basis for the claim is a supposed religious violation that was argued would have existed had the Muslims come into contact with alcohol, a commodity very common in over-the-road driving. While good in theory, there’s a problem with the real scenario.
Alcohol is normally transported on pallets, shrink-wrapped, inside bottles which are cushioned inside boxes and taped shut. The chance of contact with an offensive liquid is non-existent, baring a crash and in that instance, the driver is in an individual tractor, separated from the trailer. The “risk” is minimal and something they accepted when they accepted employment.
As Rick Wells of UFP points out, “Removing personal responsibility from the individual and shifting it to their employer is not a protection of their religious freedom it is a sanctioning of idiocy. Nobody strapped an explosive device to their mid-section and ordered these two to drive. It was a position they studied for, practiced for, obtained a license for and engaged in a contract with their employer to perform without any pre-agreed exceptions as to the product they would transport.”
Fox News Insider has reported that critics have pointed out that the Obama administration takes a different position when it comes to defending Christians’ religious liberty, since the drivers’ argument was similar to the one made by Kim Davis when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The drivers were rewarded, while Kim Davis went to jail.
It’s would seem that Napolitano would be right to question why the EEOC chose to represent workers in a situation like this, in which they were outwardly, openly representing Muslims who knew before they accepted the job that they would be delivering alcoholic beverages. The case was obviously won on behalf of the Obama administration.