Most conservatives have known from the start that when it comes to official government policy, Muslims would be given the upper hand while Christians would be oppressed. The latest example occurred today. After watching seven years worth of the Obama administration at work, there are numerous instances in which this assertion is confirmed by the facts. Although a plethora of cases that prove the point, the last three, including a decision today, are deserving of close scrutiny.
At issue in the latest example is a case in which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which represented the Obama administration, won a case for two Muslim truck drivers who sued their former employer for firing them on the basis of their refusal to deliver beer. A jury awarded the two $240,000 for being the victims of religious discrimination, although the Muslims were fully aware of the fact that their contract mandated making beer deliveries in addition to other goods. And it did not hurt for the Obama administration to get involved and take sides through its EEOC.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, however, stated that the actions taken by the administration in the case of the Muslim truck drivers is a far cry from the way it has treated Christians in the workplace. Two recent cases make it abundantly clear that the Obama administration will not afford Christians the same consideration as it did the two Muslims.
Napolitano states that the factors in the current case are very similar to that of Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Davis cited religious objections in the case. But so did the two Muslim truck drivers. Yet one, the Christian, was sent to jail and the others, the Muslims, were awarded $240,000 in damages due to fact that their religious objections were not accommodated. Davis’ religious objections were not accommodated either. Her ultimatum from the court was to issue the gay marriage licenses or go to jail.
Why, then, were the two Muslim truck drivers given special consideration even to the point that the Obama administration took up their cause in a court of law? Napolitano believes that the feds got involved in the Muslim case because it wanted to make a point. But what point? That people are not looked upon as equal under the law? That one religion in particular is to be preferred over another, with the blessing of the government?
The other case of relevance to this issue is that of the Christian bakery owner in Colorado who would not bake the wedding cake nor cater a gay wedding. The couple sued, and the owner lost his case in court, all because he wished to operate his business according to the dictates and beliefs of his Christian faith.
The key question, thus, is why is the Obama administration creating such hardship for Christians in court cases having to do with religious liberty. And why does the administration believe it is of urgent necessity to place such Christians at a distinct disadvantage even before their cases are heard in court.