Equal Protection Under The Law?

In one of my posts last week I briefly mentioned a story about two Muslim truck drivers who were dismissed from employment by Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Illinois. The two drivers both refused to transport alcohol based on their Muslim beliefs. The company apparently decided that if the drivers were going to pick and choose the loads they drove they (the company) didn't need them. And it seems to be to be the correct decision based on the business of that company.

Not so says the Obama administration. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is now suing Star Transport, Inc., for failing to accommodate the two drivers and their religious beliefs.

It's an interesting twist to the various other equal protection stories out there. Last year in Colorado a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a couple's gay wedding based on his Christian beliefs that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. The couple sued the baker and a judge ordered him to make the cake against his wishes and religious rights.

Also last year in New Mexico a photographer refused to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding based on her Christian beliefs. The couple sued her as well and won the initial ruling. That case is still pending appeal but it's not difficult to predict the outcome. New Mexico is a liberal state and Christians don't share the same religious protection as Muslims in Obama's America.

Liberals and atheists scoff that Christians are being persecuted in this country. Persecution may not be the correct word but there is a definite movement against Christianity by the left and equal protection of Christians' religious freedom rights is no longer guaranteed. The three cases mentioned above prove that decidedly.

As for the case brought against Star Transport by the EEOC, if the two drivers were not Muslim there would be no complaint. The company treated the two men like they would treat any other driver - if you refuse to perform the job you accepted you no longer have a job. If the two men would have been employed with the stipulation that they would not have to transport alcohol because of their beliefs then I could see their point. But if that understanding wasn't there from the beginning they should have no cause for complaint. It's simply another case of the government showing favoritism to Muslims.

There will be some who will say I'm a bigot, a homophobe, a racist or whatever because I believe these cases are all wrong. But equal protection of religious beliefs is supposed to mean equal for everyone. If the trucking company discriminated against the Muslims and their religious beliefs then the government discriminated against the baker and the photographer and theirs. Interestingly - the government is the only one who can get away with it.

I'll bring up, once again, a perfect example to illustrate my point. Imagine, if you will, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church entering a printing shop owned by a gay couple and asking them to make 15 signs that say "God Hates Homos." Would the printing shop have the right to refuse to make the signs? After all - the WBC is only acting on their religious beliefs. If the printing shop refuses to make the signs and the WBC sues them - who do you believe would win that lawsuit? In Obama's America I can tell you it wouldn't be the WBC. (And don't misunderstand - the WBC is a vile group of people who spread hate. But as a church they do have the right to believe as they wish.)

What do you suppose would happen if a gay couple went into a Muslim owned bakery and asked for a wedding cake? The Muslim baker would refuse based on Sharia law. The couple would most likely sue. But gee - who would win that one? You can't show partiality to both sides in a legal dispute. There would never be a winner.