The sign was put up by the manager (or assistant manager) of one particular store because of a Muslim teenager they had hired as a cashier. The teenager told the manager she was uncomfortable handling those items because of her religious beliefs. So the store accommodated her.
What's the big deal, you ask? Why not accommodate the girl's Muslim beliefs? She's only one girl.
That's kind of the point. She's only one girl. And she took a job at a store that sells pork products and alcohol - knowing ahead of time that chances were she'd have to handle them. But instead of telling her she must abide by the standards by which she was hired, the manager decided to make an exception for her. I wonder - if one of his Christian employees had said "I'm not comfortable handling alcohol due to my Christian beliefs" - would that manager have made a second sign? Or perhaps if a Jewish employee objected to handling pork products? I think we all know the answer to those question.
When people complained to the store's headquarters they got the following response:
"It is not Wegmans’ policy to permit signage like this for any religious or lifestyle reason. The decision to post the sign was made at store level by a single employee, and it has since been reversed. The sign has been removed. We have coached the store on other ways they could have addressed the concerns of this employee, who knew when she took the job that it would include handling these products. We apologize if this has offended anyone."
At least the store recognizes the problem of accommodating only certain people or certain religious beliefs.
The reason this is important is because of another case in Illinois that made headlines earlier this year. Star Transport Trucking Company was sued by the federal government for violating the religious rights of two Muslim employees who took driving/delivery jobs and then refused to transport alcohol products because of their Muslim beliefs. The two employees were fired for refusing to honor their contracts.
Enter the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They are suing the company for "failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them." Apparently in today's world employees get to dictate to the employer what they will and will not do rather than the other way around. The suit is still pending a decision.
What I find interesting is how the government and the courts, both federal and local, will bend over backward to accommodate Muslims who cry religious discrimination but will rule against Christians nearly every time if the situation is reversed.
The Obama administration passed the Affordable Care Act that mandated employers - all employers regardless of their religious beliefs - provide birth control and abortifacient medications through their employee-assisted health care plans - even if providing those services and medications violated their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby, a corporation owned and operated by Christians whose Christians values are part of their charter, sued the federal government for a waiver from that requirement, based on their beliefs. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United with the Obama administration not only saying Christian corporations had no religious right to object to these mandates but also vilifying such Hobby Lobby and other such corporations with lies about them denying health care to women.
Fortunately, in this particular case, the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) ruled in favor of Christian religious rights and said the Obama administration cannot compel a corporation to provide abortifacient medications if it violates the religious beliefs of the corporation. (And contrary to the rhetoric from the left - the only thing Hobby Lobby objected to financing was the abortifacient medications. They did not object to other forms of birth control.)
In the last couple of years, several state Supreme Courts have ruled against the religious rights of Christians in their operation of small businesses. A bakery in Colorado, a photographer in New Mexico, and most recently the owners of a small farm in New York, were all sued over their refusals to provide services to same sex couples wanting to get married. The bakery refused to make a cake for a same sex wedding citing their Christian/Biblical beliefs in heterosexual marriage. The photographer refused to photograph a same sex wedding citing Christian/Biblical beliefs. And the owners of the farm said they would host a reception for a same sex couple but could not host the actual wedding - also based on their Christian/Biblical beliefs in heterosexual marriage.
In all three cased the local and then the state Supreme Courts ruled against the Christian businesses. What do you suppose would have happened if a same sex Muslim couple would have asked a Muslim baker to make a cake for their wedding, or asked a Muslim photographer to shoot their wedding, and they were refused? If the couple lived long enough to take the case to court you can bet the businesses would prevail because today's courts are afraid to rule against Muslims.
The politically correct left in this country doesn't realize they are helping Muslims take away the rights of all Americans, including those on the left. In the name of "tolerance" they allow Islam to get away with more and more. Are they (those on the left) paying attention to the fact that homosexuality is prohibited and even carries a death sentence under Sharia law? Do they understand that women have no rights under Sharia law? The more they give in to the demands of Muslims in this country the closer they are to losing their own rights. When businesses can be forced by the court to accommodate Muslims while being told they, as Christians, have no rights, there is something terribly wrong in America.
I only hope Americans will wake up to the truth about Islam before it's too late. Unlike American liberals - Muslims to not tolerate. Whatever violates their beliefs the destroy.
No comments:
Post a Comment