Bringing Sharia In Through the Back Door?

EEOC sides with two Muslim truck drivers who refused to deliver loads containing alcohol. Eugene Volokh say no, but I think Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs gets this exactly right. This is a common practice used by the political left to enshrine things that would never pass muster in a election. Via perhaps the greatest pure legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy:

That’s the argument made in EEOC v. Star Transport Co. (C.D. Ill. filed May 29, 2013), a lawsuit brought by the EEOC on behalf of two employees, Mahad Abass Mahamed and Abdikarim Hassan Bulshale. (Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.)Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) condemns this, writing, among other things,

Islamic supremacists chip, chip, chip away at the establishment clause, and in doing so, impose Islam on the secular marketplace. Muslim lawsuits against Hertz, Wal-Mart, Target, Disney and a host of other American businesses for special rights, special accommodation have been largely successful creating a special rights for a special class of people — which is an accordance with Islam (in which Muslims are superior to the kuffar). But it goes against every American tenet of individual rights and separation of mosque and state. Someone ought to remind the EEOC that their name is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Equal as in no special rights for any particular class.

Others make similar arguments (see, e.g., herehere, and here).

The responsibility, however, lies not in the EEOC, but in the Congress, specifically in the Congress that in 1972 required employers to make “reasonable accommodations” that exempt religious objectors from generally applicable work rules. I summarize some of the general rules imposed by federal religious accommodation law here, but the brief summary is this: An employer must give religious employees special exemptions from generally applicable job requirements if (1) the requirements interfere with an employee’s sincerely felt religious obligations and (2) such an exemption doesn’t impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). As one might gather, this was not enacted at the behest of “Islamic supremacists,” though other religious groups certainly did support this.

Remember that Muslim cab drivers have been denying service to people with seeing-eye dogs.

8 thoughts on “Bringing Sharia In Through the Back Door?

  1. If the “Right” had any balls/sense, they would take ALL these cases to the Supreme Court and DEMAND the Court either strike down mandate support for abortion — EVEN THROUGH TAXES — or strike down ALL of this support for islam. And, if the court refused, OPENLY DECLARE THE COURT IN REBELLION TO THE CONSTITUTION AND — THERTEFORE — NULL AND VOID!

  2. U.S. Constitution
    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    “The responsibility, however, lies not in the EEOC, but in the Congress, specifically in the Congress that in 1972 required employers to make “reasonable accommodations” that exempt religious objectors from generally applicable work rules.”

    Congress passed laws/rules which RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION….

  3. I agree with You 100 % on this Utah and with Pam Geller.

    I’m not sure what I think about the Volokh conclusion. It seems pretty clear there is a Strategem to undermine the US via its’ Freedoms and Using the Constitution to do it. Is Volokh saying it is ok, because it is all according to “The Law” ? In this case the 1972 Congressional determination ?

    So basically it will be OK if we are destroyed from within as long as it’s done by utilizing the Legal Game. Because why ? Because this legitimizes the Legal Game that has been used to undermine the Constitution by Western Progressives since the late 19th Century ?

    • Don,
      Did you miss my point? The 1972 law by Congress violates the 1st amendment by “respecting an establishment of religion” over others’.

      The 1972 EEOC law is Un-Constitutional = Illegal = void …

      • No no Texas I didn’t at all … it was a good point.

        That is kind of what I meant by The “Legal Game”…… the 1972 EEOC law being an example of my last sentence..”….Because this legitimizes the Legal Game that has been used to undermine the Constitution by Western Progressives since the late 19th Century ?”

        What I’m questioning is Volokh’s take on this…..and most especially WHY does he take it that way. He seems to be arguing in favor of ruling favorably for the mohameddans BECAUSE of the Illegal 1972 law.

        It reminds me of Justice Roberts and his ruling on Obamacare….as a tax. Even AFTER arguments prior that had disallowed considerations of TAX for the ACA. Because the Illegal ObamaCare law ( original argument being tied to the Commerce Clause) somehow HAD to be “saved” because it was passed by Congress.

        .

        • Obama argued “not a tax” because the case was not “ripe” because the mandates were not required to be paid yet, and therefore, under all previous tax law, the case would have had to be dismissed if the mandate was a tax. The State’s argued “mandate” because never before in the history of the US had a “mandate” been found Constitutional, as it still is not.

          Roberts ruled Obamacare a tax and instead of following all previous case law and dismissing the case after ruling it a tax because the case wasn’t “ripe’ yet; Roberts “found” obamacare Constitutional, because a “mandate” is clearly not Constitutional.

          Nevermind, obamacare originated in the Senate AND this little Gem from
          The Constitution
          Article I. Section. 7.
          All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
          http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

          And see my previous post:
          https://therionorteline.com/2012/12/29/constitution-all-bills-for-raising-revenue-shall-originate-in-the-house/

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.