Meat Plant Rightly Fires 200 Muslims Who Walked Out Over Prayer Dispute
“Tolerate us or else!” Homosexuals have been unusually successful in pushing their intolerance on 98 percent of the population. Defy their demand for tolerance, and they’ll sue you into oblivion.
Islam is equally intolerant in their demand for tolerance. They’ll also sue you or worse. The latest dustup is over prayer at a Colorado beef processing plant that pays them to work not pray on company time.
“A Cargill beef processing plant in Fort Morgan, Colo. has fired nearly 200 Somali Muslims who walked off the job last week in a dispute over the company’s accommodations of their prayer rituals.
“The workers’ complaints were vague, but seemed to center on the amount of space and time that Cargill had made available for them to pray at the meat plant, which is located in northeast Colorado. Devout Muslims pray five times a day.
“More than 200 workers, mostly Muslims from Somalia, either walked off the job before the second shift was set to begin at the plant on Dec. 21 or failed to show up to work the next day in protest of what they claimed were Cargill’s new, restrictive policies.” (H/T: Daily Caller).
This is a form of creeping Sharia. Accommodate us or else. Not satisfied with getting paid for work, now they want to be paid for praying. And it won’t stop with the prayer demand. If this accommodation is made, there will be a new demand, and another, and another.
We’ve seen this before. “Two Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol were recently awarded $240,000 by an Illinois judge, according to a press release by the EEOC.” Muslim taxi drivers have refused to transport passengers who are carrying alcohol.
“A few years ago, Muslim cab drivers working out of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were refusing to transport people carrying blind persons with guide dogs on religious grounds. The Muslim drivers also refused to serve people who were carrying duty free alcohol purchased at the airport.” (H/T: American Spectator)1
If it’s their own cab, they are free to make decisions like these, but not if they are driving the cab for a company that does not refuse service to people with guide dogs and alcohol.
Read related article: “Muslim Drivers Get Religious Freedom but Not Christian Bakers.”
Christians do not make demands like this because they don’t need special times, places, or postures to pray, and they understand the limits of personal religious convictions that they know are improper to impose on others. They can pray anywhere, any time, and in any position. There are times when posture is important in prayer, but it’s not necessary.
In addition, the vast majority of Christians would not impose their religious obligations on an employer who is paying them to do work for him. The Bible says that a “worker is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18; also see Lev. 19:13), but it does not say that an employer should be forced to accommodate his or her religious preferences and practices. If you don’t like the place that is paying you to work, then find another job or start your own business.
Can you imagine a Muslim-owned business accommodating Christians who want to hold Christian services or a Bible study at their workplace? I can’t.
Cargill actually sets aside a room for those who want a particular place to pray. “Employees typically pray during their 15-minute shift breaks or during their 30-minute lunch period. . . Cargill makes every reasonable attempt to provide religious accommodation to all employees based on our ability to do so without disruption to our beef processing business at Fort Morgan,” Cargill spokesman Mike Martin said. (H/T: Daily Caller)
The ultimate goal of these Muslims is to force Islamic religious law on the United States. It remains to be seen how the courts rule on this case. The EEOC is an un-regulated regulatory agency with tremendous power, and the courts are unpredictable and getting more and more irrational.
- I disagree with the author of this article when he compares these two examples with a baker refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. The bakers did not refuse to bake a cake. They refused to bake a cake with a particular message in the same way that a black-owned bakery would be within its rights not to bake a cake for a KKK-themed wedding. [↩]