Muslim Flight Attendant Refuses To Serve Alcohol
So, this is what it’s come to. You take a job and then impose your religious beliefs to decide what you will or will not do, even though you knew what the job entailed when you took it. The flight attendant is fighting her suspension.
In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.
Flight attendant investigated for photos on tarmac
She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith — just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.
“What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it’s incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,” said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
Mike September 7th, 2015 at 10:09
My new Satanic beliefs demand I sacrifice a virgin every Friday night at midnight, but I work the graveyard shift…can I get an exemption…???
rg9rts September 7th, 2015 at 10:21
Like the moron county clerk…get another job…You knew what was required before.
Budda September 7th, 2015 at 10:29
No sympathy from me.
My Dad always used to say; “if you want sympathy look in the dictionary between sex and syphilis”…I didn’t get it until I was about 12.
Jack E Raynbeau September 7th, 2015 at 10:57
Is your dad’s name Harry Dunn? He used to always say that.
BigDumbWhiteGuy September 7th, 2015 at 11:20
I always thought it was between sh*t and syphilis.
Suzanne McFly September 7th, 2015 at 10:32
You can have you religious rights in you house of worship or your own residence, but once you are in a public arena you religious rights are limited. A person cannot enforce their beliefs on others and when you take a job, you are to fulfill the requirements or not apply. That is like a truck driver who doesn’t know how to drive or a Doctor who does not approve of handing our pharmaceuticals. We cannot cave into these types, we are not a theocracy.
jybarz September 7th, 2015 at 10:35
I read this somewhere else which said she became a Muslim awhile after she got the job. The airline tried to accommodate her by letting others serve the alcohol whenever possible like when there is extra staff. However, there were times when there is no extra staff and so she had to do the serving of alcohol and she refuses. As serving alcohol has been and will always be part of the job she took, and her newfound religion prohibits her doing it, I think it is justified to suspend or let her go.
anothertoothpick September 7th, 2015 at 10:52
Like Kim Davis, Ms. Stanley is not a victim of the system. They are both victims of their beliefs.
Jack E Raynbeau September 7th, 2015 at 10:58
Do you suppose Huckabee will support her?
Tommie September 7th, 2015 at 11:18
That is a good point with her being Muslim and all, will they actually see eye to eye?
mrbigstuff September 7th, 2015 at 11:52
No
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 13:21
damnit. you beat me to it.
LindaRobin September 7th, 2015 at 15:47
Of course Fuckabee won’t support the Muslim airline hostess. She’s a Muslim, and the only religious freedom he defends is fundamentalist fake Christian.
Tommie September 7th, 2015 at 11:21
I am surprised there was no riot when she wouldn’t serve alcohol on that plane!
BigDumbWhiteGuy September 7th, 2015 at 11:27
Perhaps the airline could move her into a position where serving of alcohol would not be a problem. Otherwise, she knew what her job entailed when she took it, and she converted to Islam while holding this position and knew of the potential conflict. Her employer is required to make “reasonable” accommodations, not every accommodation.
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 11:46
whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist etc etc etc I fully support your right to pray to whomever and whatever you believe in.
if your religion prevents you from fulfilling all of the lawful obligations of your job, either find another job or find another religion.
thank you.
granpa.usthai September 7th, 2015 at 12:01
please read above for the ultimately superior religion.
all are welcome to join (except Sara)
and peace is the champion.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 12:30
Agreed. Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses, Charlee Stanley should serve alcohol, and Barack Obama should enforce federal laws regarding marijuana and immigration.
wpadon September 7th, 2015 at 12:40
The war on drugs have been as effective as prohibition was on alcohol. It only makes criminals wealthy and our streets less safe.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 13:14
Kim Davis and Charlee Stanley are just following Obama’s example of disregarding rules or laws that they don’t like. Nobody is above the law. If you don’t like a law, work to get it changed. Meanwhile, obey and enforce it. Otherwise, people will have no respect for the law.
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 13:21
dumb da da dumb dumb. you people.
Anomaly 100 September 7th, 2015 at 13:22
Is it cozy inside that bubble you live in?
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 13:28
Is it cozy living with double standards?
Anomaly 100 September 7th, 2015 at 13:46
I like how you deflect each topic. Thing is, this subject is not about weed – a thing which should certainly be legal anyway.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 13:51
I am not deflecting at all. You just missed my point. Obama selectively enforces laws because he believes in a higher authority. He believes that his opinions trump the law. So he is setting a bad example that Kim Davis and Charlee Stanley are following. How can you expect them to follow the rules and laws that apply to them while applauding Obama for flipping the bird at duly passed legislation?
MBJR September 7th, 2015 at 15:11
Well all I can say, Obama was voted in twice so I guess some people like his opinion. Next
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 15:14
Bush was also voted in twice. Next.
MBJR September 7th, 2015 at 16:11
Ouch! Lmao! Boy Howdy! That worked out swimmingly.
Anomaly 100 September 7th, 2015 at 15:44
Wrong again. You are adding a topic which is not even in the post. “Whaaaa, but Obummer does this other thing and I don’t like itttttttt!”
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 15:52
happens every damn time.
Anomaly 100 September 7th, 2015 at 16:33
At least he’s consistent.
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 18:05
hahahaha
Suzanne McFly September 7th, 2015 at 16:48
I guess in Roberts world, the right no longer is pro states rights?!?!?! That changes so many of their stances on issues, I wonder if the rest of the right wing nuts have been given this information.
Anomaly 100 September 7th, 2015 at 17:33
And how in the hell did he bring marijuana into the thread?
Suzanne McFly September 7th, 2015 at 18:58
Well you know that is the Devil’s drug, makes you all chill and sometimes you even get hungry. What the hell, at least alcohol makes you want to shoot guns and act manly.
Anomaly 100 September 7th, 2015 at 19:01
Sounds really EVIL!
Suzanne McFly September 7th, 2015 at 19:17
Yeah, I once knew someone who knew someone’s else’s cousin that heard about someone else’s uncle who knew someone……lol
LindaRobin September 7th, 2015 at 15:45
Yes, you are deflecting and refuse to acknowledge the reality that the powers of the presidency are far different from those of a county clerk in Assholeville, Kentucky.
MBJR September 7th, 2015 at 13:48
No it is not cozy living with double standards. I agree with you, the religious right has the market cornered on double standards. Sickening isn’t it?
wpadon September 7th, 2015 at 13:23
President Obama issued legal executive orders on immigration. Any President can change those actions with an executive order of their own. Just as GWB had purity tests for federal attorneys like Mary Beth Buchanan, who in 8 years tried two cases, one for mailing legal pornography and the other to put Tommy Chong in jail for selling bongs.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 13:30
Sanctuary cities are a blatant violation of federal law.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:48
talk to the states
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 13:51
why when they can just shout out Obama.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:53
talk to the states like Texas who builds shelters and office spaces for them and vetoed e-verify…or stfu
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 13:57
wait what? um, why are you getting pissy with me?
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 14:01
That was for robert, sorry about that sweetie, I would never be rude to you.
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 14:02
i was like, whoa wait, what did i do? lol. understood.
wpadon September 7th, 2015 at 16:39
Please explain to me how President Obama has anything to do with a city passing a law that is in effect within their border. If you think President Obama should withhold federal money to these cities, where should he stop? Should he withhold medicaid money to states that want to stop paying businesses operating legally?
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 16:47
Oh, that’s an easy one. The woman who refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was arrested for failure to perform her duties. Just send a memo to all police departments reiterating their duty to detain illegal immigrants until ICE picks them up. Abrogation of this duty is a punishable offense. Federal law trumps local law. Of course no police chiefs will be locked up, because they will gladly perform the duty that their local officials are trying to thwart.
wpadon September 7th, 2015 at 18:02
That is all very nice in theory, here in Pittsburgh, the police union has a history of not taking advice from the Federal Government on how to do their job. If the police pull you over here, they will crawl though every orifice on your car and possibly yourself. They will run the numbers on your stickers and leave no stone unturned. They are going to make it worth their time. They could give you a warning if they want, no questions asked. You will not dictate how they will do their job. Pittsburgh is on their third Police Chief in the last two and a half years. The city recently promoted one officer to Lieutenant after a history of beating protesters while he worked as a Sargent.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 18:49
Okay, but what’s the alternative? Do you want the city to have MORE autonomy? It sounds like you’re arguing in FAVOR of cities being bound by federal law. That’s the same thing I am arguing for. Pittsburgh police and Pittsburgh elected officials should NOT get to make their own rules that violate federal laws. That would rule out the trouble you are talking about, and it would rule out sanctuary cities. Do we really have a disagreement here?
maggie September 9th, 2015 at 13:59
thanks for the upvote have a great day…cute puppy ;)
OldLefty September 18th, 2015 at 09:08
I am also from Pittsburgh.
Don’t forget Jordan Miles.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:48
the President lives in your teenie tiny head rent free
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 13:50
hi tracey sweetie. how’ve you been?
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:53
I have been good, lot’s of fun this wkend. today will be quiet and peacful. How about you?
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 14:00
i was fine (outside of being a little sick) until you just told me to STFU.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 14:00
Not you, when did I do that?
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 14:00
check below. lol.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 14:01
I saw and apologized, wrong person
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 14:03
yeah. i figured as much. no problem my sister friend.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 16:44
better not be :)
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 18:03
tight hug…;)
LindaRobin September 7th, 2015 at 15:43
Bullshit. Your comment is total bullshit.
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 16:25
agreed. Robert’s argument is complete bullsh*t.
unfortunate since he is one of the few relatively reasonable conservatives who visit this forum.
but when even he has to rely on the far right wing talk radio talking point list, it is a strong indicator that there is zero merit to the argument.
Suzanne McFly September 7th, 2015 at 16:44
I have to admit I am confused by Roberts stance. I thought the right supported states rights?
Bunya September 7th, 2015 at 13:29
It sounds like you have a real problem with this president. I wonder why that is? It must be his nasty stance on promoting peace in the middle east, the drop in unemployment under his watch (which, BTW in case you hadn’t noticed, he kept us safe for over seven years) and the ever-unpopular ACA.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 13:36
I also had a real problem with Bush. I have high standards. You should too.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:47
you have no standards.
LindaRobin September 7th, 2015 at 15:42
Methinks you are a liar. You have zero standards and all you can do is say nasty things about President Obama. The fact that what you say has nothing at all to do with fact and reality makes little difference to you and your ilk.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:47
shut up asshole
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 13:54
This is how liberals respond when they have nothing intelligent to say.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:59
I will make a deal with you AH, say something intelligent and we will have a discussion, ‘kay?
Lyndia September 8th, 2015 at 01:04
All of his LONG, DRAWN OUT, chit makes me tired.
tracey marie September 8th, 2015 at 11:09
He has good points to make sometimes but his hate and bigotry gets in the way.
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 14:30
The executive branch of government at all levels has always had the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion.
Kim Davis and Charlee Stanely have no legal context for exercising discretion in which of their job duties they will perform.
A President exercising his lawful authority in a manner that you personally disagree with is decidedly not the same thing as these women refusing to do their jobs.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 14:34
Can the president make fraud and theft legal? How about assault? Cocaine use? Perjury?
Obama’s planned action perverts the meaning of the legal doctrine.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393094/no-prosecutorial-discretion-does-not-justify-obamas-lawless-amnesty-andrew-c-mccarthy
LindaRobin September 7th, 2015 at 15:40
You are full of crap.
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 16:10
Opinion pieces prove nothing other than the opinion of the person who wrote the article. I have no doubt that a few minutes of googling will reveal any number of equally qualified legal experts who will dispute the contentions of the article you cite.
Moreover, comparing the President’s actions to legalizing fraud and theft is ridiculous and unfortunately typical of the nonsensical false equivalence “arguments” from the political right.
No the President cannot unilaterally legalize theft and no one who supports the President is in any way is saying this. So the very first sentence of the article you cite, is pure unadulterated bullsh*t.
In rebuttal to the opinion hit piece from a source whose mission in life is to villify everything the President does, here is this article from what most would agree is a far more objective, accurate summation of the concept of prosecutorial discretion.
Note the characterization of the authority of prosecutorial discretion as absolute and unreviewable. Yes, the President and the Justice Dept have broad authority to do their jobs in a manner that you and other conservatives personally dislike.
Anyone who equates that with “legalizing theft” either has no interest in a serious debate on prosecutorial discretion, or is more interested in partisan attacks than the truth.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html
The term “prosecutorial discretion” refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges. This authority provides the essential underpinning to the prevailing practice of plea bargaining, and guarantees that American prosecutors are among the most powerful of public officials. It also provides a significant opportunity for leniency and mercy in a system that is frequently marked by broad and harsh criminal laws, and, increasingly in the last decades of the twentieth century, by legislative limitations on judges’ sentencing discretion.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 16:32
Let’s cut to the chase. The woman who refused to serve alcohol failed to comply with a rule, and the woman who refuses gay marriage licenses is refusing to comply with a law. Whenever somebody does that and gets away with it, other people notice. This tends to decrease the public’s willingness to comply with reasonable rules and laws.
When people disagree with a law, the correct response is to build public support for changing the law. That requires changing hearts and minds. In Ireland they just legalized same-sex marriage, and it was overwhelmingly supported by the public. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. First you change public opinion, and then you change the laws. But you don’t simply ignore existing laws just because you think you are doing the right thing, as our president and other leaders are doing with our drug laws and immigration laws. If Obama can choose not to enforce these laws, then a future president Trump could just as easily choose not to enforce anti-trust laws or worker protection laws. We have to hold these people accountable. We have to demand that they obey and enforce the existing laws. Because if they don’t, then all laws will be toothless and we will have anarchy.
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 16:59
So all of all the leaders of the executive branch of government at all levels of jursidiction over the past uncounted decades who have exercised their prosecutorial discretion, only President Obama’s use of the same authority will lead to the downfall of our republic.
Can’t help but be reminded of the complaint about Mr. Obama going on vacation too much costing taxpayers to operate Air Force 1, when George W. Bush was on vacation twice as long. In other words it is more of the same BS; e.g. who does this Barack Obama think he is, the President of the United States
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 17:24
Just for fun, let’s contrast Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
Bush Sr. had decades of experience in Washington, first in the CIA and then as VP. He cultivated good relationships with many world leaders. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Bush Sr. spent many months building a coalition of nations that united to defeat Saddam. That’s the kind of consensus building that I am talking about. First you build and maintain relationships so that when something comes up, people will know and trust you. Then when something happens, you go back to those people with a plan and ask for their support. The first part (relationship building) is proactive. The second part (getting support for a plan) is reactive. Good leadership is both proactive and reactive. Both parts take a lot of time and effort.
Bush Jr. wasn’t in office very long when 9/11 happened, so he didn’t have a lot of time for relationship building. But that’s the problem with electing a greenie like Bush Jr. or Obama. Bush Sr. had already built those relationships over many decades. If 9/11 had occurred on Bush Sr’s first day in office, he would have already been much better prepared than Bush Jr.
It may surprise you to know that if the election came down to Trump vs. Biden, I would probably vote for Biden. It might also surprise you to know that I do not believe in term limits. I think that Obama should be running for re-election right now. I think it would make him a better president if he needed to care about getting re-elected.
Can you imagine if doctors and dentists were term-limited? Would you rather go to a brand new dentist to get a root canal, or one who has been doing them for a few years? I served on my local school board many years ago, and I quickly learned that in order to make good decisions, you have to learn a lot. Ben Carson says that he doesn’t need experience because he is a fast learner. I think he is vastly underestimating the amount of things he would need to know, and vastly underestimating the importance of “relationships of mutual trust” with foreign leaders as well as congressional leaders.
Biden often puts his foot in his mouth, and I don’t agree with a lot of his positions, but I think he is a man of good will who has put in his time and developed the relationships and skills needed to be effective. I will never understand why Dianne Feinstein hasn’t run for president, because she also fits that description. She and Joe would be steady at the helm because they have decades of experience and have avoided scandals.
Bush Jr. and Obama are lightweights compared to Bush Sr. POTUS is a big job. Neither of them was really ready. Both learned on the job. Both became unbearable in their second terms. I’d like to see the term limit abolished. Angela Merkel has been chancellor of Germany since 2005 and she has guided her country through some pretty tough issues. If she can handle 10+ years, why couldn’t a US president?
fahvel September 8th, 2015 at 04:56
bush the older had a plan to hit iraq 6+ months before the kuwaity thing which was engineered by the cia.
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 17:07
Brown v Board of Education did not wait for a change of heart by the general public, and rightly so.
I am happy that the referendum in Ireland passed. But in that context, here in this country, we do not vote on whether or not certain people have the same rights as the rest of us.
Do you want people voting on your right to marry, or vote or own a firearm based on your personal, completely legal, lifestyle choices?
If not, then why would you expect gay people in this country to put up with the nonsense of other people deciding whom they can marry?
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 17:32
“Brown v Board of Education did not wait for a change of heart by the general public, and rightly so.”
Wasn’t public opinion already in favor of equality, with just a few pockets holding out? I was born in 1960, so I am just going on vague recollections from History class.
fahvel September 8th, 2015 at 04:55
you’re too youngto be such a jerk – what happened?
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 18:01
shut up already, we get it you hate the President and are stuck on stuttering and deflecting
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 16:36
and more on point is actual American case law such as this opinion written by none other than Antonin Scalia.
this opinion which by default becomes a foundation of American law, is to me, far more credible than the opinion of someone being paid by a right wing propaganda outlet.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1741861529469321635&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
We have stated that, at least in certain contexts, the Attorney General’s exercise of discretion under § 1252(a)(1) requires “some level of individualized determination.” NCIR, 502 U. S., at 194; see also Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S., at 538. But as NCIR itself demonstrates, this does not mean that the Service must forswear use of reasonable presumptions and generic rules. See 502 U. S., at 196, n. 11; cf. Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 467 (1983). In the case of each detained alien juvenile, the INS makes those determinations that are specific to the individual and necessary to accurate application of the regulation: Is there reason to believe the alien deportable? Is the alien under 18 years of age? Does the alien have an available 314*314 adult relative or legal guardian? Is the alien’s case so exceptional as to require consideration of release to someone else? The particularization and individuation need go no further than this.[9]
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 16:51
Of course the term “discretion” implies that the official can and should exercise good judgment. I happen to think that Obama is exercising extremely poor judgment. I think it has reached the point of blatant disregard for the spirit and intent of the law. We’re talking about entire cities disregarding the immigration laws, and entire states disregarding the marijuana laws. Suppose an entire city or state tried to ignore the civil rights laws. Does the name George Wallace ring a bell?
arc99 September 7th, 2015 at 17:05
yes the name George Wallavce does ring a bell.
he was the governor of Alabama who had no legal discretionary power to ignore a federal court order.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 17:39
Yes, so where do sanctuary cities get the legal authority to ignore federal immigration law, and where does Colorado get the legal authority to ignore federal drug laws?
Lyndia September 7th, 2015 at 23:17
Robert, what you think is immaterial. Obama, is the president, period, dot.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 23:35
What a ridiculous response. Suppose Mitt Romney were president and you didn’t like his approach, and I said “Lyndia, what you think is immaterial. Romney is the president.”. Your opinion would certainly NOT be immaterial. You would have every right to voice your dissatisfaction. And so do I.
fahvel September 8th, 2015 at 04:52
thedipsht lost – get it? the mormonian lost!
fahvel September 8th, 2015 at 04:51
wrong, it’s not what he thinks it’s him!!!!!!
Lyndia September 7th, 2015 at 23:15
How did you get from the woman that refused to serve alcohol to Obama? The president has been elected TWICE. You are a part of a vocal MINORITY, get over it.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 23:41
“You are a part of a vocal MINORITY, get over it.”
So minorities have no right to voice their concerns? Hmmm…..
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 23:50
i love it that he lives in your head 24/7.
Robert M. Snyder September 7th, 2015 at 23:53
So do you! SMOOCH!
Lyndia September 8th, 2015 at 00:59
Concerns? You people have been crying for almost 8 years. YES, get over it. In 2016, there will be a new president.
whatthe46 September 8th, 2015 at 01:13
then we’ll have to hear them cry for 8 more years when another democrat is in the WH. lol.
fahvel September 8th, 2015 at 04:50
only stupid narrow minded minorities – you know like people who like fleas or bed bugs and, of course, you.
The Original Just Me September 9th, 2015 at 00:19
Every time you reply to this piece of a** wipe, he makes money. He is a paid for poster. He escaped from his roll hanging by the Toilet. Ignore him.
fahvel September 8th, 2015 at 04:46
my my, I thought the asshole comment was perfect -it fits your point of view perfectly -see the globe through puckered lips.
Robert Smithson September 7th, 2015 at 22:59
Boy, you sure like to call other people names. Why can’t you be civil with others who have a different viewpoint?
LindaRobin September 7th, 2015 at 15:39
You are raising a straw man argument. But, that is about all right wing, racist Obama haters can do is raise straw man arguments. Nice try, but we got’cha.
Robert Smithson September 7th, 2015 at 22:57
So the President shouldn’t have to enforce all the laws on that books that he swore an oath to? That’s anarchy!
granpa.usthai September 7th, 2015 at 11:58
as a Reformed Thrice Makeitupasyougoalongist it’s against my just now made up stuff (the really top priority religious) for there to be no movement by anything except during the 30 seconds allowed per 24 hour period. NOBODY or ANYTHING respects my now REFORMED TWICE just made up stuff even though I have been more than accommodating to this planet. Is it only the DEAD that will show respect for my religious belief? Being that the DEAD show no disrespect to other religions and respect for mine, would the planet and all things that move upon it be better off DEAD? -and would that then make my religion superior to all others?
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 13:46
Nope, do your job or leave, period.
Marla R. Stevens September 7th, 2015 at 17:13
The law allows for reasonable accommodations. In the past, flight attendants have been permitted to split up duties so that one does not have to serve alcohol. If, however, she were the only one on the plane, she would have to serve it. The accommodations have to be of little cost to the company and not prove too onerous. The law is different for an elected official, who must, absent some other law, put their duties above their personal beliefs.
tracey marie September 7th, 2015 at 17:58
Nope, she has to serve alcohol if she is needed to. reasonable accomidations if possible, she needs to do her jobe or quit
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 20:21
no one is asking her ass to drink it. so, if for a meal they are serving pork, will she refuse to serve that as well?
CandideThirtythree September 7th, 2015 at 19:45
So she is going to make the only other attendant do all the work while she sits around collecting a paycheck?
Robert Smithson September 7th, 2015 at 22:55
But why? There are other county clerk’s offices throughout the state where homosexuals can get their licenses, so why can’t we be fair and tolerant and respect the Christian woman and her religious belief’s? After all, this issue (religion) was so important to the Founders that they included it in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
whatthe46 September 8th, 2015 at 16:20
they don’t have to do a damn thing to accomodate her hyprocracy and bigotry. she should respectful of the laws of the land. and since she can’t she needs to give up her job to someone who can. she can practice her “religion” all she wants, just not at tax payers expense. she is employed by the govt. and is being paid by the very people she wishes to discriminate against. no one has to do anything to apease her ass. GTFOH!!!
whatthe46 September 8th, 2015 at 16:25
“The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
Merlin September 7th, 2015 at 14:15
Wow, just wow….I am an Atheist, I believe in NO organized religion. What ever my job, I refuse and should never have to deal with, serve or cater to anyone who worships an idol. This includes fans of teen age Pop singers!….S/
OldBoatingGuy September 7th, 2015 at 14:43
It’s about time that, “ALL People from ALL Religions” respect and honor the FACT that America is a “SECULAR NATION”.
Putting aside all the MYTHS and MISINFORMATION, America was founded by religious people of many different Christ based religions when they were younger, but as adults preferred a more “DEISTIC over THEISTIC” ideology and therefore constructed our Constitution accordingly. Our Founding Fathers understood the need to create a “RELIGION NEUTRAL” country yet not interfere with a person’s right to freely practice their religion; in their place of worship, their home, and in their heart. The real issue today is Chris based religious believers demanding that non-believers respect and exercise “their” religious ideology and follow “their” Christian belief system over the Civil Laws in our SECULAR SOCIETY (especially in public and, “on the town square”).
For example, all this crap about Christianity being under attack in America is just that … Crap!! Frankly it’s actually America under attack by Christianity. When you ask Christians for a few examples of what they mean by “under attack” they explain they are prohibited from putting their Christian Law (GOD’S Law and the Bible) before our Constitution and Civil Laws (“Daaaaaa”). They want Biblical law intertwined with our Civil Law, but that Biblical law and GOD’S law to be superior. They want; The Ten Commandments displayed all over the place in public, They want copies of the Old & New Testament freely available in government facilities. They want only a Christmas Tree and Crèche placed in our schools and in our government buildings during the month of December. They want our text books to replace Evolution and Science with Creationism and Religion. They want their Christian ideology of “when life begins” (at the moment of conception) to be the law over what a Non-Believers ideology says “when life begins” (at the moment the baby exits the birth canal and enters the world alive) so they can control a woman’s right to choose if she needs an abortion, or wants to use contraceptive drugs. They want to define what marriage is even though marriage in America is first a “SECULAR EVENT” before a religious event. Christ based believes simply want “it all their way” and including all the BIGOTRY that goes with it.
The county clerk, Kim Davis, an “Elected SECULAR Government Official” claims her religious beliefs prohibit her from fulfilling all her job duties (issue marriage licenses to gay couples). Fine, they let her mop floors and clean bathrooms or some other government job where her religious belief system won’t butt heads with our SECULAR society and the public.
The same goes for those bakers that wouldn’t bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Maybe they should have started a different business so they wouldn’t need to interact with the general public or have to “serve” anyone from the general public that wasn’t “a believer”. The problem with the baker (or anyone else) wanting to go into business and collect sales taxes, is you need a “SECULAR BUSINESS LICENSE” and that business license requires you to serve “All People Equally”. You compound things even more if you decide to “Incorporate” with our “SECULAR STATE” Incorporation Department to protect your personal assets and get preferred tax breaks. You want preferential “SECULAR GOVERNMENT TREATMENT” then you need to serve “ALL THE PEOPLE”.
Can you imagine what would happen to America if tomorrow every religion demanded that “their” religious dogma and “their” GOD was supreme over the other religions, and they wanted our SECULAR LAWS to fully accommodate “their” belief system? Can you say “Anarchy”? That’s why our Founding Fathers founded a “RELIGION NEUTRAL COUNTRY” based on; “Freedom of Religion, and Freedom from Religion”, and so governments (local, state, and federal) could not prefer one religion over another religion.
To all my religious friends (and by the way, I’m a religious person too) none of us are prohibited from freely practicing our religion. The only caveat in a SECULAR COUNTRY is realizing that we must respect all other religions (and non-religions) and understand that we might offend other believers if we are brazenly and overtly display our religion in public. That means to live in our SECULAR AMERICA is to practice our religion in our: places of worship, in our homes, and in our hearts. Frankly, what’s wrong with that?
LindaRobin September 7th, 2015 at 15:37
Bwhahaahahahaaa!!!! Now, let’s see how fast the right wing Evangelicals line up to support this Muslim woman’s “freedom of religion.” bwhahahaahahahahaaaa!!!!
Böcker September 7th, 2015 at 16:17
She needs to quit, this is a secular job
Martin Tetrault September 7th, 2015 at 16:46
You can practice your religion freely at home.. NOT on your job!
Warman1138 September 7th, 2015 at 17:28
Wait till the practitioners of voodoo get in on this, dead chickens all over the place.
Anomaly 100 September 7th, 2015 at 20:34
Bwhaa!
CandideThirtythree September 7th, 2015 at 19:43
She is just looking for a lawsuit
Robert Smithson September 7th, 2015 at 22:50
Just like the Christian woman she should be jailed. This woman is clearly violating other people’s constitutional right to drink alcohol.
Lyndia September 7th, 2015 at 23:09
The other woman was in AN ELECTED OFFICE, this woman was HIRED, thus, she can and should be fired.
whatthe46 September 7th, 2015 at 23:29
what? she can’t be arrested. you only want her arrested because she’s muslim. and not everyone has a constitutional right to drink alcohol.
bpollen September 8th, 2015 at 02:38
If it were ILLEGAL to not serve alcohol, she should be arrested. But since the law doesn’t MANDATE the delivery of alcohol on airplanes, she didn’t violate any laws. You think people who DON’T violate the law or deny others their rights should be jailed? Where? In FEMA camps? Closed Walmarts?
Böcker September 8th, 2015 at 09:47
Her job does involves serving booze, don’t like it quit. It’s a secular job, not a religious one.
bpollen September 8th, 2015 at 16:07
Which is not a LEGAL matter, but a management/employee thang.