# Another employee religious objection



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I was wondering if others support the employer or employee.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Could you provide a short summary please?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I have a problem with it because she knew that serving drinks was going to be part of the job before she took it. If the airline can find something else for her to do then fine, but if she wants to remain a flight attendant she'll have to do the job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

She knew the job involved serving drinks before she "converted" to Islam.
Perhaps the company can find her another position that doesn't require her to serve passengers at all. I don't think Islam prevents anyone from loading baggage


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I rarely take a position that supports employers over wage slaves, but in this case, I do.

The job is the job. If the job requires you to serve alcohol, then that is your job. You don't get to dictate the terms of the job. 

"Hi, I'll come work for you, but only if I don't have to do a), b) or c)." 

You won't catch me trying for a job that requires me to undress (not that anyone would pay me to do that these days anyway), because it goes against my principles. Or does someone think I should be able to get a job as a stripper and then tell my employer I won't do it, because it goes against my beliefs? But pay me anyway, ok?

This whole "religious objection" thing is ridiculous. If your beliefs -- or non-beliefs -- prevent you from doing the whole job, then look for some other type of work. I promise, I won't apply to work in a religious tchotchke boutique.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There are limits on the religious accommodation required under law by a private employer. There's a higher level of accommodation of government laws that people frequently confuse with it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

This one seems fairly simple. The law calls for an effort to be made to reach a reasonable accomodation for an employees religous beliefs. It seems that having another flight attendant on her flights serve all the alcohol was working as that reasonable accomodation. There is no mention of passenger complaints or the other attendents complaining it was an undue burden. The complaint that got her suspended seemed unrelated to her job performance. The airline, to me, seems to be in the wrong.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Now, what does one do when the job description changes after employment starts?
I am with raven on this..I too am no longer willing to disrobe for pay.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> Could you provide a short summary please?


Yes. An employee took a job as a flight attendant. A year later she converted to Islam. Another year later, she was informed she could not serve alcohol as a part of being a Muslim. She was told by the airline to work with coworkers to get the customers their alcohol orders. This worked for a time until another employee filed a complaint about having to do the first attendant's work. The airline suspended the employee and has stated they could terminate her in the future. 

There also appears to be additional complaints filed by the same complaining employee about head coverings not being part of the uniform and the carrying of items with foreign symbols.

My opinion is it is the employer's job and the employee can perform the necessary functions or find another job.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> This one seems fairly simple. The law calls for an effort to be made to reach a reasonable accomodation for an employees religous beliefs. It seems that having another flight attendant on her flights serve all the alcohol was working as that reasonable accomodation. There is no mention of passenger complaints or the other attendents complaining it was an undue burden. The complaint that got her suspended seemed unrelated to her job performance. The airline, to me, seems to be in the wrong.


In my view, the key word here is, 'reasonable.' At what point does the accommodation become unreasonable? Perhaps when accommodating it becomes a basis for other employees to file complaints? 

I don't think an employer can be reasonably expected to defend against lawsuits as a result of trying to accommodate an employee's religious or other personally-held beliefs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Now, what does one do* when the job description changes* after employment starts?
> I am with raven on this..I too am no longer willing to disrobe for pay.


There can't be good answers to such vague questions without the details.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

[http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html


mmoetc said:


> This one seems fairly simple. The law calls for an effort to be made to reach a reasonable accomodation for an employees religous beliefs. It seems that having another flight attendant on her flights serve all the alcohol was working as that reasonable accomodation. There is no mention of passenger complaints or the other attendents complaining it was an undue burden. The complaint that got her suspended seemed unrelated to her job performance. The airline, to me, seems to be in the wrong.


As is to be expected But you would be wrong. In fact, requiring others to do her "burdensome work" is an undue hardship. It puts other employees in the position of personal conflict that she can force them to do additional work. 
Frankly, I do imagine some of her coworkers did find it to be a PITA.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I have a problem with it because she knew that serving drinks was going to be part of the job before she took it. If the airline can find something else for her to do then fine, but if she wants to remain a flight attendant she'll have to do the job.


What?
No jail time?
No leftist crowing?
No horrible pictures and cartoons on the internet?
No accusations of discrimination and hatred?
Sounds about right


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> [http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
> 
> 
> As is to be expected But you would be wrong. In fact, requiring others to do her "burdensome work" is an undue hardship. It puts other employees in the position of personal conflict that she can force them to do additional work.
> Frankly, I do imagine some of her coworkers did find it to be a PITA.


I'm not sure that handing someone a drink containing alcohol is any more burdensome than handing them one without. They seem to me to be essentially the same action. It seems that the accomodation was working until one other employee complained at which point the airline suspended her. The suspension seems a bit of an over reaction. They could have tried to reach some other accomodation such as offering her a move to another position like gate attendant or working check ins. That they seemingly made no such effort weakens their case in my eyes. That the complaint against her also mentioned her headdress, which the airline seemed to have no previous issue with, and her reading material also work against the airline's actions in my opinion. The law requires that employers attempt to make reasonable accomodations for employees religous beliefs. The airline seems to be making no effort.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Was a "reasonable accomodation" proposed for the marriage license clerk? Don't know, just asking. Since they have others now issuing the licenses, did they offer to let those people issue them and let the woman in jail stick to her convictions? Seems that would have been a reasonable response in her case too.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

She converted after starting work as an attendant.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not sure that handing someone a drink containing alcohol is any more burdensome than handing them one without. They seem to me to be essentially the same action. It seems that the accomodation was working until one other employee complained at which point the airline suspended her. The suspension seems a bit of an over reaction. They could have tried to reach some other accomodation such as offering her a move to another position like gate attendant or working check ins. That they seemingly made no such effort weakens their case in my eyes. That the complaint against her also mentioned her headdress, which the airline seemed to have no previous issue with, and her reading material also work against the airline's actions in my opinion. The law requires that employers attempt to make reasonable accomodations for employees religous beliefs. The airline seems to be making no effort.


But if 20 percent of flyers wanted alcohol and the other employees had to serve them, they were doing more work for the same pay as the Muslim woman. I doubt today's airlines are overstaffed in the attendant area and most workers dislike a slacker in their midst.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

poppy said:


> Was a "reasonable accomodation" proposed for the marriage license clerk? Don't know, just asking. Since they have others now issuing the licenses, did they offer to let those people issue them and let the woman in jail stick to her convictions? Seems that would have been a reasonable response in her case too.


Yes. Which I personally think is more accommodation that she deserved. She refused.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I would think that offering her another position within the company would be reasonable but I'm not sure if that would mean same rate of pay.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not sure that handing someone a drink containing alcohol is any more burdensome than handing them one without. They seem to me to be essentially the same action. It seems that the accomodation was working until one other employee complained at which point the airline suspended her. The suspension seems a bit of an over reaction. They could have tried to reach some other accomodation such as offering her a move to another position like gate attendant or working check ins. That they seemingly made no such effort weakens their case in my eyes. That the complaint against her also mentioned her headdress, which the airline seemed to have no previous issue with, and her reading material also work against the airline's actions in my opinion. The law requires that employers attempt to make reasonable accomodations for employees religous beliefs. The airline seems to be making no effort.


Very little has been other than her rather biased information is known. There have probably been many attempts at accommodation that she found unacceptable. That is a much more reasonable assumption. 
As so often the employer is barred from discussing an employees private business while an employee is free to say whatever she wants, especially if she thinks it's of value to use public opinion, it is good to assume that the whoke story isnot known.
As to the burdensome nature, picture two attendants rolling their carts through the narrow entry, have to constantly communicate that passenger 3c wants a whiskey and having the trailing attendantt having to remember to disrupt her routine to fit it in , or the trailing attendant having to call out to the already past one that someone in her area of service wants a vodka and it has to be made and passed back or they run two carts- one alcohol free. It is certainly not deMinimus for the employer.
The head scarf is another issue unless it effects her ability to do her assigned work in a way I can't see.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> I would think that offering her another position within the company would be reasonable but I'm not sure if that would mean same rate of pay.


Like the county clerk, she has a point of power to make. So there it sits.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> What?
> No jail time?
> No leftist crowing?
> No horrible pictures and cartoons on the internet?
> ...


What _crime_ has the muslim woman committed? 

If the KY clerk hadn't committed a blatant crime (contempt of court) there would have been very little about her on the internet. Just like the muslim flight attendant. 

Does that "sound about right" too?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> Was a "reasonable accomodation" proposed for the marriage license clerk? Don't know, just asking. Since they have others now issuing the licenses, did they offer to let those people issue them and let the woman in jail stick to her convictions? Seems that would have been a reasonable response in her case too.


Yup. They offered and she refused. She went to jail rather than allow it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I have a problem with it because she knew that serving drinks was going to be part of the job before she took it. If the airline can find something else for her to do then fine, but if she wants to remain a flight attendant she'll have to do the job.


She converted to Islam after she was employed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> *Was a "reasonable accomodation" proposed for the marriage license clerk?* Don't know, just asking. Since they have others now issuing the licenses, did they offer to let those people issue them and let the woman in jail stick to her convictions? Seems that would have been a reasonable response in her case too.


Yes.
All she had to do was let her Deputy clerks issue them, but she still refused


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. They offered and she refused. She went to jail rather than allow it.


That is not completely accurate. The clerk and her attorney do not believe the accommodation was legal under current Kentucky law. She has said that if the deputy clerks could be authorized to issue licenses, that was acceptable; but that Kentucky law requires the county clerk to authorize all marriage licenses.

At this point, there is some dispute over exactly what the Kentucky law requires.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

As for the flight attendant situation, serving alcohol is a part of the job description. If she doesn't do it, the responsibility falls on someone else. If there is not a reasonable "trade off" of responsibilities that allows her to pull her weight as a flight attendant, she is beyond the line of "reasonable" in my opinion. She simply will not do her job. Sometimes there are ways to equitably share duties to work these things out and sometimes there just are not.

Reasonable accommodation could be made in potentially several ways. She could be put into a position where serving alcohol is not a part of her duties. That might mean she can no longer be a flight attendant or could only serve in areas where alcohol is not served as a part of her job. The airline may or may not have such a position available. If they do not, I'm sorry, but I don't consider that the airline's fault.

If it were a matter of her not wanting to work on Friday for religious reasons, I might be more sympathetic as there are likely numerous work schedules that she could maintain her Friday being off and still fulfill her duties while working 100%. 

Personally, I think she should look for work that's more in keeping with her religious beliefs.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> ...
> 
> At this point, there is some dispute over exactly what the Kentucky law requires.


And this, I believe, is an important item that is not really being talked about much.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Raeven said:


> I rarely take a position that supports employers over wage slaves, but in this case, I do.
> 
> The job is the job. If the job requires you to serve alcohol, then that is your job. You don't get to dictate the terms of the job.
> 
> ...


You're missing the point. She wasn't a Muslim when she applied for and was hired for the job. She served alcohol until she converted to Islam and later learned that Islam not only prohibited the consumption of alcohol, but also the serving.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> That is not completely accurate. *The clerk and her attorney do not believe *the accommodation was legal under current Kentucky law. She has said that if the deputy clerks could be authorized to issue licenses, that was acceptable; but that Kentucky law requires the county clerk to authorize all marriage licenses.
> 
> At this point, *there is some dispute *over exactly what the Kentucky law requires.


There is no "dispute" and the only ones claiming her signature is needed is Davis and her lawyers

You've repeated that multiple times in multiple threads, but the reality isn't going to change. 

The statute says a Deputy Clerk can do it, and you also saw the copy of Davis's own license, with *no signature* of the elected Clerk.

Why not accept those facts as real?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bellyman said:


> And this, I believe, is an important item that is *not really being talked about much*.


It's been talked about and dismissed as false, since the statutes clearly say Deputy Clerks can issue the licenses.

There's no need for futher discussion


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There can't be good answers to such vague questions without the details.




Really... please state your questions as it seems that my statement was very direct.

If one takes a job and agrees to perform all that is in the job description as in selection of the job required do diligence to insue that one did not choose a job for which conflicted with one's faith yet in time the employer changes the game and altered to add a task that would conflict there lies a problem


If I had a business cafes and if disliked Muslims could I force them out by having them use a hand cleaner that contained pork fat in it knowing that it would force them to have a conflict? Thus I would not have to fire them they would have a problem they would have to violate their faith or quit.

Or, your a teacher and due to sever climate change storms disturbed to school year what if extra class time was scheduled for Saturday's and Sundays to make up for school time lost in a year... what of those employers that faith requires them to take time to practice their faith.


Really the situations can change but the basic questions is what if the job description changes after you agreed...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I miss the good old days when bosses had the right to fire those who refused to do their job. Two words were all that was required... "You, out" with or without a gesture indicating the door.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I miss the good old days when bosses had the right to fire those who refused to do their job. Two words were all that was required... "You, out" with or without a gesture indicating the door.


You're kidding, right? What do you think 'at-will' or 'right-to-work' employment means?? Because "You, out," is exactly what those terms mean.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> You're missing the point. She wasn't a Muslim when she applied for and was hired for the job. She served alcohol until she converted to Islam and later learned that Islam not only prohibited the consumption of alcohol, but also the serving.


You're missing the point that she knew the job requirements before "converting", and did it for a year before deciding she could no longer handle alcohol at all. 

The airline tried to accommodate her, but it can only be done by forcing others to do extra work


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I miss the good old days when bosses had the right to fire those who refused to do their job. Two words were all that was required... "You, out" with or without a gesture indicating the door.


Like Raeven said, that's still the case in any "right to work" states, although in practice most want to have valid reasons other than just "we don't like you".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> That is not completely accurate. The clerk and her attorney do not believe the accommodation was legal under current Kentucky law. She has said that if the deputy clerks could be authorized to issue licenses, that was acceptable; but that Kentucky law requires the county clerk to authorize all marriage licenses.
> 
> At this point, there is some dispute over exactly what the Kentucky law requires.


That dispute has been laid to rest in another thread. The statute clearly states that deputy clerks can handle the job. The clerk does not have to be present for the public to win. "The clerk or deputy clerk" being the operative language used in said statute.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> You're missing the point. She wasn't a Muslim when she applied for and was hired for the job. She served alcohol until she converted to Islam and later learned that Islam not only prohibited the consumption of alcohol, but also the serving.


Not missing the point at all. Her employer hired her *with an expectation that she was able to do the whole job*. She, *by her own choice*, then chose a belief system that rendered her less able to do her job. The employer must make an attempt to reasonably accommodate that change -- *which they did*. With further developments, meaning other employees filing complaints, the employer determined their obligation to attempt to accommodate her was at an end. A court will decide if they were right.

The employer has a right to hire an employee who can do the whole job. That's what the hiring process is all about. If the employee changes the terms of what they are able to do within the scope of their employment, how is it fair to the employer to expect them to make every accommodation to keep the person on at the same rate of pay, but less able to do the job? 

Even people who are physically incapacitated through no fault of their own are not entitled to such considerations. How come no outcry for people who are relegated to lesser positions because they suffered an auto accident that rendered them less able to do their jobs?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "dispute" and the only ones claiming her signature is needed is Davis and her lawyers
> 
> You've repeated that multiple times in multiple threads, but the reality isn't going to change.
> 
> ...


Because I trust my own reading comprehension. No matter how many times you post what you believe is the proper interpretation of the statute, it doesn't make it so. I don't know how a court will interpret it, but until one does or Kentucky officially resolves this, it is an open issue. This is not just an issue in this one county.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Really... please state your questions as it seems that *my statement was very direct.*
> 
> If one takes a job and agrees to perform all that is in the job description as in selection of the job required do diligence to insue that one did not choose a job for which conflicted with one's faith yet in time the employer changes the game and altered to add a task that would conflict there lies a problem
> 
> ...


Your statement was devoid of any details, as I already stated, and the examples above are just silly.

One is a passive/aggressive act, and the other has nothing to do with anything "changing" as to the job description, since schools have always had "make-up days"

I'll just have to assume you have no realistic examples to offer


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Loose you eye sight give up truck driving or do you just sit in the truck collecting a pay check while the owner pays for a person with sight to drive for you?

Life happens and options change.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like Raeven said, that's still the case in any "right to work" states, although in practice most want to have valid reasons other than just "we don't like you".


Why just some states? The "boss" still owns the business, usually even owns the buildings and the equipment, he should have the same right to fire as he does to hire.


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

in everything a person is asked to respond, respond wisely knowing what your being asked.

Is the question for you X, or is it something else. If tou think it's X and you respond when it really was something much more serious, terrible consequences may come.

Is this really about religion and if it isn't, what exactly are we being asked to do? 

Most everything today revolves around two things, love and hate. The love of money and the hate of everyone else.

Step back and ask what is being asked.

Right at the opening of this thread is a link to CNN, I refrain from touching links from that source, but I might if I had some bent against religion. Be careful.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Because I trust my own reading comprehension. No matter how many times you post what you believe is the proper interpretation of the statute, it doesn't make it so. I don't know how a court will interpret it, but until one does or Kentucky officially resolves this, it is an open issue. This is not just an issue in this one county.


Which part of "clerk or deputy clerk" has you confused?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry bear but the list of possibilities is endless.. thus whittling it down to the core to evaluate a possible standard for the basic realistic reality that job descriptions can and do change after employment agreements are reached.

Could be that when you started there were no cell phones suddenly you are give a cell phone to be reachable 24/7... now later tracking of your where abouts off the clock is your new reality... can you say no.

What is your required to enter your employment I'd has a tracker must you keep it in your car or home..

Rules and life changes...

Details of each premise change but the core realty us the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why just some states? The "boss" still owns the business, usually even owns the buildings and the equipment, he should have the same right to fire as he does to hire.


Different states have different laws.
I agree they "should" all be the same


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why just some states? The "boss" still owns the business, usually even owns the buildings and the equipment, he should have the same right to fire as he does to hire.


The only state that doesn't have 'at will' employment is Montana. I think your battle is substantially won.


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why just some states? The "boss" still owns the business, usually even owns the buildings and the equipment, he should have the same right to fire as he does to hire.


Obviously that freedom has been abused by some for personal gain. When that happens government is empowered to act and it always acts against freedom.

If people would've taken care of corrupt employers when they chose to use their freedom to infringe upon workers for personal gain when there was supposedly "no law against it" the freedom of employers to conduct business without infringement would still remain.

People have no clue how they really vote to empower government. The booth just picks which flavor, the empowerment is voted on everyday by our actions.

There has never been a time when there was "no law against it" because there has always been the law of love your neighbor. People were created with a self destruct switch and it's triggered when people use their freedom to infringe upon others for personal gain. Our Civil War is just one of the shinning examples of it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Because I trust *my own reading comprehension*. No matter how many times you post what you believe is the *proper interpretation* of the statute, it doesn't make it so. I don't know how a court will *interpret* it, but until one does or Kentucky officially resolves this, it is an open issue. This is not just an issue in this one county.


It's not really an issue if you simply read the statute:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475



> Quote:
> (c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county *clerk or deputy clerk* issuing the license.


There is only one way to interpret the word "OR".

You want to think what Davis says is true, so you're ignoring the simple English of the statute. No one else is disputing the meaning


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Different states have different laws.
> I agree they "should" all be the same


So you are against states rights?

Why have states ?

I like that each state can have different laws. One can move to a state that meets their personal values, wants and need.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry bear but *the list of possibilities is endless.*. thus whittling it down to the core to evaluate a possible standard for the basic realistic reality that job descriptions can and do change after employment agreements are reached.
> 
> Could be that when you started there were no cell phones suddenly you are give a cell phone to be reachable 24/7... now later tracking of your where abouts off the clock is your new reality... can you say no.
> 
> ...


The list may be endless, but yours seems to have little basis in reality.
Making up fantasy scenarios really serves no purpose.

Reality is the employee can always say "no", and the employer can usually say "go"


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Raeven said:


> The only state that doesn't have 'at will' employment is Montana. I think your battle is substantially won.



Not quite correct.
This link disagrees and has important in for on this subject 

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/what-states-are-at-will-employment-states-ps.rl


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Not quite correct.
> This link disagrees and has important in for on this subject
> 
> https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/what-states-are-at-will-employment-states-ps.rl



http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx

_"*I. The At-Will Presumption* Employment relationships are presumed to be âat-willâ in all U.S. states except Montana." _


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

You are right Montana truly has like no state exemptions. All others just call them at will but do have some exemptions.

I like Montana for being so bold and employer friendly.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I have not read all of the replies ... but here goes my opinion. Not sure if that is all "legal" but I would think in a decent employee-employer relationshop this would be reasonable. I think she should be offered a different position in the company that does not require her to violate her religious beliefs. We are talking about a large company with many employees. Whether or not she'd be willing to take it, that's her choice. IF she does not want to take it, she can resign and look for work with an airline that does not serve alcohol. 

I think it would be different with a smaller employer. Say you are a small bar owner, it is just you and a bartender. The bartender converts to Islam and cannot serve alcohol. I think the bartender should resign and look for another job. 

As for the head-dress. I think it depends on what you safely can wear in your position. I think it is perfectly fine as long as it is an acceptable part of the uniform (say wear one in matching color) and as long as it does not put her in danger (risk of getting tangled up, etc.) or prevent her from doing her job. 

And the last complaint about having foreign writing with her at work .... that is total BS. Why is that a problem? Would it be a problem if a flight attendant from Puerto Rico who speaks both English and Spanish brought a book in Spanish on the plane? Are they implying they are religious writings? If so, why is it an issue? I think a Christian flight attendant can certainly carry a Bible with her to read on breaks. Same applies a Muslim flight attendant bringing a Koran to read on breaks.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

A similar issue came up in MN some years ago. Muslim taxi drivers were refusing to take drunk passengers and those with dogs. Muslim grocery cashiers were refusing to ring up pork and bacon. They lost their jobs because they refused to carry out the normal duties of the job. Thank goodness some judge ruled reasonably instead of trying to be PC. 

I bet these employees were looking to sue for a big payday.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> She approached her supervisor on June 1 and was told to work out an arrangement for someone to fulfill passenger requests for alcohol.
> "It was at the direction of the airlines that she began coordinating with the other flight attendant on duty so that when a passenger requested alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request," Masri said. "We know that this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident and that it hasn't caused any undue burden on the airline. After all, it was the suggestion of the airline."
> Flight attendants complained about 'menacing' images on aircraft
> It seemed to be working out until another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley on August 2 claiming she was not fulfilling her duties by refusing to serve alcohol, Masri said. The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress.
> On August 25, the airline sent a letter to Stanley informing her that it was revoking its religious accommodation to exclude her from service of alcohol and placing her on administrative leave.


So the company found an accommodation for her and everything worked fine until another employee got their panties in a wad over her religion? They should have fired the employee who complained for not being a team player and moved on. People like that are just worthless. 

I would have happily served the alcohol for her if I was a fellow airline stewardess. I think the airline should make an accommodation if it is possible and doesn't impede their business. 

Keep in mind the Judge actually tried to accommodate the Kentucky clerk too and she refused the accommodation and went to jail for her right to keep her employees from following their own consciences. Big difference here between the 2.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> So you are against states rights?
> 
> Why have states ?
> 
> I like that each state can have different laws. One can move to a state that meets their personal values, wants and need.


I am all for states rights and each state having their own laws. As long as those laws conform to those basic laws contained in the U.S. Constitution. IE your state should be able to pass any gun control law they want, as long as that law does not infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear them. Concealed carry permits infringe upon the right to bear them, limiting size and type of weapons a citizen can own/keep infringes upon our right to keep arms. Etc 
Your state can pass any marriage laws they want.... As long as that law provides everyone the right to marry.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Again. It's amazing how some of you are suddenly very clear headed now that it isn't YOUR religious beliefs.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not really an issue if you simply read the statute:
> 
> http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475
> 
> ...


For those that seem to have a comprehension problem, I'm referring to 1a, not 1c. This is the last time I'm saying it or debating it. I'll wait for a court to decide.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I would also like to point out that this woman is not a government representative and has no authority over our legal rights.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> Keep in mind the Judge actually tried to accommodate the Kentucky clerk too and she refused the accommodation and went to jail for her right to keep her employees from following their own consciences. Big difference here between the 2.


By employees, do you mean the two that agreed to do it only under duress and pressure? The two that weren't allowed to follow their own conscience.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

We keep saying hired and employed. I'm not familer with her situation , was she hired or elected ?


----------



## craftychick (Nov 11, 2013)

She deserves to be terminated along with having her pay withheld for the trips where she refused to do her job.
She & Kim D are both in the wrong as far as doing the job they signed up to do; one may have to go to jail for contempt since she can't be 'fired'.
The airline hostess should lose her job since she can be fired.

I am an equal hard 'butt' about this issue; do the job you're being paid to do or face the consequences of your refusal. It doesn't matter if they are Christian,Muslim, Jew or Pagan, Democrat, Liberatarian or Republican, black, white or polkadot. Do your job or get a new one which fits your beliefs/convictions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> We keep saying hired and employed. I'm not familer with her situation , was she hired or elected ?


The op is about a hired employee of an airline.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> So the company found an accommodation for her and everything worked fine until another employee got their panties in a wad over her religion? They should have fired the employee who complained for not being a team player and moved on. People like that are just worthless.
> 
> I would have happily served the alcohol for her if I was a fellow airline stewardess. I think the airline should make an accommodation if it is possible and doesn't impede their business.
> 
> Keep in mind the Judge actually tried to accommodate the Kentucky clerk too and she refused the accommodation and went to jail for her right to keep her employees from following their own consciences. Big difference here between the 2.


Really? You would fire an employee, who was doing the work satisfactorily, for objecting to doing more work so a woman's religion can be accommodated at demand? Really? While in the same posting supporting the woman refusing to do the work based on religion? And you would volunteer that other employees do the same thing even if they objected? 

So much for atheism standards of human behavior. It seemingly is only which religion is involved and nothing to do with standards at all. I can just hear your response if an attendant objected to serving a gay couple based on religion. Or say refused to bake a cake on demand.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

craftychick said:


> She deserves to be terminated along with having her pay withheld for the trips where she refused to do her job.
> She & Kim D are both in the wrong as far as doing the job they signed up to do; one may have to go to jail for contempt since she can't be 'fired'.
> The airline hostess should lose her job since she can be fired.
> 
> I am an equal hard 'butt' about this issue; do the job you're being paid to do or face the consequences of your refusal. It doesn't matter if they are Christian,Muslim, Jew or Pagan, Democrat, Liberatarian or Republican, black, white or polkadot. Do your job or get a new one which fits your beliefs/convictions.


Fyi... the clerk was elected to uphold the laws and state constitution and the US constitution

Only a supreme court ruling change impacted her doing her job.

There are conflicts
State laws she willing ran to support which have not changed.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> There are conflicts
> State laws she willing ran to support which have not changed.


That's where my post was going earlier but it was not taken in that light.

Do you know more specifically what laws are in conflict and how they relate to the situation? I've been hearing that there is conflict between KY law and federal law, and more what I was interested in than "religious conviction".


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

http://marriage.laws.com/gay/state-laws/kentucky

What is current in Ky as to on the books on Marriage.. and we're what she agreed to stand for and vowed to protect when she ran and won her position..

Conflict


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> So the company found an accommodation for her and everything worked fine until another employee got their panties in a wad over her religion? They should have fired the employee who complained for not being a team player and moved on. People like that are just worthless.
> 
> I would have happily served the alcohol for her if I was a fellow airline stewardess. I think the airline should make an accommodation if it is possible and doesn't impede their business.
> 
> Keep in mind the Judge actually tried to accommodate the Kentucky clerk too and she refused the accommodation and went to jail for her right to keep her employees from following their own consciences. Big difference here between the 2.


Well sure, accommodate the muslims and jail the Christians
Sounds like business as usual here in Obamanation.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> http://marriage.laws.com/gay/state-laws/kentucky
> 
> What is current in Ky as to on the books on Marriage.. and we're what she agreed to stand for and vowed to protect when she ran and won her position..
> 
> Conflict


Thank you for the link. In other words, this person had to choose between obeying the laws of the State of Kentucky OR federal edict knowing full well that to do either was to be in violation of the other. 

There would still be this very same issue even if there were no, as in ZERO, religious objections whatsoever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> For those that seem to have a* comprehension* problem,* I'm referring to 1a*, not 1c.
> 
> This is the last time I'm saying it or debating it.
> 
> I'll wait for a court to decide.


1a refers to the *printed statement* at the top of the license form, and has nothing at all to do with a signature (as has been explained more than once by at least three people)

See Post #324 and read the statement printed on the form at the top, just under the words "Commonwealth of Kentucky". That is what "1a" refers to.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...rs-county-clerk-issue-same-sex-licens-17.html

There will be no court decision on a non-issue
Note 1a has no mention of "signature", while 1c specifically says both "signature" and "deputy". 

Use that comprehension you keep talking about  :



> (1) A marriage license which provides for the entering of:
> (a) An *authorization statement* of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;
> 
> (b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and
> ...





> This is the last time I'm saying it or debating it


LOL
I've heard that song before


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

beenaround said:


> in everything a person is asked to respond, respond wisely knowing what your being asked.
> 
> Is the question for you X, or is it something else. If tou think it's X and you respond when it really was something much more serious, terrible consequences may come.
> 
> ...


What was being asked was people's opinions on the linked story. Answer or don't. I simply wondered what people opinions were. No more conspiratorial than that!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> So the company found an accommodation for her and everything worked fine until another employee got their panties in a wad over her religion? They should have fired the employee who complained for not being a team player and moved on. People like that are just worthless.
> 
> I would have happily served the alcohol for her if I was a fellow airline stewardess. I think the airline should make an accommodation if it is possible and doesn't impede their business.


Are you also willing to cover for her while she takes several prayer breaks? What about if she refused to serve meals containing pork products? I guarantee there is more to this story than what has been released to the public. And before you call me worthless keep in mind that I do cover my co-workers during reasonable prayer breaks, hourly prayer breaks for 15 minutes each time are not reasonable (and not part of the religious requirements but some people take advantage of the excuse). 

I find it highly doubtful that the airline took the word of one employee over another unless the one being complained about was already falling short in her job performance. She converted ONE MONTH after getting the job. You don't convert to another religion overnight. She knew her job would entail serving drinks before she accepted it and she knew about the Islam prohibition against liquor before applying for the job. And there are several other aspects of the religion which would conflict with required airline attendant duties. 

As for the head scarves, yes they can be kept tucked in and modest. There are no pictures of this particular woman wearing her covering so I can't say if it would present a danger or not. One that hangs loosely or has lots of fringe presents a possible danger. Maybe she spent too much time in front of the mirror adjusting it. Maybe she was adjusting it in the kitchen area. The woman suing sure isn't going to say what the specific complaint about the scarf was.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> http://marriage.laws.com/gay/state-laws/kentucky
> 
> What is current in Ky as to on the books on Marriage.. and we're what she agreed to stand for and vowed to protect when she ran and won her position..
> 
> Conflict


There is no conflict.... The U.S. Constitution overrides any and all state laws or state constitutions... Rendering any supposed conflict mute.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no conflict.... The U.S. Constitution overrides any and all state laws or state constitutions... Rendering any supposed conflict mute.


Well, not really at all. The Constitution spells out what powers the Federal government has (supposedly). All else is reserved to the people and the States. Supreme Court decisions have been known to be changed anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bellyman said:


> Thank you for the link. In other words, this person had to choose between obeying the laws of the State of Kentucky OR federal edict knowing full well that *to do either was to be in violation of the other. *
> 
> There would still be this very same issue even if there were no, as in ZERO, religious objections whatsoever.


The state law became invalid when it was ruled unconstitutional 
Federal law takes precedent. 
That was decided in 3 different courts before she was jailed


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

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.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> By employees, do you mean *the two* that agreed to do it only under duress and pressure? *The two* that weren't allowed to follow their own conscience.


There are 6 Deputy Clerks in Rowan County
5 of the 6 had no problems issuing the licenses

The only one who refused is Davis's own son.

I'm pretty sure this has been posted at least once before:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html



> (CNN)Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with *five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they'd issue them in her stead.*
> 
> But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses





> Bunning then asked Davis' *six deputy clerks* whether they would issue the licenses, and despite some of them holding the same religious beliefs as Davis, five told Bunning they would issue the licenses.
> 
> The sixth -- Davis' son, Nathan -- didn't answer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Well, not really at all. The Constitution spells out what powers the Federal government has (supposedly). All else is reserved to the people and the States. Supreme Court decisions have been known to be changed anyway.


Very rarely are Supreme Court rulings reversed. And like it or not the constitution does outrank any and all other laws....state or federal.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Tell you what ... you quote me the law she broke.. she is in jail for contempt
But in not breaching her oath and standing for her state constitution and the written laws on the books in her state... honestly 

Someone give the law she broke .. give me the code book page.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> 
> 
> *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*
> ...


Yeppers and no one is asking her to not worship the God of her choice. It's her that appears to be trying to impose her religion upon others.... In direct conflict with the first amendment.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases2.htm



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Very rarely are Supreme Court rulings reversed. And like it or not the constitution does outrank any and all other laws....state or federal.


The Constitution is but interpretations change. The States can create amendments, or the Court can reverse itself. Happens- not every year but it does.
Like it or not is not the final word. Like it or not.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers and no one is asking her to not worship the God of her choice. It's her that appears to be trying to impose her religion upon others.... In direct conflict with the first amendment.


Ok, how is her following her faith and honoring her oath she took in vowing to up hold the duties of her office and the laws clearly state thart she is being requested to defie state law, state constitution and what she agreed to do when she ran and won and took office.

How is her living up to her oath imposing her faith on others?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases2.htm
> 
> 
> The Constitution is but interpretations change. The States can create amendments, or the Court can reverse itself. Happens- not every year but it does.
> Like it or not is not the final word. Like it or not.


Of course a state can amend their constitutions, but if a citizen feels that change violates rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and fights their case up through the courts the supremes may well rule in their favor, thus sticking down that states amendment. Similar to what happened with Aks recent amendment defining marriage as one man one woman. The U.S. Supremes ruling that such laws are unconstitutional rendered them mute. Something about state laws and constitutions not withstanding.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Ok, how is her following her faith and honoring her oath she took in vowing to up hold the duties of her office and the laws clearly state thart she is being requested to defie state law, state constitution and what she agreed to do when she ran and won and took office.
> 
> How is her living up to her oath imposing her faith on others?


she is not being ask to violate state law nor state constitution, she is being asked to obey the current laws and perform the legal duties of her office.bher refusal to do that job infringes upon others legal rights based solely on her religious beliefs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

What currently is the law on the books and in the my state constitution on marriage.

Help me find just what is current for which she took an oat to up hold... just wondering.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> she is not being ask to violate state law nor state constitution, she is being asked to obey the current laws and perform the legal duties of her office.bher refusal to do that job infringes upon others legal rights based solely on her religious beliefs.


But doesn't the current Kentucky law require that marriage licenses be issued to a "man and a woman"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Tell you what ... you quote me the law she broke.. she is in jail for contempt
> But in not breaching her oath and standing for her state constitution and the written laws on the books in her state... honestly
> 
> Someone give the law she broke .. give me the code book page.


The contempt statutes were already posted
Her state laws on marriage make no difference since they were ruled unconstitutional


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bellyman said:


> But doesn't the current Kentucky law require that marriage licenses be issued to a "man and a woman"?


Conflict... That is what her oath of office would state she would and will defend...seems to me she take her job serious.

She is defending the current law..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases2.htm
> 
> The Constitution is but *interpretations change*. The States *can* create amendments, or the Court *can* reverse itself. Happens- not every year but it does.
> Like it or not is not the final word. *Like it or not*.


Like it or not, you have to live with the current decisions, not the ones that "can be" 



where I want to said:


> Well, not really at all. The Constitution spells out what powers the Federal government has (supposedly). All else is reserved to the people and the States. Supreme Court decisions have been *known to be changed* anyway.


*Until* it's changed this ruling has the power of law.
Let's stick to reality instead of "maybe"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Bellyman View Post
> But doesn't the current Kentucky law require that marriage licenses be issued to a "man and a woman"?


Not anymore
That law was ruled unconstitutional, which keeps being overlooked by some


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bellyman said:


> But doesn't the current Kentucky law require that marriage licenses be issued to a "man and a woman"?


Nope, I am not sure what law had been on the books, I do not recall any noise made about it in the past thirty years I have been here. It makes little difference now because the recent ruling would have rendered them mute if they had been discriminatory towards gays. Our state governor issued the order for all county clerks to issue licenses to gays if requested. His order is similar to a presidential executive order.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Conflict... That is what her oath of office would state she would and will defend...seems to me she take her job serious.
> 
> She is defending the current law..


Current law requires her to issue licenses as well as certificates of marriage to both straight and gay couples. She may or may not be attempting to uphold old no longer valid laws.
Do you happen to have a link to what you believe the current ky statute is?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are 6 Deputy Clerks in Rowan County
> 5 of the 6 had no problems issuing the licenses
> 
> The only one who refused is Davis's own son.
> ...


A single mom who really needs the job went against her religious beliefs and agreed because she was worried she would lose her job and another women, who is the daughter of a minister, also felt she needed to comply to keep her job. Given the choice with no repercussions, both would likely have refused. As is often the case, CNN reported things as they wanted them to be, not as they are. The power of government got both to agree.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not sure that handing someone a drink containing alcohol is any more burdensome than handing them one without. They seem to me to be essentially the same action. It seems that the accomodation was working until one other employee complained at which point the airline suspended her. The suspension seems a bit of an over reaction. They could have tried to reach some other accomodation such as offering her a move to another position like gate attendant or working check ins. That they seemingly made no such effort weakens their case in my eyes. That the complaint against her also mentioned her headdress, which the airline seemed to have no previous issue with, and her reading material also work against the airline's actions in my opinion. The law requires that employers attempt to make reasonable accomodations for employees religous beliefs. The airline seems to be making no effort.


I don't think alcohol drinks come already prepared. Drinks from the flt attdnts' cart are all in one spot, open them & hand 'em. 
Alcohol is different bottles, different drinks different places to get it from. I know this does'nt sound like much more but it is more 'work' & if you're used to flying you've seen that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I don't think alcohol drinks come already prepared. Drinks from the flt attdnts' cart are all in one spot, open then & hand 'em.
> Alcohol is different bottles, different drinks different places to get it from. I know this does'nt sound like much more but it is more 'work' & if you're used to flying you've seen that.


On the airline I frequently fly all drink orders, alcoholic and non, are taken before the cart is pushed down the aisle. The cart is then pushed down the aisle and drinks are served. Another attendant follows the cart handing out snacks from the basket they carry. They work in tandem and it seems reasonable to me that two people could work in tandem without undue hardship to ensure that one didn't have to serve alcohol. 

If this wasn't a workable solution, though it seemed it was working for most, the airline has the obligation under the law to attempt to come up with a reasonable accomodation for this woman. There is no indication they did. In fact the burden of requesting the other attendants to serve all alcoholic drinks was put on the woman. She, in essence, created her own accomodation. The company created no policy nor intervened on her behalf. It seems to me they clearly violated the law.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Really? You would fire an employee, who was doing the work satisfactorily, for objecting to doing more work so a woman's religion can be accommodated at demand? Really? While in the same posting supporting the woman refusing to do the work based on religion? And you would volunteer that other employees do the same thing even if they objected?
> 
> So much for atheism standards of human behavior. It seemingly is only which religion is involved and nothing to do with standards at all. I can just hear your response if an attendant objected to serving a gay couple based on religion. Or say refused to bake a cake on demand.


Post of the year award.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> A single mom who really needs the job went against her religious beliefs and agreed because she was worried she would lose her job and another women, who is the daughter of a minister, also felt she needed to comply to keep her job. Given the choice with no repercussions, both would likely have refused. As is often the case, CNN reported things as they wanted them to be, not as they are. The power of government got both to agree.


This is what gives me pause when I hear others say the couples can simply go to another county. Without fear of penalty how many other clerks and deputy clerks would deny licenses? It's hard to know but you seem to presume it would be more, not less. How many counties must one travel through to get sonething the government is obligated to provide everyone?


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> So the company found an accommodation for her and everything worked fine until another employee got their panties in a wad over her religion? They should have fired the employee who complained for not being a team player and moved on. People like that are just worthless.
> 
> I would have happily served the alcohol for her if I was a fellow airline stewardess. I think the airline should make an accommodation if it is possible and doesn't impede their business.
> 
> Keep in mind the Judge actually tried to accommodate the Kentucky clerk too and she refused the accommodation and went to jail for her right to keep her employees from following their own consciences. Big difference here between the 2.


Why are we even discussing the clerk from Kentucky? Doesn't she have enough of her own threads?

Back to the original-

If the FA could not serve alcohol, then I would assume that they cannot handle it in any way, including loading and removing the glasses after the drink was done.

Maybe, just maybe, the person that filed the complaint just got tired of doing someone else's job, along with theirs. While the other person did less (and presumably less).

Sort of reminds me of the story of the camel and the tent. First the nose, then the head, and so on.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> On the airline I frequently fly all drink orders, alcoholic and non, are taken before the cart is pushed down the aisle. The cart is then pushed down the aisle and drinks are served. Another attendant follows the cart handing out snacks from the basket they carry. They work in tandem and it seems reasonable to me that two people could work in tandem without undue hardship to ensure that one didn't have to serve alcohol.


And in a civilized world, a world of respect, the religious lady could be the snack lady. 
We 'claim' diversity and we claim 'co-exist' it's really all just lip service. 
There is always at least 1 who had to show their backside, and make a scene.
The head covering? Sorry, not part of the uniform. 
But a society that claims "co-exist" could have worked out a way where she did not have to handle alcohol.

I


> f this wasn't a workable solution, though it seemed it was working for most, the airline has the obligation under the law to attempt to come up with a reasonable accomodation for this woman. There is no indication they did. In fact the burden of requesting the other attendants to serve all alcoholic drinks was put on the woman. She, in essence, created her own accomodation. The company created no policy nor intervened on her behalf. It seems to me they clearly violated the law.


Again, she was hired to do a job.
She knew what the job, entailed.
It is NOT the responsibility of the airline to bow to her religion.
Sorry.

If people stopped trying to get everyone to BOW to their special interest, and they just do their thing, and don't expect anyone else to bow to it, this world would be a better place.

This case is different. This gal had the job, and SHE converted.
The other lady's JOB description changed. She was hired to do one thing, then was made to do something else.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I posted a link to this article in the clerk thread, but it addresses this case as well. It's worth taking the time to read it and become better informed on the laws that apply to religious liberty and how accommodation might be reached.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

If it is a valid case of religious conscious, an employer has an obligation to try to find an accommodation that both allows the person to stay employed while not performing the offending act. The exception is the accommodation can't cost the company a prohibitive amount of money.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Riverdale said:


> Why are we even discussing the clerk from Kentucky? Doesn't she have enough of her own threads?
> 
> Back to the original-
> 
> ...


Or maybe, just maybe, the employee that complained was the same one who a&#322;ways finds something to complain about. A complaint about working conditions and shared work load may very well be legitimate. There are other ways this may have been addressed other than putting the woman on unpaid leave. The airline has a legal obligation to pursue these other remedies providing they don't unduly interrupt the operation of their business or place an undue financial burden on them. No indication of either has been forthcoming. I know we only have one side of the story. If other facts come forward showing the Muslim woman was making unreasonable demands I reserve the right to change my stance. For now, I can only comment on what we've been told and the law's stance on those "facts".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I posted a link to this article in the clerk thread, but it addresses this case as well. It's worth taking the time to read it and become better informed on the laws that apply to religious liberty and how accommodation might be reached.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
> 
> If it is a valid case of religious conscious, an employer has an obligation to try to find an accommodation that both allows the person to stay employed while not performing the offending act. The exception is the accommodation can't cost the company a prohibitive amount of money.


Thanks for bringing it over.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> A single mom who really needs the job went against her religious beliefs and agreed because she was worried she would lose her job and another women, who is the daughter of a minister, also felt she needed to comply to keep her job. Given the choice with no repercussions, both would likely have refused. As is often the case, *CNN reported things as they wanted them to be, not as they are*. The power of government got both to agree.


CNN gave the plain facts as they happened in court
You're giving the emotional gossip version with nothing to back it up, while getting the numbers incorrect

If they truly feel that strong about it they should find other jobs


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> CNN gave the plain facts as they happened in court
> You're giving the emotional gossip version with nothing to back it up, while getting the numbers incorrect
> 
> If they truly feel that strong about it they should find other jobs


I think they get to make that decision for themselves, and they did. If I use emotional gossip as my source, I would say so. My source was as reputable as CNN, which isn't saying all that much.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I think they get to make that decision for themselves, and they did. If I use emotional gossip as my source, I would say so. *My source was as reputable as CNN*, which isn't saying all that much.


You haven't posted a source that I recall, for anyone to reach their own conclusions as to the credibility. 

I suspect it's directly from one of the sites supporting Davis rather than a "news agency"


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe, just maybe, the employee that complained was the same one who a&#322;ways finds something to complain about. A complaint about working conditions and shared work load may very well be legitimate. There are other ways this may have been addressed other than putting the woman on unpaid leave. The airline has a legal obligation to pursue these other remedies providing they don't unduly interrupt the operation of their business or place an undue financial burden on them. No indication of either has been forthcoming. I know we only have one side of the story. If other facts come forward showing the Muslim woman was making unreasonable demands I reserve the right to change my stance. For now, I can only comment on what we've been told and the law's stance on those "facts".


Sorry, the FA hired in knowing she would have to serve booze.
Then she 'changed' (ie converted to Islam)
Maybe she figured she could get a lighter workload by being Muslim......

I got a question, did she complain about serving a BLT or pulled pork?
sounds like she found a way to get around it.
would have to pay her unemployment, but if I owned the company I would say "your services are no longer required"


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> And in a civilized world, a world of respect, the religious lady could be the snack lady.
> We 'claim' diversity and we claim 'co-exist' it's really all just lip service.
> There is always at least 1 who had to show their backside, and make a scene.
> The head covering? Sorry, not part of the uniform.
> ...


she was hired to hand out forms, and her job description "changed" so now she is asked to hand out the very same forms.......:bash:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Riverdale said:


> Sorry, the FA hired in knowing she would have to serve booze.
> Then she 'changed' (ie converted to Islam)
> Maybe she figured she could get a lighter workload by being Muslim......
> 
> ...


And if you did so based on her legitimate religous beliefs, no matter how or when she came to them, you'd be subject to the same legal action. You can suppose whatever you wish about her actions or motives. But that's all they are- suppositions with no underlying basis in provable fact. I can't argue against them or disprove them. That's not what I'm doing. The law is clear. It allows this woman to ask for a reasonable accomodation for her religous beliefs. It protects your religous rights also.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> And in a civilized world, a world of respect, the religious lady could be the snack lady.
> We 'claim' diversity and we claim 'co-exist' it's really all just lip service.
> There is always at least 1 who had to show their backside, and make a scene.
> The head covering? Sorry, not part of the uniform.
> ...


While I would agree that a law had changed regarding the clerk, I would also guess that other laws had changed during the time she held her position that she felt no need to refuse to allow herself or her coworkers to respect. 

I have found myself contracted to a company that I felt was working in a legal gray area and compromised my integrity and it didn't take me any more than 15 minutes to clear out my desk and terminate my contract. 

I do respect someone who is prepared to stand their ground on the basis of personal ethics, faith or legal grounds but I don't respect her desire to force her coworkers to hold the same opinion.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> On the airline I frequently fly all drink orders, alcoholic and non, are taken before the cart is pushed down the aisle. The cart is then pushed down the aisle and drinks are served. Another attendant follows the cart handing out snacks from the basket they carry. They work in tandem and it seems reasonable to me that two people could work in tandem without undue hardship to ensure that one didn't have to serve alcohol.


Alcoholic beverages are purchased involving a transaction using cash or a credit card is scanned. The server becomes responsible for collecting the correct amount, keeping track of the cash and reconciling the totals at the end of the day. A bit more effort and than serving someone a free cola.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I had the misfortune of working at a place were about 50% of the employees had "reasonable accommodations," most apparently due health issues. It was not possible to know as employee privacy issues kept what was going on a secret. 
One couldn't be on his feet for more than a hour a day, so he got much of the phone work, which was easier and produce more work units so his stats always were higher. Another had vision issue and therefore got assigned the only work areas with a window, despite being the employee having the least senority. Another had stress issues and could have unscheduled time off at pretty much his own discretion. And on and on. I think it got to the point that a doctor's recommendation could in effect run the work assignments.
The result was that a good number of employees got to do a disproportionate amount of the work, the harder work, did it in the places farthest away from where they had go to do it, did it in the darkest, coldest areas and got the least bonuses as they produced the least stats.
Each accommodation was probably pretty small in itself but it sure left a lot of hostility in its wake.
Being seen as being treated fairly, which most people see as largely meaning equally, is important.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tobster said:


> Alcoholic beverages are purchased involving a transaction using cash or a credit card is scanned. The server becomes responsible for collecting the correct amount, keeping track of the cash and reconciling the totals at the end of the day. A bit more effort and than serving someone a free cola.



Deleted by me. Wrong airline referenced.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Here is a reasonable accommodation... Let the woman the doesn't want to serve drinks scrape the ice off the wings of the plane.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Well, not really at all. The Constitution spells out what powers the Federal government has (supposedly). All else is reserved to the people and the States. Supreme Court decisions have been known to be changed anyway.


And some judges like to think they can and go by the constitution when in fact they are going against it. Case in point just the other day the judge backed off of what AZ was trying to do in stemming ILLEGAL Immigrants. AZ can now RESUME what they wanted to do and that is Follow the laws already established~!


> (Reuters) &#8211; A federal judge has upheld part of Arizona&#8217;s contentious immigration law, rejecting claims that the so-called &#8220;show your papers&#8221; section of the law discriminated against Hispanics.
> 
> The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Friday was on the last of seven challenges to the 2010 law.
> 
> *The section being upheld allows police in Arizona to check the immigration status of anyone they stop*.


http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=15242

YEAH for AZ.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

According to this site, ExpressJet does not charge for non alcoholic beverages:
http://www.americasbestairlines.com/ExpressJetAirlines.html

I've found a lot of conflicting info on this case. Some sources say she had been hired only a month before, others say 2 or 3 years. Some say the issue was the drinks, others say the headscarf and the foreign writings in a book were the problem. Like I said before, the whole story is not and may never be known. If other attendants had no problem working with her and this one had only one complaint about her it should not have led to termination. The airline could have put her with attendants who didn't mind the additional work. 

I also found that Muslim women are not supposed to put on perfume and walk in front of men. I won't say how many Muslim women disregard that edict.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> According to this site, ExpressJet does not charge for non alcoholic beverages:
> http://www.americasbestairlines.com/ExpressJetAirlines.html
> 
> I've found a lot of conflicting info on this case. Some sources say she had been hired only a month before, others say 2 or 3 years. Some say the issue was the drinks, others say the headscarf and the foreign writings in a book were the problem. Like I said before, the whole story is not and may never be known. If other attendants had no problem working with her and this one had only one complaint about her it should not have led to termination. The airline could have put her with attendants who didn't mind the additional work.
> ...


are you sure that's perfume you are smelling as you walk behind them?!?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You haven't posted a source that I recall, for anyone to reach their own conclusions as to the credibility.
> 
> I suspect it's directly from one of the sites supporting Davis rather than a "news agency"


http://www.abc22now.com/news/top-stories/stories/Judge



> Deputy clerk Melissa Thompson told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that she doesn't really want to, but she will comply with the law. She wept and said: "I'm a preacher's daughter, and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."
> 
> And an attorney for deputy clerk Kristie Plank says she's reluctant but will issues the licenses. The attorney cites Plank's 11-year-old child and financial and family obligations, saying she can't go to jail.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> According to this site, ExpressJet does not charge for non alcoholic beverages:
> http://www.americasbestairlines.com/ExpressJetAirlines.html
> 
> I've found a lot of conflicting info on this case. Some sources say she had been hired only a month before, others say 2 or 3 years. Some say the issue was the drinks, others say the headscarf and the foreign writings in a book were the problem. Like I said before, the whole story is not and may never be known. If other attendants had no problem working with her and this one had only one complaint about her it should not have led to termination. The airline could have put her with attendants who didn't mind the additional work.
> ...


Apologies. For some reason I had her working for the wrong airline. My bad.

I'll agree that we probably don't know the entire story. I can only comment on what we do supposedly know. Different Muslims, just as different Christians, have differing levels of practice and religous obedience. The law doesn't require absolute piety or obedience to all religous tenets. I'm wiling to revise my opinion if more facts become available but as things have been presented the law seems to be in her favor.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> This one seems fairly simple. The law calls for an effort to be made to reach a reasonable accomodation for an employees religous beliefs. It seems that having another flight attendant on her flights serve all the alcohol was working as that reasonable accomodation. There is no mention of passenger complaints or the other attendents complaining it was an undue burden. The complaint that got her suspended seemed unrelated to her job performance. The airline, to me, seems to be in the wrong.


That's fine for her but what about the workers who have to do their job AND hers?

This is between the employee and the employer, the government shouldn't be involved at all. There is nothing in the USC which says that any private business has to provide religious freedom.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> That's fine for her but what about the workers who have to do their job AND hers?
> 
> This is between the employee and the employer, the government shouldn't be involved at all. *There is nothing in the USC which says that any private business has to provide religious freedom*.


perhaps, but there is that bit about governments obligation to ensure our laws treat all citizens equally.
Therefore since there are laws in place regarding businesses they have to apply to every one. While there may be no law saying a business has to sell sandwiches to anyone, but there are laws that say if you are going to sell to the public, you have to sell them to everyone who has the purchase price in hand. No matter how many times you bring this tired argument up, it's not going to change that fact.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> are you sure that's perfume you are smelling as you walk behind them?!?


It's perfume that they're spraying all over themselves in the bathroom. And highly perfumed lotions they rub all over themselves after each bathroom break.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> It's perfume that they're spraying all over themselves in the bathroom. And highly perfumed lotions they rub all over themselves after each bathroom break.


Sounds good, a lot better than some of the clouds I have had the misfortune of walking thru.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Ah, but those clouds don't have the hang power of perfume clouds. I've never been sent into a sneezing fit by gaseous digestion clouds.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Ah, but those clouds don't have the hang power of perfume clouds. I've never been sent into a sneezing fit by gaseous digestion clouds.


You must be shopping at a different Walmart! Coughing, choking eye burners they drop in ours.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

That must be it. I don't shop at WM. 
And I could always get revenge. I've got a patch of Jerusalem artichokes just waiting to be turned into a bio-warfare weapon.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Here is a reasonable accommodation... Let the woman the doesn't want to serve drinks scrape the ice off the wings of the plane.


Betcha she gets to wear the head covering while doin' this.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I dread the day when one of the ladies I work with gets their head covering caught in the machinery. It's bound to happen but how can the company protect itself? I've already seen clothing get caught between mail trays. The dress code says no loose clothing but to require the Muslim women to wear closer fitting clothing violates their "freedom of religion" because that would be too revealing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I dread the day when one of the ladies I work with gets their head covering caught in the machinery. It's bound to happen but how can the company protect itself? I've already seen clothing get caught between mail trays. The dress code says no loose clothing but to require the Muslim women to wear closer fitting clothing violates their "freedom of religion" because that would be too revealing.


You might want to remind them of that when their head is going round and round in the equipment.  wonder what their religion says about bleeding all over the equipment?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> By employees, do you mean the two that agreed to do it only under duress and pressure? The two that weren't allowed to follow their own conscience.


They were allowed to do as they chose. Her son chose not to give out marriage certificates and the Judge didn't put him in jail. The rest freely made the choice to give them out.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _So the company found an accommodation for her and everything worked fine until another employee got their panties in a wad over her religion? They should have fired the employee who complained for not being a team player and moved on. People like that are just worthless.
> 
> I would have happily served the alcohol for her if I was a fellow airline stewardess. I think the airline should make an accommodation if it is possible and doesn't impede their business.
> ...





Cornhusker said:


> Well sure, accommodate the muslims and jail the Christians
> Sounds like business as usual here in Obamanation.



Only you could possibly get that from what I wrote. If their positions were switched I would have said the same thing. And I was all for accommodating the Christian, she refused to be accommodated.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Danaus29 said:


> Are you also willing to cover for her while she takes several prayer breaks? What about if she refused to serve meals containing pork products? I guarantee there is more to this story than what has been released to the public. And before you call me worthless keep in mind that I do cover my co-workers during reasonable prayer breaks, hourly prayer breaks for 15 minutes each time are not reasonable (and not part of the religious requirements but some people take advantage of the excuse).
> 
> I find it highly doubtful that the airline took the word of one employee over another unless the one being complained about was already falling short in her job performance. She converted ONE MONTH after getting the job. You don't convert to another religion overnight. She knew her job would entail serving drinks before she accepted it and she knew about the Islam prohibition against liquor before applying for the job. And there are several other aspects of the religion which would conflict with required airline attendant duties.
> 
> As for the head scarves, yes they can be kept tucked in and modest. There are no pictures of this particular woman wearing her covering so I can't say if it would present a danger or not. One that hangs loosely or has lots of fringe presents a possible danger. Maybe she spent too much time in front of the mirror adjusting it. Maybe she was adjusting it in the kitchen area. The woman suing sure isn't going to say what the specific complaint about the scarf was.



Yes I would take over so she could pray as necessary. Airlines rarely serve meals anymore so the pork question is moot. 

This is the lady in question, she looks like a lovely woman:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> On the airline I frequently fly all drink orders, alcoholic and non, are taken before the cart is pushed down the aisle. The cart is then pushed down the aisle and drinks are served. Another attendant follows the cart handing out snacks from the basket they carry. They work in tandem and it seems reasonable to me that two people could work in tandem without undue hardship to ensure that one didn't have to serve alcohol.
> 
> If this wasn't a workable solution, though it seemed it was working for most, the airline has the obligation under the law to attempt to come up with a reasonable accomodation for this woman. There is no indication they did. In fact the burden of requesting the other attendants to serve all alcoholic drinks was put on the woman. She, in essence, created her own accomodation. The company created no policy nor intervened on her behalf. It seems to me they clearly violated the law.



You know what I don't get here is that companies accommodate people who can't serve/sell alcohol every day. People who are under 21 and working as cashiers at places that sell alcohol have to be accommodated. Is that wrong? Is that an egregious burden? 

I don't mind waiting a minute r 2 for a manager to come over and check out my alcohol when I go to the grocery and there is a younger person working there.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> perhaps, but there is that bit about governments obligation to ensure our laws treat all citizens equally.
> Therefore since there are laws in place regarding businesses they have to apply to every one. While there may be no law saying a business has to sell sandwiches to anyone, but there are laws that say if you are going to sell to the public, you have to sell them to everyone who has the purchase price in hand. No matter how many times you bring this tired argument up, it's not going to change that fact.


The problem is the law and if the state has the right/power to make and enforce such laws, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.

There are many laws which are on the books which if you read the constitution the state has no power to enforce. That's because such laws give the state powers it is not given in the USC or are directly forbidden in the USC.

This is a prime example. The state has no power to force an individual from following the teachings of his religion unless doing so violates the rights of another. And I have repeatedly challenged anyone to show me that the have a right to buy another's property but no one has shown me just where in the USC that right is even hinted at. If you have no right to buy something then you can not say your right was violated when they refused to sell it to you for whatever reason they choose.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I support both. The employee should not be forced to violate her religion and the employer should have the employee perform her duties she was hired for. They are both right. Both also displayed ignorance of this situation arising, and are therefore both guilty of doing wrong to the other. Especially because they both function inside a Corporate politically correct environment. Shame on them both.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> They were allowed to do as they chose. Her son chose not to give out marriage certificates and the Judge didn't put him in jail. The rest freely made the choice to give them out.


No they didn't. I posted a link to the article that said such. And what do you think the judge would have done if 3 out of 6 deputies refused? One out of 6 is workable, 3 out of 6 likely isn't.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

In this case, she should lose; although with the Obama EEOC, she probably won't.

There was a Muslim woman on Fox yesterday that said there is not a prohibition in the Koran against serving alcohol. I believe she said the prohibition was against taking mind altering substances, but made no mention of serving. If that is the case, the woman is claiming a religious objection that isn't valid. Simply believing it isn't enough. It must be backed up by religious teachings.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> The problem is the law and if the state has the right/power to make and enforce such laws, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.
> 
> There are many laws which are on the books which if you read the constitution the state has no power to enforce. That's because such laws give the state powers it is not given in the USC or are directly forbidden in the USC.
> 
> This is a prime example. The state has no power to force an individual from following the teachings of his religion unless doing so violates the rights of another. And I have repeatedly challenged anyone to show me that the have a right to buy another's property but no one has shown me just where in the USC that right is even hinted at. If you have no right to buy something then you can not say your right was violated when they refused to sell it to you for whatever reason they choose.


Ninth and tenth amendments amendments cover states right to pass these laws Ninth establishes people's right to purchase goods from others. Tenth grants to states all powers not denied them by the constitution. Fourteenth says all citizens have same rights as others. Perhaps you will figure it out during the trial.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> They were allowed to do as they chose. Her son chose not to give out marriage certificates and the Judge didn't put him in jail. The rest freely made the choice to give them out.


Yeah
Freely give them out or go to jail
Here in Obamanation, that's the choice we have. Do as we are told or rot.
Unless you are a muslim, then they'll bend over backwards to "accommodate" you


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> Yeah
> Freely give them out or go to jail
> Here in Obamanation, that's the choice we have. Do as we are told or rot.
> Unless you are a muslim, then they'll bend over backwards to "accommodate" you


Yep, do as told or rot in jail.... We have been told not to rob banks, not to kidnap people, we are told not to molest children and we are told to be nice to others. Which of these commands do you think is unfair?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> In this case, she should lose; although with the Obama EEOC, she probably won't.
> 
> There was a Muslim woman on Fox yesterday that said there is not a prohibition in the Koran against serving alcohol. I believe she said the prohibition was against taking mind altering substances, but made no mention of serving. If that is the case, the woman is claiming a religious objection that isn't valid. Simply believing it isn't enough. It must be backed up by religious teachings.


And I can point to Christian denominations that perform same sex marriages and religous scholars that say there is no biblical basis for denying them proving the clerk false. I can show Muslim countries where the sale or possession of alcohol is prohibited based on their religously based laws proving the flight attendants case. Religion is practiced by individuals. It's practice, even for legal reasons, doesn't need to be all encompassing or consistent with every tenet.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, do as told or rot in jail.... We have been told not to rob banks, not to kidnap people, we are told not to molest children and we are told to be nice to others. Which of these commands do you think is unfair?


The one that says "Even though the 1st Amendment protects your religious rights, they end at the employment door".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> The one that says "Even though the 1st Amendment protects your religious rights, they end at the employment door".


That must be that "be nice to others" one. Good to know.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I posted a link to this article in the clerk thread, but it addresses this case as well. It's worth taking the time to read it and become better informed on the laws that apply to religious liberty and how accommodation might be reached.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
> 
> If it is a valid case of religious conscious, an employer has an obligation to try to find an accommodation that both allows the person to stay employed while not performing the offending act. The exception is the accommodation can't cost the company a prohibitive amount of money.


Actually religious accommodation must not cause an "undue burden" which is much more than money.

To quote from the EEOC website in the the link I listed earlier-
"Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employerâs business. For example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employeesâ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employeeâs share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered."

So the only issue that needs to be found is that her refusal causes her co-workers to carry her share of burdensome work or decreases their efficiency. And since the greater part of a flight assistant's time is spent providing drinks and alcohol is a good share of that, I doubt she will win this case. The best she'll get out of it is the same reasonable accommodation she was previously offered.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> In this case, she should lose; although with the Obama EEOC, she probably won't.
> 
> There was a Muslim woman on Fox yesterday that said there is not a prohibition in the Koran against serving alcohol. I believe she said the prohibition was against taking mind altering substances, but made no mention of serving. If that is the case, the woman is claiming a religious objection that isn't valid. Simply believing it isn't enough. It must be backed up by religious teachings.


I have friends who are pretty moderate Muslims and they believe that they should abstain from consuming alcohol or consume pork but sold both in their store. I worked with a lovely young gal who was a little more firm about things but she still felt the need to be very polite about it and would only discuss her reasons, if asked. 

She covered, scheduled company sanctioned breaks for prayers and would politely declined to touch alcohol or pork products. 

Neither is any more wrong within their faith that Christians who take different approaches to their faith and the solution doesn't lie in a moderate telling someone more devout that their interpretation is wrong.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Actually religious accommodation must not cause an "undue burden" which is much more than money.
> 
> To quote from the EEOC website in the the link I listed earlier-
> "Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employerâs business. For example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employeesâ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employeeâs share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered."
> ...


Maybe you can point us to the reasonable accomodation the company offered. A supervisor saying go work it out with your co-workers is a pretty weak attempt by the company to resolve the situation. If that is all they did they really took no proactive action to resolve this situation and will likely lose.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wr said:


> Neither is any more wrong within their faith that Christians who take different approaches to their faith and the solution doesn't lie in a moderate telling someone more devout that their interpretation is wrong.


What I'm getting at is it isn't based on what 1 person believes, but what the religion has as its tenets. For example, if she believed that Islam prohibited her from eating chicken, she would lose if her complaint was based on having to eat chicken.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> What I'm getting at is it isn't based on what 1 person believes, but what the religion has as its tenets. For example, if she believed that Islam prohibited her from eating chicken, she would lose if her complaint was based on having to eat chicken.


You might wish to go back and read your own legal experts opinion. You posted it. The word of one person on Fox isn't evidence that another's belief is insincere or invalid.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> What I'm getting at is it isn't based on what 1 person believes, but what the religion has as its tenets. For example, if she believed that Islam prohibited her from eating chicken, she would lose if her complaint was based on having to eat chicken.


But there are many Muslims that feel the same way she does so I don't think you can take one person's word on how it should be interpreted. 

I know many people who have clearly told me that the bible does not indicate that one should not receive a blood transfusion but there are many who feel otherwise and I know several Christians that take just as firm stance on alcohol as this woman. 

My only point is that it is unreasonable for one person to tell another how they should practice their faith or if their interpretation is correct.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Neither is any more wrong within their faith that Christians who take different approaches to their faith and the solution doesn't lie in a moderate telling someone more devout that their interpretation is wrong.


But that is exactly what is constantly done by the "don't inflict your religion on me" crowd. First the make sarcastic jokes about a Christian's beliefs. Then rant about anyone who dares use anything Christian as authority for anything. Then berate anyone who insists on respecting religious sentiment as a bigot.

It is quite clear that none of that happens when the religion is other than Christian. Why are there no posts saying 'What does she think? She's going absorb alcohol by touching the bottle?" or some other snarky nonsequitor that would be the first thing out of their mouths if it was a Christian objecting. 

Mostly the anti-religious spouting here are a litany of grievances of personal experiences that apparently find it alright to disparage the one or two religions they feel have not treated them well while finding it more than acceptable to side with another religion if they see it discomfits the ones they hate. 

So will happily support a religion solely because it can be used to attack another. While clearly not believing in any of its tenets either. 

I'd have some respect if they attacked all religions, as they purport to do when pushed about their bigotry. But it clearly is not true. Or even if they conducted civilized debate. But the goal is clearly to drive away certain groups by mobbing. 

And it can hear the clanking gears falling into their accustomed ruts of personal attack. Well, go ahead. It is always amusing to see the assumptions that show the true working of their minds. I'll give you a heads up, not that they will understand- the assumptions are almost always very wrong. But then it is the only way it can be when bigotry is unrecognized and colors everything.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> But that is exactly what is constantly done by the "don't inflict your religion on me" crowd. First the make sarcastic jokes about a Christian's beliefs. Then rant about anyone who dares use anything Christian as authority for anything. Then berate anyone who insists on respecting religious sentiment as a bigot.
> 
> It is quite clear that none of that happens when the religion is other than Christian. Why are there no posts saying 'What does she think? She's going absorb alcohol by touching the bottle?" or some other snarky nonsequitor that would be the first thing out of their mouths if it was a Christian objecting.
> 
> ...


I'm one of those people who doesn't want someone's religion forced on me and I don't feel I've been sarcastic or bigoted in any way nor have I attacked anyone so perhaps generalizations aren't overly effective.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Actually religious accommodation must not cause an "undue burden" which is much more than money.
> 
> To quote from the EEOC website in the the link I listed earlier-
> "Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employerâs business. For example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employeesâ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employeeâs share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered."
> ...


You're right. To be accurate, I should have said prohibitive cost instead of prohibitive amount of money.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> You might wish to go back and read your own legal experts opinion. You posted it. The word of one person on Fox isn't evidence that another's belief is insincere or invalid.


What part of "If that is the case" did you not understand?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> I'm one of those people who doesn't want someone's religion forced on me and I don't feel I've been sarcastic or bigoted in any way nor have I attacked anyone so perhaps generalizations aren't overly effective.


I would love to have seen the remark about not telling people how to practice their faith during any one of the nasty attacks on an individual's statement of their Christian beliefs. Since I have never seen even one of those, it is pretty clear that it is not an idea applied equally.

As to it being effective, it would surprise me if it was. That would be totally out of character, although it would be nice. What I expect is to be attacked for being a bigot talking only in the service of my own religion. That will be in character.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> But that is exactly what is constantly done by the "don't inflict your religion on me" crowd. First the make sarcastic jokes about a Christian's beliefs. Then rant about anyone who dares use anything Christian as authority for anything. Then berate anyone who insists on respecting religious sentiment as a bigot.
> 
> It is quite clear that none of that happens when the religion is other than Christian. Why are there no posts saying 'What does she think? She's going absorb alcohol by touching the bottle?" or some other snarky nonsequitor that would be the first thing out of their mouths if it was a Christian objecting.
> 
> ...


I guess it's easier to go on the attack about others motives and behaviors than to answer a simple question about what reasonable accomodation you claim the company made to the flight attendant but I'll take your bait anyway.

Please go back and show in any thread relating to the flight attendant or the Kentucky clerk where I treated their beliefs differently. I've defended the clerk's right to believe what she wishes. I've defended her right to have come to those beliefs in any manner or any time she claims. I've criticized others for pointing to her previous marriages as being irrelevant and not germane to her current actions. I've pointed out repeatedly that the law requires no level of piety or consistency by any who claim religous exemption. I have called out for compromise and reasonable accomadation in both cases. We know the compromise offered the clerk, what was offered the flight attendant?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> What part of "If that is the case" did you not understand?


I understood. I, and others, have proven it's not the case and yet you doubled down with a specious argument about chicken in an effort to bolster an already disproven point. What didnt you understand?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I understood. I, and others, have proven it's not the case and yet you doubled down with a specious argument about chicken in an effort to bolster an already disproven point. What didnt you understand?


I was referencing an expert in the field and you and others have referenced ?????

I go where the facts lead me on cases like this, not where my personal opinion leads me. In this case, I think her argument is very weak and that she will likely lose. I might be wrong, but I haven't seen any facts posted in this thread that lead to that conclusion.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> No they didn't. I posted a link to the article that said such. And what do you think the judge would have done if 3 out of 6 deputies refused? One out of 6 is workable, 3 out of 6 likely isn't.


So one of them didn't like it but she complied with the law and the other one was reluctant but she was also willing to do her job. So? They both did the right thing and did their jobs. Good for them. 



> Quote:
> Deputy clerk Melissa Thompson told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that she doesn't really want to, but she will comply with the law. She wept and said: "I'm a preacher's daughter, and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."
> 
> And an attorney for deputy clerk Kristie Plank says she's reluctant but will issues the licenses. The attorney cites Plank's 11-year-old child and financial and family obligations, saying she can't go to jail.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I was referencing an expert in the field and you and others have referenced ?????
> 
> I go where the facts lead me on cases like this, not where my personal opinion leads me. In this case, I think her argument is very weak and that she will likely lose. I might be wrong, but I haven't seen any facts posted in this thread that lead to that conclusion.


Your expert was someone you saw on Fox. Provide their name and expertise and we'll judge their expertise. The facts are that religous convictions can be highly personal and the law recognizes that. You don't seem to.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Yeah
> Freely give them out or go to jail
> Here in Obamanation, that's the choice we have. Do as we are told or rot.
> Unless you are a muslim, then they'll bend over backwards to "accommodate" you



Or quit their jobs.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> So one of them didn't like it but she complied with the law and the other one was reluctant but she was also willing to do her job. So? They both did the right thing and did their jobs. Good for them.


Are you serious? They agreed under the heavy hand of the US government and the possibility of being sentenced to jail. That is called coercion. 

If they had been told to follow their conscious and do what they think is right, with no penalties in any form, they both likely would have refused (based on their comments).


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I was referencing an expert in the field and you and others have referenced ?????
> 
> I go where the facts lead me on cases like this, not where my personal opinion leads me. In this case, I think her argument is very weak and that she will likely lose. I might be wrong, but I haven't seen any facts posted in this thread that lead to that conclusion.


I'll also point out that the other expert you referenced mentions a case in his piece that indicates Muslims have the right to refuse to deliver alcohol. Which facts are you going to follow?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Are you serious? They agreed under the heavy hand of the US government and *the possibility of being sentenced to jail*. That is called coercion.
> 
> If they had been told to follow their conscious and do what they think is right, with no penalties in any form, they both likely would have refused (based on their comments).


That is simply not true, since the one who refused is not in jail.

They *chose* to do it

As long as there is another clerk in the office, they still won't have to do it


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ninth and tenth amendments amendments cover states right to pass these laws Ninth establishes people's right to purchase goods from others. Tenth grants to states all powers not denied them by the constitution. Fourteenth says all citizens have same rights as others. Perhaps you will figure it out during the trial.


Good try at supporting the laws but you didn't provide support basic tenet of said laws.: Do you have a right buy something from someone if they do not wish to sell it to you? Put another way, do you have the right to force someone to sell you something to you if they do not wish you to have it?

If that is a civil right then it would be illegal to put ANY restrictions on who you were willing to sell your private property too. You could not limit the sell of your kitten to a dog free home anymore than you could limit the sell of your home to a black free family. After all would you not be violating all dog owner's the civil right to buy a cat?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> The one that says "Even though the 1st Amendment protects your religious rights, they end at the employment door".


Does that apply to all rights or only religious ones?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I have friends who are pretty moderate Muslims and they believe that they should abstain from consuming alcohol or consume pork but sold both in their store. I worked with a lovely young gal who was a little more firm about things but she still felt the need to be very polite about it and would only discuss her reasons, if asked.
> 
> She covered, scheduled company sanctioned breaks for prayers and would politely declined to touch alcohol or pork products.
> 
> Neither is any more wrong within their faith that Christians who take different approaches to their faith and the solution doesn't lie in a moderate telling someone more devout that their interpretation is wrong.


Using people you know who say they are Muslim to support something is not a good plan. There are plenty of people out there who call themselves Muslims who aren't following the teachings of Mohammad (ditto for people claiming to be members of any/all religions). I haven't educated myself enough to know if the Quran says not to use alcohol or to have nothing at all to do with it so I can't say which it is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Good try at supporting the laws but you didn't provide support basic tenet of said laws.: Do you have a right buy something from someone if they do not wish to sell it to you? Put another way, do you have the right to force someone to sell you something to you if they do not wish you to have it?
> 
> If that is a civil right then it would be illegal to put ANY restrictions on who you were willing to sell your *private property* too. You could not limit the sell of your kitten to a dog free home anymore than you could limit the sell of your home to a black free family. After all would you not be violating all dog owner's the civil right to buy a cat?


You always want to talk about *private* sales by individuals when the topics are about businesses.

There are totally different regulations for different scenarios, and they aren't directly comparable. There are few restrictions on private sales at all.

One can put restrictions on the sale of animals, but some private property sales can NOT be refused if they have been advertised publicly. 

Vague scenarios with few details are pretty much pointless for anything other than boosting post counts.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> Using people you know who say they are Muslim to support something is not a good plan. There are plenty of people out there who call themselves Muslims who aren't following the teachings of Mohammad (ditto for people claiming to be members of any/all religions). I haven't educated myself enough to know if the Quran says not to use alcohol or to have nothing at all to do with it so I can't say which it is.


I would agree and my comment was used to illustrate different opinions within any faith. 

I believe the Quran deals with it as another member stated and it is subject to interpretation. 

I have Christian friends that do much the same based on their interpretation and in either case, it's not my place to decide if my Christian friends or my Muslim friends are practicing their faith correctly.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Are you serious? They agreed under the heavy hand of the US government and the possibility of being sentenced to jail. That is called coercion.
> 
> If they had been told to follow their conscious and do what they think is right, with no penalties in any form, they both likely would have refused (based on their comments).


Then they don't have very strong beliefs do they? Kim Davis is the only one who believed it enough to stick with it no matter what. Like I said before quitting their jobs was always an option.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I would agree and my comment was used to illustrate different opinions within any faith.
> 
> I believe the Quran deals with it as another member stated and it is subject to interpretation.
> 
> I have Christian friends that do much the same based on their interpretation and in either case, it's not my place to decide if my Christian friends or my Muslim friends are practicing their faith correctly.


The Church is less a shrine for saints than a hospital for sinners. :cowboy:
Nobody's perfect


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Then they don't have very strong beliefs do they? Kim Davis is the only one who believed it enough to stick with it no matter what. Like I said before quitting their jobs was always an option.


Maybe not an option and who are you to decide what their beliefs are or should be?
You don't know what their financial situation is.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _Then they don't have very strong beliefs do they? Kim Davis is the only one who believed it enough to stick with it no matter what. Like I said before quitting their jobs was always an option._





Cornhusker said:


> Maybe not an option and who are you to decide what their beliefs are or should be?
> You don't know what their financial situation is.


You should really make an effort to read my posts and stop with the knee jerk responses. I never made any attempt at all to decide for them what their beliefs should or should not be. I just pointed out they did not seem to have the courage of their convictions.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That is simply not true, since the one who refused is not in jail.
> 
> They *chose* to do it
> 
> As long as there is another clerk in the office, they still won't have to do it


Coerced is not a synonym for chose.

You have no way of knowing what would have happened if 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the deputies had refused. There is no published information I know of that supports your premise. 

All we know is that 1 refused and 5 didn't, even though at least 2 of the 5 would have preferred not to have.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> You should really make an effort to read my posts and stop with the knee jerk responses. I never made any attempt at all to decide for them what their beliefs should or should not be. I just pointed out they did not seem to have the courage of their convictions.


Do you know what their convictions are?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Do you know what their convictions are?


I know what the 2 who were mentioned in MR's article said about themselves or their family said about them. I know according to his article that they chose to stay employed or to follow the law over their personal convictions. Not really sure what your point is here?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Coerced is not a synonym for chose.
> 
> You have no way of knowing what would have happened if 2, 3, 4, o5 of the deputies had refused. There is no published information I know of that supports your premise.
> 
> All we know is that 1 refused and 5 didn't, even though at least 2 of the 5 *would have preferred not to have*.


But they still made the choice to do it.

There is no "published information" that supports your allegations of "coercion" either, but you keep repeating them.

If there were truly coercion, then logically one would be in jail or fired for refusing


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Yes I would take over so she could pray as necessary. Airlines rarely serve meals anymore so the pork question is moot.


I found that picture in a search about the situation. Also found several sites that claimed the problem with the co-worker was the head covering. After seeing the photo I believe the head covering was more the issue than the drink serving. When they wear loose head covers like that, the covering gets into anything they handle, including open drink containers and food products. I don't know if that is typical of the covering she wore while working but usually the ladies wrap their covering the same way whether at work or at the grocery store. 

As for the prayer times, are you aware they are different for different cities? So when you fly from one city to another the prayer times are vastly different (based on the position of the sun throughout the day). If your co-worker was in a prayer room for 15 minutes to half an hour would that be okay? 

This is just my curiosity, but during Ramadan, Muslims are not permitted to eat or drink from sunrise to sunset. That would be pure torture on an east to west flight when the clock says 7 but you have flown across 3 time zones and it's now 6 and the sun has still not set and won't for a couple more hours. (but your watch really reads 10 pm) 

Like I said before, there is more to this issue than just serving alcoholic beverages. Much, much more. I don't think the truth will ever come out but I know there is more behind the little bit leaked to the news.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Danaus29 said:


> I found that picture in a search about the situation. Also found several sites that claimed the problem with the co-worker was the head covering. After seeing the photo I believe the head covering was more the issue than the drink serving. When they wear loose head covers like that, the covering gets into anything they handle, including open drink containers and food products. I don't know if that is typical of the covering she wore while working but usually the ladies wrap their covering the same way whether at work or at the grocery store.
> 
> As for the prayer times, are you aware they are different for different cities? So when you fly from one city to another the prayer times are vastly different (based on the position of the sun throughout the day). If your co-worker was in a prayer room for 15 minutes to half an hour would that be okay?
> 
> ...


You know this how? If you have a source please share. If not I assume you are just speculating? 

I predict she gets reinstated to her job and provisions are made so she can observe her religion and be a good employee.


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

try and understand this, government is not the answer. if you're expecting it to solve a problem, you're totally ignorant of history.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Know what? The head covering, the prayer times, the rituals of Ramadan? I know more Muslims than most of you combined. Yes we talk religion, and (_gasp_) at work. I find religions and religious rituals fascinating. The women I speak with are more than willing to share their religion and they ask questions about mine. No one is offended and it has been a learning experience for all. And I have personally covered for co-workers who go to pray, many times, and I will continue to do so. So yes, I do know what is an appropriate prayer time and what isn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Know what? The head covering, the prayer times, the rituals of Ramadan? I know more Muslims than most of you combined. * Yes we talk religion, and (gasp) at work. * I find religions and religious rituals fascinating. The women I speak with are more than willing to share their religion and they ask questions about mine. No one is offended and it has been a learning experience for all. And I have personally covered for co-workers who go to pray, many times, and I will continue to do so. So yes, I do know what is an appropriate prayer time and what isn't.


That's all fine, but it's really not the same situation as addressed in the OP, and the last thing people *in the US* want to see *on an airliner* is a Muslim praying (or at all).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You always want to talk about *private* sales by individuals when the topics are about businesses.


So are businesses are government agencies? If not then their goods are PRIVATE PROPERTY.




Bearfootfarm said:


> There are totally different regulations for different scenarios, and they aren't directly comparable. There are few restrictions on private sales at all.


OK, but what's your point? There are all kinds of rules, regs and laws which a lot of people say are not supported by the powers given to the government by the constitution. 




Bearfootfarm said:


> One can put restrictions on the sale of animals, but some private property sales can NOT be refused if they have been advertised publicly.


So all private property is equal but some private property is more equal that others?




Bearfootfarm said:


> Vague scenarios with few details are pretty much pointless for anything other than boosting post counts.


You missed the point and failed to answer the question which must be answered before we go on: Do you have a civil right to buy things? Its a very simple yes or no question.

If the answer is yes then almost any restriction on selling anything would be a violation of your civil rights. This would include you trying to put a restriction on the buyers of your kitten.

If the answer is no then all the rules, regs and laws which penalize individuals for refusing to sell their goods are a violation of private property rights of the owners of the goods.

There are no ambiguities. Your dog, your house, your tomatoes are all your property and as such you should have the ability to sell it or not sell it to who ever you wish.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I would agree and my comment was used to illustrate different opinions within any faith.
> 
> I believe the Quran deals with it as another member stated and it is subject to interpretation.
> 
> I have Christian friends that do much the same based on their interpretation and in either case, it's not my place to decide if my Christian friends or my Muslim friends are practicing their faith correctly.


Actually if you are a Christian it is your place to do so. The Bible clearly tells us that. I don't know what the Quran says about Muslims using the standards in it to judge the actions of others claiming to be Muslim.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> The Church is less a shrine for saints than a hospital for sinners. :cowboy:
> Nobody's perfect


Actually the church is more like a medical college where people learn to help the lost.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But they still made the choice to do it.
> 
> There is no "published information" that supports your allegations of "coercion" either, but you keep repeating them.
> 
> If there were truly coercion, then logically one would be in jail or fired for refusing


Maybe the definition of coerce would help.


> Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats."they were *coerced into* silence"


Other than what 1 deputy said and the attorney for another said, you're right - no documentation.:stars:


----------



## Janis R (Jun 27, 2013)

A lot of people are saying that the FA who complained is wrong, where are her rights??


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

watcher said:


> Does that apply to all rights or only religious ones?


It appears to be whatever liberals decide at the time.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Janis R said:


> A lot of people are saying that the FA who complained is wrong, where are her rights??



I can't stay if she's right or wrong because I don't know for sure what her complaints were. All we really have is one version of this. 

If the reported version is correct, workload would be a valid complaint but I'm not as sure about 'foreign writing' but I'd be surprised if any HR department would treat that or head covering seriously.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's all fine, but it's really not the same situation as addressed in the OP, and the last thing people *in the US* want to see *on an airliner* is a Muslim praying (or at all).


While this may be true it had no bearing on the op and I never said it did. And I never said this woman praying was the reason the other woman complained. I simply stated that there has to be more to the story than the little conflicting statements that were published by the media. You need to read the posts before to follow the conversation.

This is the reason I believe there is more to the story, and add the fact that when a person files a lawsuit they are not going to say anything to the media that puts them in a bad light and the airline will not respond due to confidentiality clauses. The woman who complained is not going to step forward with her real complaint. 

"According to Masri, Stanley had an arrangement with other flight attendants that they would serve alcohol on her flights, but that stopped after another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley over her Muslim head scarf."

From this article:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/09...uspended-for-refusing-to-serve-alcohol-247644
and there are several other articles quoting the same statement.

I can see a complaint about the head covering being valid if it presents a safety or sanitation issue.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Janis R said:


> A lot of people are saying that the FA who complained is wrong, where are her rights??


To accept the rules of her employment or find a job where she can. Her religious rights do not trump the rights of the private business when that private business made clear the duties she would be expected to perform before she agreed to take the job.

Look at this way. A company offers you a job as a ditch digger and explains that the job requires you to use a shovel to dig ditches. You take the job then you tell them that you have a problem with your hands which prevent you from holding a shovel and demand they find you another job. When they don't you sue them. Sound fair?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Maybe the definition of coerce would help.
> 
> 
> Other than what 1 deputy said and the attorney for another said, you're right - no documentation.:stars:


What they said was their own answers, and not evidence the were "coerced" in any way. It's still just an allegation on your part


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> So are businesses are government agencies? If not then their goods are PRIVATE PROPERTY.
> 
> *OK, but what's your point? * There are all kinds of rules, regs and laws which a lot of people say are not supported by the powers given to the government by the constitution.
> 
> ...


You're still trying to oversimplify things when there are different regulations for different scenarios. 

They are not all the same, and it's silly to insinuate one rule covers them all, unless it's your intention to just be ridiculous.

It mostly ends up being a lot of rambling rhetoric with not much substance

You'd be good in politics


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> While this may be true it had no bearing on the op and I never said it did. And *I never said this woman praying was the reason the other woman complained.* I simply stated that there has to be more to the story than the little conflicting statements that were published by the media. You need to read the posts before to follow the conversation.
> 
> This is the reason I believe there is more to the story, and add the fact that when a person files a lawsuit they are not going to say anything to the media that puts them in a bad light and the airline will not respond due to confidentiality clauses. The woman who complained is not going to step forward with her real complaint.
> 
> ...


Her complaint was about the head covering and "foreign language" material.
SHE said it made passengers nervous, which was also part of the complaint


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I never heard the part about it making other passengers nervous. But as the anniversary of 9-11 approaches and as we hear about all the crimes and violence committed by Muslims all over the world I can see where it would be an issue.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What they said was their own answers, and not evidence the were "coerced" in any way. It's still just an allegation on your part



UPDATE 9/3/15 @ 1:10 p.m.
ASHLAND, Ky. (WSAZ/AP) -- Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has been found in contempt of court and ordered to jail.
Judge David Bunning issued the ruling following a hearing in Ashland Thursday morning.

Following the ruling, Davis told the judge, "Thank you," and was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals. She was not in handcuffs.

Bunning says Davis will remain in jail until she complies. He also said that a fine was not enough.

Davis testified for about 20 minutes and was very emotional. She talked about when she became a Christian.

"You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul," she told the judge.

Bunning says he didn't make the decision lightly.

"Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense."

Bunning also spoke of his own religious beliefs. But he said that the oath he took, and the oath Davis took, supersedes those beliefs.

Bunning also said that it's not his job or the court's job to write laws or make changes. But he noted that the legislative and executive branches can do so.

One of the plaintiffs in the case testified she voted for Davis.

April Miller, a professor at Morehead State, said the past two months have been pretty demoralizing for her and her partner. She was asked during a court hearing Thursday whether a license would validate her marriage.

"Yeah, that's what marriage is about - to show other people you are in a long-term relationship," she said. "It is legitimized."

She says when she went to get a license Tuesday, a deputy clerk told her she could go to a different county. Miller says that was kind of saying "we don't want gays or lesbians here. We don't think you are valuable."

After Davis was jailed, hundreds of people outside the courthouse started chanting and screaming, "Love won! Love won!"

*The hearing has recessed until 1:45 when Judge Bunning will take up the contempt issue with the six deputy clerks. Bunning is warning those clerks that they must issue marriage licenses to gay couples or face fines or jail.

The judge gave the deputy clerks time to go meet with public defenders before the hearing resumes.*

Davis stopped issuing licenses to all couples in June after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Despite rulings against her, she's turned away couples again and again, citing her Christian beliefs and "God's authority."

The couples who originally sued in the case asked Bunning to punish Davis with fines but not jail time.

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel,issued the following statement after the ruling.

"Everyone is stunned at this development. Kim Davis is being treated as a criminal because she cannot violate her conscience. While she may be behind bars for now, Kim Davis is a free woman. Her conscience remains unshackled."

Staver continued, "Kim Davis is a woman of strong faith. She never sought to be in this position. She would rather not be in this predicament. But here she is. All she asks is to be true to God and her conscience. And the tragedy is that there are simple ways to accommodate her convictions. Just remove her name from the marriage licenses. That's all she has asked from the beginning. Today's events will escalate this debate to a new level. This is not the kind of America the Founders envisioned or that most Americans want."

Keep clicking on WSAZ mobile and WSAZ.com for the latest information.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)




----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What they said was their own answers, and not evidence the were "coerced" in any way. It's still just an allegation on your part


No, it's an allegation on their part.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> But that is exactly what is constantly done by the "don't inflict your religion on me" crowd. First the make sarcastic jokes about a Christian's beliefs. Then rant about anyone who dares use anything Christian as authority for anything. Then berate anyone who insists on respecting religious sentiment as a bigot.
> 
> It is quite clear that none of that happens when the religion is other than Christian. Why are there no posts saying 'What does she think? She's going absorb alcohol by touching the bottle?" or some other snarky nonsequitor that would be the first thing out of their mouths if it was a Christian objecting.
> 
> ...


Post of the century award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm one of those people who doesn't want someone's religion forced on me and I don't feel I've been sarcastic or bigoted in any way nor have I attacked anyone so perhaps generalizations aren't overly effective.


I'm quite confident the post was not directed at you.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm quite confident the post was not directed at you.


I'm sorry, Tricky, but it was in the sense that wr, who has the power to restrain abusive words in others, has done so against religious based abuse, while not doing it in the case of that small but exeedingly nasty group of anti-Christian Crusaders, that the forum has been allowed to come to the sorry state its in. 
And that is what threads like this have shown. 
It is not that I think that people should be free to use religion to abuse other religions or the nonreligious but that I think the same level of moderation should be used in both cases. And training people to couch unacceptable personal insults in disingenuous ways only increases the level of nastiness which people seem to stoop.
When a poster calls someone a disparaging name, whether in support or opposition to any point, then the same moderation should take place. Or the same moderation not take place- not my first choice but at it has the virtue of equality.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still trying to oversimplify things when there are different regulations for different scenarios.
> 
> They are not all the same, and it's silly to insinuate one rule covers them all, unless it's your intention to just be ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Seeing as how you deflect and refuse to answer questions put to you you'd do very well in politics yourself.

Answer the question. Do you have a civil/constitutional right to buy things?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> UPDATE 9/3/15 @ 1:10 p.m.
> ASHLAND, Ky. (WSAZ/AP) -- Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has been found in contempt of court and ordered to jail.
> Judge David Bunning issued the ruling following a hearing in Ashland Thursday morning.
> 
> ...


Apples and pickles. One is a working for a private business the other is a government employee.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


>


If the business wishes to allow its employees to follow their religious beliefs at work that's fine. If it does not then an employee can either choose to violate their belief or find another job which does not require them to do so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> I'm sorry, Tricky, but it was in the sense that wr, who has the power to restrain abusive words in others, has done so against religious based abuse, while not doing it in the case of *that small but exeedingly nasty group of anti-Christian Crusaders*, that the forum has been allowed to come to the sorry state its in.
> And that is what threads like this have shown.
> It is not that I think that people should be free to use religion to abuse other religions or the nonreligious but that I think the same level of moderation should be used in both cases. And training people to couch unacceptable personal insults in disingenuous ways only increases the level of nastiness which people seem to stoop.
> *When a poster calls someone a disparaging name, whether in support or opposition to any point, then the same moderation should take place. *
> ...


When has that not happened?

Take an HONEST look at those who resort to name calling and childish insults and you'll see that behavior, along with the moderation, is pretty evenly divided

Shouldn't YOUR disparaging remarks be deleted, by your own standards?
Is this somehow related to your "What is fair" thread?

I've been told by a few of your friends:

"If you want to control the posts, buy the forum"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Seeing as how *you deflect and refuse to answer* questions put to you you'd do very well in politics yourself.
> 
> Answer the question. * Do you have a civil/constitutional right to buy things?*


Sometimes, not always, just as I already answered, but you ignored.

It's all on a case by case basis, and details matter


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Seeing as how you deflect and refuse to answer questions put to you you'd do very well in politics yourself.
> 
> Answer the question. Do you have a civil/constitutional right to buy things?


Only things that someone wants to sell. I have no right to force you to sell anything you want to keep, but if you hang a for sale sign on something I have as much right to buy it as anyone else. That's just how that is. It's been beat to death, don't know why you keep dragging its corpse around.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Only things that someone wants to sell. I have no right to force you to sell anything you want to keep, but if you hang a for sale sign on something I have as much right to buy it as anyone else. That's just how that is. It's been beat to death, don't know why you keep dragging its corpse around.


Except in another thread, you said that a judge's service (and yes, that it the thing he's selling- marriage ceremonies) was not subject to non-discriminatory regulation. Why you think it's different than the baker's services is not clear but that is one reason why the corpse really refuses to die. Because you keep wanting to use it for one thing yet deny other people using it for the same thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Except in another thread, you said that a judge's service (and yes, that it the thing he's selling- marriage ceremonies) was not subject to non-discriminatory regulation. Why you think it's different than the baker's services is not clear but that is one reason why the corpse really refuses to die. Because you keep wanting to use it for one thing yet deny other people using it for the same thing.


The judge is not in the business of performing marriages. He has not opened up a store and said he will perform marriages. That is the difference. He is not subject to the laws on the books for business.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Definitely a double standard


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

The Constitution says we have freedom of religion, and that the government will not favor one above the other
Well, this nasty version of our government has kicked that under the bus.
The Constitution doesn't specify freedom depending on your job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Except in another thread, you said that a judge's service (and yes, that it the thing he's selling- marriage ceremonies) was not subject to non-discriminatory regulation. *Why you think it's different than the baker's services is not clear *but that is one reason why the corpse really refuses to die. Because you keep wanting to use it for one thing yet deny other people using it for the same thing.


If it's "not clear" by now it's either because you haven't read the countless explanations, or you can't understand the concept they aren't even remotely the same.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sometimes, not always, just as I already answered, but you ignored.
> 
> It's all on a case by case basis, and details matter


Hum. . .so you see civil/constitutional rights are just a sometimes issue. That kind of thinking is why we are where we are as a nation today. People think there's no problem with taking rights from others as long as its only "sometimes".

_First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me._

Today in the US you can replace the groups with rights and it fits.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Only things that someone wants to sell. I have no right to force you to sell anything you want to keep, but if you hang a for sale sign on something I have as much right to buy it as anyone else. That's just how that is. It's been beat to death, don't know why you keep dragging its corpse around.


Ah. . .so then you agree that if you offer something for sale you can put no limits on who may buy it, correct? After all in doing so you would be violating some one's rights. 

IOW, using your logic once you put offer something for sale the government has control over what used to be your private property because they can force you to sell it to another even if you do not wish to that specific individual to have it. I knew we were on the road to fascism (i.e. government control, but not ownership, of private property through laws, regulations and rules) but I didn't realize we had gone that far.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> If the business wishes to allow its employees to follow their religious beliefs at work that's fine. If it does not then an employee can either choose to violate their belief or find another job which does not require them to do so.


Uh huh. That sounds like stability and peace to you? Best of luck.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Hum. . .so you see civil/constitutional rights are just a sometimes issue. That kind of thinking is why we are where we are as a nation today. People think there's no problem with taking rights from others as long as its only "sometimes".
> 
> _First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist.
> 
> ...


More oversimplification, and a large dose of empty rhetoric.

Details matter, and without all the details it's all wasted time


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

wiscto, I spit all over my screen when I saw the picture you posted! 

I know of a store here where weekend work is required. And yet the orthodox Jews have not boycotted or sued the store. They simply don't apply for jobs there. Come to think of it, not many Muslims work there either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Uh huh. That sounds like stability and peace to you? Best of luck.


Sure. You are free to work or not to work where you wish are you not? If you don't like the rules at a place then the solution seems very simple to me, DON'T WORK THERE!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I'm sorry, Tricky, but it was in the sense that wr, who has the power to restrain abusive words in others, has done so against religious based abuse, while not doing it in the case of that small but exeedingly nasty group of anti-Christian Crusaders, that the forum has been allowed to come to the sorry state its in.
> And that is what threads like this have shown.
> It is not that I think that people should be free to use religion to abuse other religions or the nonreligious but that I think the same level of moderation should be used in both cases. And training people to couch unacceptable personal insults in disingenuous ways only increases the level of nastiness which people seem to stoop.
> When a poster calls someone a disparaging name, whether in support or opposition to any point, then the same moderation should take place. Or the same moderation not take place- not my first choice but at it has the virtue of equality.



Would this be the same imaginary crowd who hates police and eats babies for breakfast? :hysterical:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> Would this be the same imaginary crowd who hates police and eats babies for breakfast? :hysterical:


I don't think they hate just police. I think they pretty much hate everyone. Probably themselves too. What they eat for breakfast is of no interest to anyone but it's certain to be self indulgent.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Ah. . .so then you agree that if you offer something for sale you can put no limits on who may buy it, correct? After all in doing so you would be violating some one's rights.
> 
> IOW, using your logic once you put offer something for sale the government has control over what used to be your private property because they can force you to sell it to another even if you do not wish to that specific individual to have it. I knew we were on the road to fascism (i.e. government control, but not ownership, of private property through laws, regulations and rules) but I didn't realize we had gone that far.


I agree with your first paragraph. That is fairly accurate. Your second paragraph seems a bit scattered. The government does not take control of your property but you do relinquish some of your control to the public at large when you advertise it for sale. If someone wants to purchase it, has the asking price and agrees with that price you have a reasonable obligation to fulfill your end of the bargain and sell it to them. It falls more under the heading of an implied contract than anything else. Another implied contract..... You walk into a restaraunt order a meal as advertised on the menu..... You have entered into an implied contract and have a reasonable obligation to pay for said meal, and the owner of the restaraunt has a reasonable obligation to prepare and serve it to you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Except in another thread, you said that a judge's service (and yes, that it the thing he's selling- marriage ceremonies) was not subject to non-discriminatory regulation. Why you think it's different than the baker's services is not clear but that is one reason why the corpse really refuses to die. Because you keep wanting to use it for one thing yet deny other people using it for the same thing.


The judge in the other thread was not performing wedding ceremonies for anyone. Just because a person is empowered to perform a task that doesn't mean they are required to. This judge held the power to perform weddings, but opted not to..... For anyone.


----------

