Almost (though not exactly) the same issue as christians refusing to make a cake for a gay couple.

Or a Mormon flight attendant in this precise employment situation...

The cake people at least were the business owners. If they dont want to make cakes for gay weddings its their loss of business, and really stupid and short-sighted.

The Muslim can start a business that does not serve alcohol, when the she took the job she knew that the airline served alcohol. If she wanted to be in an alcohol free environment maybe work for Saudi airlines.

And being super observant about alcohol what about interaction with men who are not her husband, father etc

It would be a like a Mormon refusing to serve coffee while working as a waitress at a Dennys

Looks like you posted this while I was typing mine below!

I was thinking thoughts similar to this. For example, what's next? Won't serve jews? Or men? Women with hair uncovered? Is the airline going to have to start segregating planes, not because passengers want it, but because some of their employees do? These are unreasonable employee expectations, and they conflict with our values.

Regarding the mentality that drives the "this is like that" comment above, people need to be careful when aligning their anti-christian feelings with pro-other people. So, were gonna force the christian baker to bake cakes for gays, but not the muslim baker? At least the christian baker only says "no," and the gay customer has recourse. Recourse for the gay customer in other places is to be thrown off the roof of a building, and stoned if he survive the fall.

I'm not gonna comment any more, because this becomes too political, but here does the irrationality stop?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost (though not exactly) the same issue as
> christians refusing to make a cake for a gay
> couple.

This is nothing like the same thing. Nothing!

This is not a potential customer suing a business enterprise who won't serve them. It's an employee of the enterprise, suing the enterprise, because she doesn't want to do her job any more, but she apparently wants to keep receiving the pay of the job she no longer wants to do. The suit doesn't involove patrons of the enterprise at all.

It would be more like if a christian was working at the bakery, making cakes all along, and then sued the owners because she didn't want to make cakes for certain customers. In other words, a person who had been doing the job that they were hired to do, but no longer wants to do it. But wants to keep drawing the pay.

The airline is not saying they won't take Muslim passengers. Their Muslim employee is saying that she doesn't want to serve certain passengers. The flight attendent doesn't want to attend to the needs of some of the passengers. Flight attendents have been serving drinks since the earliest days of air travel. This particular flight attendent would have known it well in advance, and I'd be very surprised if she hadn't already been serving drinks.

If her conscience won't allow her to do her job, then the onus is on her to find a new job (IMO).

Anon4This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is nothing like the same thing. Nothing!

This is nearly *exactly* like that.
It's a person refusing a normal business operation (whether they own the business or not) because of a religious belief.

I had hoped the christians would see the parallels, and perhaps recognize the absurdity of their own position. I guess I hoped in vain.

> This is not a potential customer suing a business
> enterprise who won't serve them. It's an employee
> of the enterprise, suing the enterprise, because
> she doesn't want to do her job any more, but she
> apparently wants to keep receiving the pay of the
> job she no longer wants to do. The suit doesn't
> involove patrons of the enterprise at all.

And yet, it's still a person in a business refusing to do a normal business operation because of a religious belief.


> It would be more like if a christian was working
> at the bakery, making cakes all along, and then
> sued the owners because she didn't want to make
> cakes for certain customers. In other words, a
> person who had been doing the job that they were
> hired to do, but no longer wants to do it. But
> wants to keep drawing the pay.

So if an employee refuses to serve certain customers it's not ok, but if an owner does, it's ok?
Really?

> If her conscience won't allow her to do her job,
> then the onus is on her to find a new job (IMO).

One might say the same thing about a baker; if their conscience won't allow them to bake cakes for all customers, the onus is on them to find a new business.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anon4This Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is nothing like the same thing. Nothing!
>
> This is nearly *exactly* like that.
> It's a person refusing a normal business operation
> (whether they own the business or not) because of
> a religious belief.
>
> I had hoped the christians would see the
> parallels, and perhaps recognize the absurdity of
> their own position. I guess I hoped in vain.
>
> > This is not a potential customer suing a
> business
> > enterprise who won't serve them. It's an
> employee
> > of the enterprise, suing the enterprise,
> because
> > she doesn't want to do her job any more, but
> she
> > apparently wants to keep receiving the pay of
> the
> > job she no longer wants to do. The suit doesn't
> > involove patrons of the enterprise at all.
>
> And yet, it's still a person in a business
> refusing to do a normal business operation because
> of a religious belief.
>
>
> > It would be more like if a christian was
> working
> > at the bakery, making cakes all along, and then
> > sued the owners because she didn't want to make
> > cakes for certain customers. In other words, a
> > person who had been doing the job that they
> were
> > hired to do, but no longer wants to do it. But
> > wants to keep drawing the pay.
>
> So if an employee refuses to serve certain
> customers it's not ok, but if an owner does, it's
> ok?
> Really?
>
> > If her conscience won't allow her to do her
> job,
> > then the onus is on her to find a new job
> (IMO).
>
> One might say the same thing about a baker; if
> their conscience won't allow them to bake cakes
> for all customers, the onus is on them to find a
> new business.

In my opinion neither is OK, but a business refusing to serve a particular clientele on the basis of religion is not the same as an employee claiming the right not to perform tasks related to the job for which he or she was hired, particularly when those tasks were clearly a part of the job when he or she began his or her employment there. Again, both are wrong in my opinion, but that doesn't make them the same. Grand theft auto is wrong, and animal abuse is wrong, but just because both are wrong doesn't make them identical or nearly identical.

scmd Wrote:

> In my opinion neither is OK, but a business
> refusing to serve a particular clientele on the
> basis of religion is not the same as an employee
> claiming the right not to perform tasks related to
> the job for which he or she was hired,
> particularly when those tasks were clearly a part
> of the job when he or she began his or her
> employment there. Again, both are wrong in my
> opinion, but that doesn't make them the same.
> Grand theft auto is wrong, and animal abuse is
> wrong, but just because both are wrong doesn't
> make them identical or nearly identical.

OK, but refusing to perform a business operation because of religion -- that's pretty identical.

There's a whole lot of misinformation on this thread, which really makes me wonder how many actually read the article...
For example, she never refused to serve alcohol. She isn't suing over being forced to serve alcohol.

She worked for the company for 3 years. Sometime late in that period, she converted to Islam. Upon learning that she wasn't supposed to serve alcohol (not just not drink it), she went to her supervisors and asked if they could make a reasonable accommodation for her in that regard. They said they could, and did -- other flight attendants would serve the alcohol. All good. About one week after that, another flight attendant filed a complaint about her. The full complaint wasn't listed anywhere, but what was mentioned from it was a complaint that she was carrying around books written in a foreign language (a Quran, apparently). It wasn't stated that the complaint said anything about not serving alcohol.
A few days after the complaint was filed by another flight attendant, she was removed from her job and put on unpaid leave for a year.
She's suing to get her job back, alleging that the company didn't follow through on the reasonable accommodation.

Make of *that* what you will, but at least it's factual.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-flight-attendant-says-she-was-unfairly-suspended/

I didn't say either was ok, just that they are not the same, and they are not. The only similarity is that someone doesn't want to do something based on religious grounds. But the "victim" and overarching context are completely different. One is an employee who doesn't want to perform the regular duty associated with their job (and why should someone else have to do it?). The other is the owner of a business who chooses (right or wrong) not to engage in certain business. In the other case, the employee is jeopardizing his employers business by putting their religious issues first. if you don't understand those distinctions and implications, then you shouldn't be posting that others are spreading misinformation, because you don't know what's misinformation, and what's not!

Anon4this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only similarity is
> that someone doesn't want to do something based on
> religious grounds. But the "victim" and
> overarching context are completely different. One
> is an employee who doesn't want to perform the
> regular duty associated with their job (and why
> should someone else have to do it?). The other is
> the owner of a business who chooses (right or
> wrong) not to engage in certain business. In the
> other case, the employee is jeopardizing his
> employers business by putting their religious
> issues first.

In both cases, a business is being put in "jeopardy" because someone is putting their religion first.

> if you don't understand those
> distinctions and implications, then you shouldn't
> be posting that others are spreading
> misinformation, because you don't know what's
> misinformation, and what's not!

Yet there was a great deal of "misinformation" posted.
I'm both amused and saddened at people who refuse to acknowledge any similarity between the two actions. Is it because one involves a Muslim and one a Christian? I don't know.
You don't see any similarity, I see a great deal.
We'll have to leave it there.

for someone you never agreed to work for.

Choosing to open a business doesn't mean that you have unilaterally agreed to work for anyone that walks into the door.

A business should be able to deny service for any reason - whether that reason is wrong, bigoted or stupid.

The free market will sort it out.

michaelsortof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Choosing to open a business doesn't mean that you
> have unilaterally agreed to work for anyone that
> walks into the door.

Legally, it pretty much does mean just that.

> A business should be able to deny service for any
> reason - whether that reason is wrong, bigoted or
> stupid.
>
> The free market will sort it out.

"should?" Says who? Not the law. If you want what YOU think "should" be to be the law, then I suggest you lobby for that to be the case. 'Cause it ain't right now.
Go look up "public accommodation" law.

Yeah, and that "free market sorting it out" stuff worked oh so well to sort out discrimination against blacks in the south, didn't it? Oh, wait...no it didn't. Oops.

Do you think that a baker should be shot or imprisoned for not baking cakes for people they don't want to bake for?

Because ultimately that's how laws are enforced.

1. The baker chooses not to bake a cake for a gay couple
2. The couple goes to the government
3. The government imposes penalties against the baker
4. The baker doesn't pay the penalties, continues BAU
5. The government forcibly attempts to shut down the business
6. The baker resists the government's attempt to shut down the business
7. The government attempts to forcibly arrest the baker
8. The baker physically resists the government's attempt to arrest them
9. The baker is tased, subdued and arrested
10. The baker attempts to flee police custody
11. The government puts the baker in prison

OR...

The baker could bake for whomever they choose in a free market, and they simply lose business because they're bigots, either losing their business or barely staying above water, but never flourishing.

Reasonable people should look to the second scenario as the more freedom-oriented option.

Let the free market do what it does.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 01:48PM by kolobian.

Nice try. Are you trying to pretend that Public Accommodation doesn't exist? Or are you trying to pretend that Jim Crow was just dandy?

Because the reality is that if you open a business to the public, you cannot discriminate against any particular group.

So it's simple really. If the bakers don't want to make cakes for certain people, don't make cakes for anyone. Don't open a bakery.

Wow... argumentum ad absurdum, straw man, slippery slope, appeals to emotion... how many fallacies do you need to make to support your argument?

Also, did you skip US history too? Am I in an alternate reality where the civil rights movement didn't happen and things got better because they "Let the free market do what it does.

gay rights.

It isn't federal government edicts that turn the tide it is changes in public perception as a result of free exchange of ideas and the fear businesses feel when the public rejects them.

In the south - and everywhere - changes in the way people treat each other happen over long periods and are based on the same public exchange of ideas and attitudes.

You can't force someone to like or want to serve someone else - you can stop them from enslaving or harming someone else.

You want to forcibly equate the two - it doesn't work in the long run.

Did you miss the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's? They did have to make laws that prevent discrimination. Because there's this thing in the constitution that provides for equal protection under the law. And now it's been applied to Gay's as well as people of color. It's the law.

Yep.
The "free market" rarely resolves anything having to do with rights, fairness, or humanity. The "free market" is greedy, selfish, and only interested in profit. Sorta like the mormon church :)
That's why we don't have a "naked capitalism" free market, 'cause such a thing is contrary to our constitution's notion of rights and equal treatment under the law for all.

This is horseshit. She knew the job requirements before taking the job. Flight attendants go through intense training when they are accepted. They learn the menus & the drink carts. They have to pass segments during training. If they don't pass, they can get addition chances or get sent home. The time to object to serving alcohol was during training. She may have been able to work the gates or reservations. I hope the airline sues her for legal fees.

That would be like me applying for a job as a stripper. I get the job and then sue them because they expect me to strip. Stupid

Or like a hockey player suing over fistfights.

Not making excuses for her (I think it's ridiculous, as much as christian bakers not making a cake), but...

If you read the piece, she converted to Islam after she already had the job. She knew the job requirements when she took the job, she didn't know she was going to convert, and that Islam forbade serving alcohol as well as drinking it.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you read the piece, she converted to Islam
> after she already had the job. She knew the job
> requirements when she took the job, she didn't
> know she was going to convert, and that Islam
> forbade serving alcohol as well as drinking it.

Entirely irrelevant. She chose to work in a job that requires her to serve alcohol, and she chose to convert to a religion which she thinks doesn't allow her to serve alcohol. She should face the consequences of her choices, not us.

Besides, I don't remember any flight attendant at Turkish Airlines, Tunisair, Egyptair, Air Arabia or Royal Air Maroc ever refusing to serve alcohol to anyone. But then, in mormonism like mohammedanism, converts are the greatest extremists.

"She knew the job requirements when she took the job, she didn't know she was going to convert, and that Islam forbade serving alcohol as well as drinking it."

If that's the case, then instead of suing her employer, when the employer did nothing wrong, she could have just sought employment in hundreds of other fields where she didn't have to serve alcohol. Duh.

Just like a Mormon or a member of any other anti-liquor religion should work in a field where they don't have to deal with liquor.

It sounds like she planned all of this from the outset just so she could sue for religious discrimination. Considering this current hysteria of America treating Islam and Muslims as sacred cows, that's highly likely.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2016 04:15PM by randyj.

Yep. Ever been on a flight from the Middle East to America? It's hilarious. Ladies (many in first class) dressed in burkas, clear Saudi airspace & order drinks. Then, there's a long procession to the lavs to change. They come out in mini dresses, heels, hair down & make up. They look like they're going to a night club. They look good. Then, on the way home, it's the reverse. They transform back from butterflies to caterpillars before they land.
This woman needs to be kicked out of court.

Like the "clock" boy did last year???

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/family-of-‘clock-boy’-ahmed-mohamed-files-lawsuit-against-former-school/ar-BBvnMd6

How the heck does this even pertain to the discussion? This kid was arrested because some fool thought a clock made by a young kid was a bomb. Whether he was wrongfully (discriminatorily) treated differently than a wholesome homegrown kid????? is a legitimate question under our contitution.

Isn't it "obvious?" My enemy's enemy is my friend! So Christians a anti-Muslims are lumped together as equally "bad." Ergo, anti-Christians have to "support" Muslims, right?

When they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything, because I'm not a Jew.
When they came for the Christians, I didn't say anything, because I'm not a Christian.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up!

There's a lot of wisdom in that old adage, but things are different now. People don't refrain from speaking up. The problem is that they defend the persecution in the name of "tolerance."

One day I dearly hope human kind moves beyond the stupidity of religion. For the sake of future generations I hope, I hope, I hope, some how we get past the horrors that religion has bestowed on this earth. All it's good for is to divide and create hate.

I think religion is a symptom of stupidity, not the cause.
I know plenty of stupid people that aren't religious. One of my coworkers is an atheist with a masters degree and she's an anti-vaxxer,911 truther, etc.

Fire her!

RB

There's lots of unemployed Americans who love to have her job!Now over 100 million!

I don't think that this case applies to a "reasonable religious accommodation." It would be putting too much of a burden on her fellow flight attendants if she didn't serve alcohol. I don't see this case going anywhere. The EEOC already dismissed it. Perhaps she is hoping for a small settlement from the airline.

Oh, I agree, summer. I was just hoping to get some of the 'religious freedom' folks to see something of their own arguments in the absurdity of this one.
Apparently, that's too much to ask.
Sigh.

She clearly has no standing. Frivolous lawsuit.

#religionissilly



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2016 05:57PM by kolobian.

What's troubling for me is that the Islamic-American council supports the lawsuit. The US First Amendment is clear--Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...If courts support her and her backers, they will violate the "establishment" clause by establishing Islamic Law.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-recognizes-august-as-muslim-appreciation-and-awareness-month/ar-BBvauI3

Check out the link above.

I have Muslim friends and colleagues. I appreciate them and even enjoy a beer with some. That's a far cry from recognizing Shria (sp?) Law. The only problem with resolutions like this is...has the CA legislature remembered to appreciate all groups in the Golden State?

www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/08/10/muslim-doctor-my-patient-refused-to-let-me-treat-her-because-of-my-religion/?ref=yfp

Now a Doctor refuses to do his job....

Anonymous 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/
> 08/10/muslim-doctor-my-patient-refused-to-let-me-t
> reat-her-because-of-my-religion/?ref=yfp
>
> Now a Doctor refuses to do his job....

Um, you should read that again. It wasn't a doctor refusing to do his job. It was a *patient* refusing to be treated by a Muslim doctor. You got it backwards.

Apparently at some emergency rooms, patients can pick their doctors. Where I live it's a small town so we'd never get that option.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/08/10/muslim-doctor-my-patient-refused-to-let-me-treat-her-because-of-my-religion/?ref=yfp

Correct link.

The patient refuse his help because he was a Muslim. There's no excuse for the patient just being plain stupid! I'm sorry for the doctor, but really, he needs to be a professional and get over the the stupidity of the patient.

If I'm the judge in the case, I'd write an opinion that says of course there is an expectation that businesses make reasonable accommodations...and for an airline that means someone who doesn't want to serve alcohol can work in baggage area, baggage claim, ticketing, phone customer service, etc. But a flight attendant should expect to serve soda, water, alcohol, etc.

She doesn't want to serve alcohol? OK, move her to slinging bags on the plane outside in 110 degree weather in Arizona. That's a reasonable accommodation.

In the armed forces there are procedures for a service member who develops a legitimate conscientious objection to warfare and killing, typically on religious grounds through joining a church with a strictly pacifist policy (e.g., Quakers) to be separated from the service before the end of his/her enlistment period. An application must be made, the service conducts a reasonable investigation of the truth and sincerity of the request, and if it seems to be a truthful and sincere change of heart, the soldier or sailor will be honorably discharged.

That's how I see this. This person took the job knowing that the airline served alcohol to adult passengers, as a profit center for the airline, and that she would be called upon to serve liquor to passengers. Then she got religion, and was told by her spiritual advisors at the mosque that she could no longer participate in that basic function of her job on every long flight. She needs to be separated from the airline.

Like TXRancher wrote, put her in a ground crew position where she doesn't have to dirty her hands serving forbidden beverages to infidels, and there's her reasonable accommodation--not making other flight attendants pick up her slack.

AnonNowatthemoment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Like TXRancher wrote, put her in a ground crew
> position where she doesn't have to dirty her hands
> serving forbidden beverages to infidels, and
> there's her reasonable accommodation--not making
> other flight attendants pick up her slack.


I agree with this, she should be given a non-flight position at check-in, gate, or baggage handling so she doesn't have to deal with serving passengers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 02:14AM by adoylelb.

If their circumstance changes after being hired, an employer might make accommodation. It's never fair to expect other employees to pick up the slack.

If someone has a religious issue arise after being hired, they need to absorb the fallout within reason. If an employer can place them elsewhere, good. If not, they can find a new job.

she and kim davis are siamese twins.

Legally, does she have a case?
My guess, she does not.
You can be fired for any reason.
Not everything is a reason to sue for compensation.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legally, does she have a case?
> My guess, she does not.

I'm not sure. Not enough info.

> You can be fired for any reason.

Well, no, actually you can't. You can't be fired for your religion, for your race, for being a man/woman, for your age, and a host of other things.

> Not everything is a reason to sue for
> compensation.

I tried to find out how much she was asking for (if any money), but couldn't. All that was reported is that she was suing to get her job back.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SusieQ#1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legally, does she have a case?
> > My guess, she does not.
>
> I'm not sure. Not enough info.
>
> > You can be fired for any reason.
>
> Well, no, actually you can't. You can't be fired
> for your religion, for your race, for being a
> man/woman, for your age, and a host of other
> things.
>
> > Not everything is a reason to sue for
> > compensation.
>
> I tried to find out how much she was asking for
> (if any money), but couldn't. All that was
> reported is that she was suing to get her job
> back.

Yes, you cannot be fired for certain reasons. However, you can be fired and the reason not stated.
In this case, I would presume the airlines was very careful about how it was done.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this case, I would presume the airlines was
> very careful about how it was done.

She actually wasn't fired. She was put on indefinite "unpaid leave." :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
OK... now I have it straight! Thanks.

Wow. There sure are a lot on this site that will not miss an opportunity to bash muslims...or, alternatively, display their willingness to fall for every red-meat bit of propaganda thrown towards their bigoted appetite.

ifi- is right, how many actually read the whole story, or cared to? There are many non-headline grabbing ways this could have been solved.

ifi- is also right about Christian hypocrisy. Too many American Christians scream to be accommodated in business & politics but scream even louder about anything "muslim". I like when this kind of hypocrisy is shown up.


But there is a much larger hypocrisy in these kinds of narratives that desperately needs showing up. While too many cannot miss an opportunity to bash Islam and Christianity (I hate it when this, which too often happens, turns into bashing muslims and christians), too few are inclined to also bash Judaism.

For example, imagine if a preacher or an imam said it was okay to rape during war? I wouldn't doubt if somewhere along the way a crazy has said such a thing, and it would properly invoke our disgust and even anger at such an appalling idea. Yet, when the Israeli army appoints a blatant racist and misogynist as their "Chief Rabbi", who has said exactly that, no one bats an eye:

https://electronicintifada.net/content/meet-israeli-armys-misogynist-chief-rabbi/17481

Among other things, he has advocated for, "...burning Christian bibles, killing wounded “terrorists” and torturing captives, stating: 'Terrorists should not be treated as human beings, because they are animals.'" Those who hate religion, *any* religion, please read the article. And by "terrorist", by the way, he means every Palestinian in the way and out of the way of Settlement expansion.


To be fair, no one in N. America has much of a chance to see such a story in the first place. I'm grateful that jews with a conscience, like Max Blumenthal, Glenn Greenwald, and the Toronto native who moved to Israel and the author of the above piece, David Sheen, don't seem to tire reporting on the religious fanaticism, at the least, that is rotting Israel and its society.

Human

Several long posts here, without once putting in your usual...

"Sigh...."

Amazing! =;)

We now return to your mudfight-in-progress...

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Several long posts here, without once putting in
> your usual...
>
> "Sigh...."
>
> Amazing! =;)

Glad I could make your day :)