Muslim flight attendant suspended...

[Montrovant]

You're making a very poor analogy.

It would be more accurate to have a Burger King not sell someone a Whopper because they planned to eat it at the same time as a Big Mac, and BK doesn't condone eating their products in conjunction with McDonald's products. The reality, of course, is that Burger King doesn't give a damn where you're going to eat their food, what you're going to eat it with, or really what you plan to do with it once you've bought it. They just want you to buy it.

The baker, on the other hand, has wedding cakes on the menu. He won't bake a cake for someone because of what they plan to use it for. Most Burger King owners would probably be perfectly happy to sell their food to any wedding that wanted to buy it.

Both, Whopper and Big Mac are burgers. Why BK cant make Big Mac? That kind of burger is not on the menu. Therefore I think there is nothing wrong with "not on the menu" analogy.

Now, I like that you said "because what they plan to use it for", instead of "because they are gays", like the other guy insists. It does matter how you use someone's product and maker of the product can demand how their product is used. I know, some will say, you sold the product, you got money, why do you care, but hold the horses.

Fanuc is well knows robot manufacturer. There was company that bought one of their robots second hand, and decided to have some fun. It was something like this, but not sure are they the guys from the case.



Well, Fanuc did not like how their product was used and forced them thru legal system to sell back their robot. I know it's not the same as bakers case, but I mentioned it because it does matter how product is used.

The thing is the baker objects to how the cake is to be used based on the sexual orientation of the customers. I understand what you are saying, but sexual orientation is still the major factor driving the decision not to sell the cake. If the baker would not sell the cake because it was for a Jewish wedding, I'm sure it would be considered discrimination based on religion, even if you say the issue is how the cake is used and not a problem with Jews.

 

[Mr. H.]

Yet, refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses and you go to jail.

Absolutely.

Christians get treated one way.

Muslims get treated another way.

Why?

Because we can.

...since 2008.

 

[Ame®icano]

The thing is the baker objects to how the cake is to be used based on the sexual orientation of the customers. I understand what you are saying, but sexual orientation is still the major factor driving the decision not to sell the cake. If the baker would not sell the cake because it was for a Jewish wedding, I'm sure it would be considered discrimination based on religion, even if you say the issue is how the cake is used and not a problem with Jews.

Just as I thought we're getting closer to understanding, you got two steps back.

Their sexual orientation is not reason he refused to bake the cake. If sexual orientation is the reason, he would refuse to sell to all gays any of his products. The reason is the wedding that is against bakers religious beliefs.

I'm pretty sure baker wouldn't refuse to bake a cake for Jewish wedding, since Jewish wedding is not against Christians religious beliefs. However, IF he refused, THAT would be discrimination or religious ground.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're making a very poor analogy.

It would be more accurate to have a Burger King not sell someone a Whopper because they planned to eat it at the same time as a Big Mac, and BK doesn't condone eating their products in conjunction with McDonald's products. The reality, of course, is that Burger King doesn't give a damn where you're going to eat their food, what you're going to eat it with, or really what you plan to do with it once you've bought it. They just want you to buy it.

The baker, on the other hand, has wedding cakes on the menu. He won't bake a cake for someone because of what they plan to use it for. Most Burger King owners would probably be perfectly happy to sell their food to any wedding that wanted to buy it.

Both, Whopper and Big Mac are burgers. Why BK cant make Big Mac? That kind of burger is not on the menu. Therefore I think there is nothing wrong with "not on the menu" analogy.

Now, I like that you said "because what they plan to use it for", instead of "because they are gays", like the other guy insists. It does matter how you use someone's product and maker of the product can demand how their product is used. I know, some will say, you sold the product, you got money, why do you care, but hold the horses.

Fanuc is well knows robot manufacturer. There was company that bough one of their robots second hand, and decided to have some fun. It was something like this, but not sure are they the guys from the case.



Well, Fanuc did not like how their product was used and forced them thru legal system to sell back their robot. I know it's not the same as bakers case, but I mentioned it because it does matter how product is used.

I would be interested to see the details of the Fanuc case. Other than things like trademark infringement or use in the commission of a crime, I don't know that a company has much say in how their products are used. If I buy a Fanuc robot and use it as a lamp, I don't think they have any legal recourse to stop me. I would guess that the people who bought the Fanuc robot in some way violated trademark laws if they were forced to stop whatever they were doing with it.

The maker of a product cannot demand how that product is used for the most part. Certainly not with the force of law. They can warn, recommend, etc.. I'd like to see any relevant laws which allow product manufacturer to demand their product be used a certain way, outside the realm of safety and trademark rights.

I don't know details. Corporate didn't like how their product was used, safety issues, whatever... I find out about it while working with Fanuc guys on unrelated project.

 

[dannyboys]

the baker broke the public accommodation laws.
and no, some things are not up for debate. some things are a matter of record. for instance, it is a fact that the baker discriminated against homosexuals and refused to offer the same products and services offered to heterosexuals. that is a fact. not debatable.

the flight attendant does not wish to handle alcohol. she is not discriminating against anyone. again, a fact, not debatable. she reached an accommodation with her employer, everyone was happy - until the complaint was filed.

No shit, public accommodation laws. It's not that I don't trust you, but if you are referring to a law that baker broke, you should cite that law. Be specific.

Baker did not discriminated against homos. Baker sell all products he makes to everyone. He doesn't sell product he don't make. Due to his religious beliefs, he's not in business of making cakes for homosexual weddings. It's not on the menu.

About flight attendant. You're saying that she's not discrimination against anyone and the base for that are, her religious beliefs. Well, baker has his religious beliefs too and he cant bake homosexual cakes. You may say, perhaps, that his religion is discriminatory, but not him for following his religion.

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

It took her two years to find out Islam relation to alcohol? And what she claims is wrong. Islam does not prohibit serving of alcohol, it discouraging its consumption. Only thing that's obvious here is she's trying to find the way to skim the airline for money.

If the baker makes wedding cakes, and would not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, how can you say the baker sells all products he makes to everyone? You mention homosexual cakes. What are those? I was unaware cakes had sexual orientations.

Let's say that someone goes to Home Depot. They ask about buying some lumber and tools. An employee asks what the things are for and the customer tells them it is for a small stage to be made for a gay wedding. The employee tells the customer they do not sell lumber and tools to be used in homosexual weddings. Aren't the lumber and tools just the same as if they were sold for some other purpose?

I agree that it seems kind of silly to not realize your religion prohibits you from serving alcohol for two years. On the other hand, I also find it silly how you claim to know what is or is not required of this woman's particular brand of Islam. Just as Christians cannot agree on many details of their religion, leading to the many different sects, so too I would think that adherents of Islam often disagree about the interpretation of their religion. Any major religion is almost certain to have varied interpretations. I doubt that your personal interpretation of the requirements of Islam hold any particular legal standing.

It's not relevant which particular strain of Islam the rag head follows. What's relevant is SHE according to what SHE believes or pretends to believe informs her SHE can't serve booze on the fucking plane.
The bitch was sentient enough to be hired as a flight attendant so she's obviously sentient enough to know BEFORE she was hired, flight attendants are REQUIRED to serve booze to the passengers as part of their job description.
Fire the bitch.
I 100% guarantee the bitch is being commanded by some fucking rag head cleric to make as much fucking grief for the airline as possible.

 

[Montrovant]

The thing is the baker objects to how the cake is to be used based on the sexual orientation of the customers. I understand what you are saying, but sexual orientation is still the major factor driving the decision not to sell the cake. If the baker would not sell the cake because it was for a Jewish wedding, I'm sure it would be considered discrimination based on religion, even if you say the issue is how the cake is used and not a problem with Jews.

Just as I thought we're getting closer to understanding, you got two steps back.

Their sexual orientation is not reason he refused to bake the cake. If sexual orientation is the reason, he would refuse to sell to all gays any of his products. The reason is the wedding that is against bakers religious beliefs.

I'm pretty sure baker wouldn't refuse to bake a cake for Jewish wedding, since Jewish wedding is not against Christians religious beliefs. However, IF he refused, THAT would be discrimination or religious ground.

I still understand. Why is a gay wedding unacceptable to the bakers? Because of the sexual orientation of the participants. Because they are gay. Have the bakers ever refused to sell a wedding cake to a straight couple based on religious principles?

It doesn't mean the bakers hate gays. It doesn't have to be that they refuse to sell anything to gays. Discrimination does not have to be all-encompassing. A person can discriminate in limited fashion.

 

[Montrovant]

the baker broke the public accommodation laws.
and no, some things are not up for debate. some things are a matter of record. for instance, it is a fact that the baker discriminated against homosexuals and refused to offer the same products and services offered to heterosexuals. that is a fact. not debatable.

the flight attendant does not wish to handle alcohol. she is not discriminating against anyone. again, a fact, not debatable. she reached an accommodation with her employer, everyone was happy - until the complaint was filed.

No shit, public accommodation laws. It's not that I don't trust you, but if you are referring to a law that baker broke, you should cite that law. Be specific.

Baker did not discriminated against homos. Baker sell all products he makes to everyone. He doesn't sell product he don't make. Due to his religious beliefs, he's not in business of making cakes for homosexual weddings. It's not on the menu.

About flight attendant. You're saying that she's not discrimination against anyone and the base for that are, her religious beliefs. Well, baker has his religious beliefs too and he cant bake homosexual cakes. You may say, perhaps, that his religion is discriminatory, but not him for following his religion.

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

It took her two years to find out Islam relation to alcohol? And what she claims is wrong. Islam does not prohibit serving of alcohol, it discouraging its consumption. Only thing that's obvious here is she's trying to find the way to skim the airline for money.

If the baker makes wedding cakes, and would not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, how can you say the baker sells all products he makes to everyone? You mention homosexual cakes. What are those? I was unaware cakes had sexual orientations.

Let's say that someone goes to Home Depot. They ask about buying some lumber and tools. An employee asks what the things are for and the customer tells them it is for a small stage to be made for a gay wedding. The employee tells the customer they do not sell lumber and tools to be used in homosexual weddings. Aren't the lumber and tools just the same as if they were sold for some other purpose?

I agree that it seems kind of silly to not realize your religion prohibits you from serving alcohol for two years. On the other hand, I also find it silly how you claim to know what is or is not required of this woman's particular brand of Islam. Just as Christians cannot agree on many details of their religion, leading to the many different sects, so too I would think that adherents of Islam often disagree about the interpretation of their religion. Any major religion is almost certain to have varied interpretations. I doubt that your personal interpretation of the requirements of Islam hold any particular legal standing.

It's not relevant which particular strain of Islam the rag head follows. What's relevant is SHE according to what SHE believes or pretends to believe informs her SHE can't serve booze on the fucking plane.
The bitch was sentient enough to be hired as a flight attendant so she's obviously sentient enough to know BEFORE she was hired, flight attendants are REQUIRED to serve booze to the passengers as part of their job description.
Fire the bitch.
I 100% guarantee the bitch is being commanded by some fucking rag head cleric to make as much fucking grief for the airline as possible.

It is relevant when discussing a claim that Islam permits alcohol consumption.

And as has been discussed already in the thread, the company had made accommodation for her beliefs but changed their minds after another employee complained.

 

[dannyboys]

the baker broke the public accommodation laws.
and no, some things are not up for debate. some things are a matter of record. for instance, it is a fact that the baker discriminated against homosexuals and refused to offer the same products and services offered to heterosexuals. that is a fact. not debatable.

the flight attendant does not wish to handle alcohol. she is not discriminating against anyone. again, a fact, not debatable. she reached an accommodation with her employer, everyone was happy - until the complaint was filed.

No shit, public accommodation laws. It's not that I don't trust you, but if you are referring to a law that baker broke, you should cite that law. Be specific.

Baker did not discriminated against homos. Baker sell all products he makes to everyone. He doesn't sell product he don't make. Due to his religious beliefs, he's not in business of making cakes for homosexual weddings. It's not on the menu.

About flight attendant. You're saying that she's not discrimination against anyone and the base for that are, her religious beliefs. Well, baker has his religious beliefs too and he cant bake homosexual cakes. You may say, perhaps, that his religion is discriminatory, but not him for following his religion.

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

It took her two years to find out Islam relation to alcohol? And what she claims is wrong. Islam does not prohibit serving of alcohol, it discouraging its consumption. Only thing that's obvious here is she's trying to find the way to skim the airline for money.

If the baker makes wedding cakes, and would not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, how can you say the baker sells all products he makes to everyone? You mention homosexual cakes. What are those? I was unaware cakes had sexual orientations.

Let's say that someone goes to Home Depot. They ask about buying some lumber and tools. An employee asks what the things are for and the customer tells them it is for a small stage to be made for a gay wedding. The employee tells the customer they do not sell lumber and tools to be used in homosexual weddings. Aren't the lumber and tools just the same as if they were sold for some other purpose?

I agree that it seems kind of silly to not realize your religion prohibits you from serving alcohol for two years. On the other hand, I also find it silly how you claim to know what is or is not required of this woman's particular brand of Islam. Just as Christians cannot agree on many details of their religion, leading to the many different sects, so too I would think that adherents of Islam often disagree about the interpretation of their religion. Any major religion is almost certain to have varied interpretations. I doubt that your personal interpretation of the requirements of Islam hold any particular legal standing.

It's not relevant which particular strain of Islam the rag head follows. What's relevant is SHE according to what SHE believes or pretends to believe informs her SHE can't serve booze on the fucking plane.
The bitch was sentient enough to be hired as a flight attendant so she's obviously sentient enough to know BEFORE she was hired, flight attendants are REQUIRED to serve booze to the passengers as part of their job description.
Fire the bitch.
I 100% guarantee the bitch is being commanded by some fucking rag head cleric to make as much fucking grief for the airline as possible.

It is relevant when discussing a claim that Islam permits alcohol consumption.

And as has been discussed already in the thread, the company had made accommodation for her beliefs but changed their minds after another employee complained.

NO it's NOT relevant b/c as already noted there are numerous 'interpretations' of what the Koran demands.
The only relevant thing is how this convert interprets the Koran with regard to serving booze.
Another 'convert' could say they interpret the Koran to say it's OK to serve booze. The bitch doesn't want to follow the job description? Fine. Fucking get rid of her.
I can't work at a company selling pulled pork sliders then 'convert' to Islam then claim I don't have to handle pork b/c of my new found religious beliefs and expect the company to accommodate me. That's fucking stupid thinking.

 

[Ame®icano]

I still understand. Why is a gay wedding unacceptable to the bakers? Because of the sexual orientation of the participants. Because they are gay. Have the bakers ever refused to sell a wedding cake to a straight couple based on religious principles?

What bothers me is that left is always trying to find hidden or different meaning to something that is pretty obvious, because obvious doesn't fit the agenda. X is because of Y, and Y is because of Z, and Z is the fact. Period, not debatable.

Baker refused to make damn cake because of his religious beliefs.

That simple. You can't read in between lines, my friend, because there is only one line. Constitutional right.

Let me tell you one more thing. I am not religious at all, in fact, I can't stand institutionalized religion. However, I respect peoples beliefs and even more, I respect in people right to believe. Although I couldn't care less about church and clergy, I do care about religious freedom and all other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and I can't believe how people are letting those rights to be chopped away.

I started this thread for different reason and there are plenty of threads about baker so I am done discussing about baker. I've tried and I am sorry you don't see the difference, so I'll finish with kinda funny note.

Those who can't see the difference between delivery and Digiorno were probably fooled by the tranny once or twice.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can't work at a company selling pulled pork sliders then 'convert' to Islam then claim I don't have to handle pork b/c of my new found religious beliefs and expect the company to accommodate me. That's fucking stupid thinking.

Well gotta agree with you there. That is stupid thinking and not required under Title VII of the United States Code and religious accommodation.

An employer is only required to make a reasonable accommodation and you example is no where near reasonable so the employer would have no requirement to do that.


>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

the baker broke the public accommodation laws.
and no, some things are not up for debate. some things are a matter of record. for instance, it is a fact that the baker discriminated against homosexuals and refused to offer the same products and services offered to heterosexuals. that is a fact. not debatable.

the flight attendant does not wish to handle alcohol. she is not discriminating against anyone. again, a fact, not debatable. she reached an accommodation with her employer, everyone was happy - until the complaint was filed.

No shit, public accommodation laws. It's not that I don't trust you, but if you are referring to a law that baker broke, you should cite that law. Be specific.

Baker did not discriminated against homos. Baker sell all products he makes to everyone. He doesn't sell product he don't make. Due to his religious beliefs, he's not in business of making cakes for homosexual weddings. It's not on the menu.

About flight attendant. You're saying that she's not discrimination against anyone and the base for that are, her religious beliefs. Well, baker has his religious beliefs too and he cant bake homosexual cakes. You may say, perhaps, that his religion is discriminatory, but not him for following his religion.

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

It took her two years to find out Islam relation to alcohol? And what she claims is wrong. Islam does not prohibit serving of alcohol, it discouraging its consumption. Only thing that's obvious here is she's trying to find the way to skim the airline for money.

If the baker makes wedding cakes, and would not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, how can you say the baker sells all products he makes to everyone? You mention homosexual cakes. What are those? I was unaware cakes had sexual orientations.

Let's say that someone goes to Home Depot. They ask about buying some lumber and tools. An employee asks what the things are for and the customer tells them it is for a small stage to be made for a gay wedding. The employee tells the customer they do not sell lumber and tools to be used in homosexual weddings. Aren't the lumber and tools just the same as if they were sold for some other purpose?

I agree that it seems kind of silly to not realize your religion prohibits you from serving alcohol for two years. On the other hand, I also find it silly how you claim to know what is or is not required of this woman's particular brand of Islam. Just as Christians cannot agree on many details of their religion, leading to the many different sects, so too I would think that adherents of Islam often disagree about the interpretation of their religion. Any major religion is almost certain to have varied interpretations. I doubt that your personal interpretation of the requirements of Islam hold any particular legal standing.

It's not relevant which particular strain of Islam the rag head follows. What's relevant is SHE according to what SHE believes or pretends to believe informs her SHE can't serve booze on the fucking plane.
The bitch was sentient enough to be hired as a flight attendant so she's obviously sentient enough to know BEFORE she was hired, flight attendants are REQUIRED to serve booze to the passengers as part of their job description.
Fire the bitch.
I 100% guarantee the bitch is being commanded by some fucking rag head cleric to make as much fucking grief for the airline as possible.

It is relevant when discussing a claim that Islam permits alcohol consumption.

And as has been discussed already in the thread, the company had made accommodation for her beliefs but changed their minds after another employee complained.

NO it's NOT relevant b/c as already noted there are numerous 'interpretations' of what the Koran demands.
The only relevant thing is how this convert interprets the Koran with regard to serving booze.
Another 'convert' could say they interpret the Koran to say it's OK to serve booze. The bitch doesn't want to follow the job description? Fine. Fucking get rid of her.
I can't work at a company selling pulled pork sliders then 'convert' to Islam then claim I don't have to handle pork b/c of my new found religious beliefs and expect the company to accommodate me. That's fucking stupid thinking.

Um, still relevant to the discussion I was having.

Your opinion that she should be fired doesn't make a difference to that. If you felt she should be accommodated it also would make no difference. In fact, having agreed that there can be multiple interpretations of the Koran, you have pretty much pointed out the relevance. It wasn't about the question of what should happen to the woman.

 

[tigerred59]

What I find just astounding with all the fuss over OUR Constitution is that most people haven't fully read it, most are anti government and most use it based on religion via their jobs. But here's the deal, in this country you are allowed to service your beliefs any time and any where you wish....however.....when you are hired to do a certain job and change course during that tenor.....you also have the right to quit. Something none of these people are willing to do. There for the entire public is now catering to your beliefs and values and that I am certain the founding fathers never intended. Thats why they separated religion and politics people!!

 

[tigerred59]

Yet, refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses and you go to jail.

You think the flight attendant should be jailed?

First off, she's not a public servant, she does not represent a body of a state or gov and she like most religious nuts in this country have a right to quit. Something I am certain she will either do or get fired and rightly so. I got nothing against muslims, but their beliefs in my opinion are a bit whack anyways, when your slicing off heads and fingers for adultery and stealing.

 

[tigerred59]

I'm thinking, why suspended? Why not fired?

According to leftist most recent interpretation of the 14th amendment via gay marriage, her refusal to serve alcohol on religious grounds is discrimination against people who drink alcohol.

This is not a left issue you fool.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm thinking, why suspended? Why not fired?

According to leftist most recent interpretation of the 14th amendment via gay marriage, her refusal to serve alcohol on religious grounds is discrimination against people who drink alcohol.

This is not a left issue you fool.

Try reading my sentence you quoted as many times it takes you to understand. Have Tylenol handy, in case it hurts.

Now answer, where have I said it's left issue?

 

[barry1960]

This is a reasonable accommodation question with the emphasis on reasonable. An employee is obligated to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee's religion, but this accommodation cannot cause undue hardship on the business. One key question is whether the duties the employee cannot perform are an integral or incidental part of the job. In this case they would be considered integral. The next question is whether the inability to perform these duties can be accommodated. Since these duties appear integral, another employee will be forced to perform them. Now is such accommodation practical and does such accommodation place undue hardship on other employees? Of interest, the employee was accommodated until another employee complained. Then she was requested to perform the duties, then upon refusal, suspended. I believe the facts favor the employer, but what muddies the waters a bit is the initial accommodation by the employer.

 

[tigerred59]

This is a reasonable accommodation question with the emphasis on reasonable. An employee is obligated to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee's religion, but this accommodation cannot cause undue hardship on the business. One key question is whether the duties the employee cannot perform are an integral or incidental part of the job. In this case they would be considered integral. The next question is whether the inability to perform these duties can be accommodated. Since these duties appear integral, another employee will be forced to perform them. Now is such accommodation practical and does such accommodation place undue hardship on other employees? Of interest, the employee was accommodated until another employee complained. Then she was requested to perform the duties, then upon refusal, suspended. I believe the facts favor the employer, but what muddies the waters a bit is the initial accommodation by the employer.

I work with a lot of muslims, who wear the head gear, where camera's can not see who you are, but its allowed. The men often worship outside with thier rugs to pray , they were giving parking space for this. However, should one decide one day they don't want to service a jew or a catholic, etc...than we'll have issues.

 

[tigerred59]

I'm thinking, why suspended? Why not fired?

According to leftist most recent interpretation of the 14th amendment via gay marriage, her refusal to serve alcohol on religious grounds is discrimination against people who drink alcohol.

This is not a left issue you fool.

Try reading my sentence you quoted as many times it takes you to understand. Have Tylenol handy, in case it hurts.

Now answer, where have I said it's left issue?

Like a pair of orthopedic shoes, I stand corrected.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again for the slow and stupid..... Islamic leaders in the USA have already stated that serving or carrying alcohol is not prohibited by the faith.

 

[Montrovant]

Once again for the slow and stupid..... Islamic leaders in the USA have already stated that serving or carrying alcohol is not prohibited by the faith.

And those particular Islamic leaders speak for all Muslims?

If I gathered a group of Christian leaders and they stated that gambling isn't sinful, would that mean Christians who believe gambling to be sinful should just shut up about their religious beliefs?