Muslim flight attendant suspended...

[skye]

Does she also refuse to serve ham sandwiches or BLTs?

exactly!

what about that?

why can't they stay where they belong? those Islamists?

why come to the West and try to impose themselves on us?

Jesus have mercy!

She's not an Islamist. Geez.

As to where she "belongs" - she's a U.S. citizen. She belongs in America.

oh but she is not serving alcohol .... what about pork?

i mean

what about pig?

 

[hazlnut]

Another religious beliefs case.

Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol

A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith.

In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

She knew when she took the job that serving alcohol was part of it.

And serving is not consuming.

 

[Montrovant]

Does she also refuse to serve ham sandwiches or BLTs?

exactly!

what about that?

why can't they stay where they belong? those Islamists?

why come to the West and try to impose themselves on us?

Jesus have mercy!

 

[skye]

Folks....no ham sandwiches on that plane
as long as you all know LOL

 

[Coyote]

Does she also refuse to serve ham sandwiches or BLTs?

exactly!

what about that?

why can't they stay where they belong? those Islamists?

why come to the West and try to impose themselves on us?

Jesus have mercy!

She's not an Islamist. Geez.

As to where she "belongs" - she's a U.S. citizen. She belongs in America.

oh but she is not serving alcohol .... what about pork?

i mean

what about pig?

No idea.

But I don't think the issue is about serving alcohol so much as it is about the airline switching it's policy with her. If she had been told at the beginning they couldn't accomodate her then that is that, she needs to find another job that doesn't require serving alcohol. But they didn't - they told her an accommodation was fine, and they were fine with it until one person complained. Then they suspended her.

 

[skye]

ok

if thats how it is yes

i agree

 

[Coyote]

ok

if thats how it is yes

i agree

That's what is in the OP at any rate - there could be more to the story.

 

[bodecea]

Another religious beliefs case.

Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol

A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith.

In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

Yep...she's not doing her job. Unless she wants to do her job, she should be let go.

 

[skye]

Moral of the story

Do not hire religious Islamists.

 

[Montrovant]

Normally, I would say this: When you are hired, you are hired to do a job. Being a stewardess means you will be serving food and beverages. If you can't do a job, or demand more than reasonable accommodations, then you should get another job.

But when I read the OP article - there's more there than meets the eye.

"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Stanley, 47, 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.

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."

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.

In this case, it does sound like the airline is acting unreasonably by reversing it's prior policy and suspending her when she was only doing what they approved of.

^^^^ This.

If the woman tried to get the job knowing she could not serve alcohol, that would be one thing. Even converting and expecting a change in her employment might be argued. However, to have already made accommodations and then change them based on one other employee's complaint seems like poor management. I'm not sure how this will turn out from a legal standpoint, but as an employer, the airline is doing a piss-poor job if the woman's story is accurate.

 

[Ame®icano]

I thought all they wanted was a simple wedding cake. Not something pornographic.

You're going from one extreme to another. They didn't wanted simple wedding cake. If they asked for simple cake, they would get it. They didn't wanted anything pornographic, neither. They wanted wedding cake with toppers that represents gay couple and that's what baker refused. They cried wolf and claimed that baker refused service because they're homosexuals.

toppers were not involved. they were refused service before details of the cake were discussed. the sweet cakes bakers admit as much.
also, toppers aren't really in style. i can't remember the last wedding i was at that had them.

Oregon bakery refuses to make same-sex wedding cake

"I have no problem with homosexuals, they can buy my stuff, I talk to them and it's fine..."

He clearly says he sells his regular products to everyone. He doesn't make cakes for homosexual weddings because of his religious beliefs. As I said earlier, it's about the cake they wanted, not about who they are.

 

[skye]

Thing is....

be sure who do you hire.....

so you avoid future problems

thats all really!

 

[Ame®icano]

marriage licenses are marriage licenses. they are not heterosexual or homosexual

Then explain why gays are asking for gay marriage licences if they can get marriage license?

 

[Mr. H.]

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

Rephrase it as "I can't handle gay marriage licenses because of my religion" instead of "I can't serve gay people" and you have First Amendment argument.

The First Amendment has not protected religious beliefs in this country since 2008.

that requires an explanation

I'll give you five explanations... to the back of your head.

 

[ogibillm]

I thought all they wanted was a simple wedding cake. Not something pornographic.

You're going from one extreme to another. They didn't wanted simple wedding cake. If they asked for simple cake, they would get it. They didn't wanted anything pornographic, neither. They wanted wedding cake with toppers that represents gay couple and that's what baker refused. They cried wolf and claimed that baker refused service because they're homosexuals.

toppers were not involved. they were refused service before details of the cake were discussed. the sweet cakes bakers admit as much.
also, toppers aren't really in style. i can't remember the last wedding i was at that had them.

Oregon bakery refuses to make same-sex wedding cake

"I have no problem with homosexuals, they can buy my stuff, I talk to them and it's fine..."

He clearly says he sells his regular products to everyone. He doesn't make cakes for homosexual weddings because of his religious beliefs. As I said earlier, it's about the cake they wanted, not about who they are.

the cake they wanted was not available to them because of who they were. they wanted a wedding cake. he sold wedding cakes. he would not sell a wedding cake to her because she was gay. he discriminated based on sexual orientation.
again, these are facts. it is not open to debate.

 

[ogibillm]

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

Rephrase it as "I can't handle gay marriage licenses because of my religion" instead of "I can't serve gay people" and you have First Amendment argument.

The First Amendment has not protected religious beliefs in this country since 2008.

that requires an explanation

I'll give you five explanations... to the back of your head.

so no explanation.

 

[Montrovant]

marriage licenses are marriage licenses. they are not heterosexual or homosexual

Then explain why gays are asking for gay marriage licences if they can get marriage license?

I would imagine the marriage licenses are not changed to give a different form to homosexual couples than to heterosexual couples. That's just speculation on my part, of course, but seems likely.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're going from one extreme to another. They didn't wanted simple wedding cake. If they asked for simple cake, they would get it. They didn't wanted anything pornographic, neither. They wanted wedding cake with toppers that represents gay couple and that's what baker refused. They cried wolf and claimed that baker refused service because they're homosexuals.

toppers were not involved. they were refused service before details of the cake were discussed. the sweet cakes bakers admit as much.
also, toppers aren't really in style. i can't remember the last wedding i was at that had them.

Oregon bakery refuses to make same-sex wedding cake

"I have no problem with homosexuals, they can buy my stuff, I talk to them and it's fine..."

He clearly says he sells his regular products to everyone. He doesn't make cakes for homosexual weddings because of his religious beliefs. As I said earlier, it's about the cake they wanted, not about who they are.

the cake they wanted was not available to them because of who they were. they wanted a wedding cake. he sold wedding cakes. he would not sell a wedding cake to her because she was gay. he discriminated based on sexual orientation.
again, these are facts. it is not open to debate.

If what you're saying is truth, and it isn't, the baker would refuse to serve any of his products to gays. Check the video on your own link and you'll see that's not the case.

Also, since we're talking about that bakery, I would like to ask you what law exactly they were breaking?

 

[Mr. H.]

Thing is....

be sure who do you hire.....

so you avoid future problems

thats all really!

Mile High Club. :thup

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

Rephrase it as "I can't handle gay marriage licenses because of my religion" instead of "I can't serve gay people" and you have First Amendment argument.

The First Amendment has not protected religious beliefs in this country since 2008.

that requires an explanation

I'll give you five explanations... to the back of your head.

so no explanation.

Read between the lines, young Padawan.

 

[ogibillm]

toppers were not involved. they were refused service before details of the cake were discussed. the sweet cakes bakers admit as much.
also, toppers aren't really in style. i can't remember the last wedding i was at that had them.

Oregon bakery refuses to make same-sex wedding cake

"I have no problem with homosexuals, they can buy my stuff, I talk to them and it's fine..."

He clearly says he sells his regular products to everyone. He doesn't make cakes for homosexual weddings because of his religious beliefs. As I said earlier, it's about the cake they wanted, not about who they are.

the cake they wanted was not available to them because of who they were. they wanted a wedding cake. he sold wedding cakes. he would not sell a wedding cake to her because she was gay. he discriminated based on sexual orientation.
again, these are facts. it is not open to debate.

If what you're saying is truth, and it isn't, the baker would refuse to serve any of his products to gays. Check the video on your own link and you'll see that's not the case.

you really have a poor grasp of facts and logic.
if the baker sells everything but wedding cakes to homosexuals he is still discriminating. he is basing his decision not to sell them a product that he offers on the customer's sexual orientation. just because he'll sell them a cupcake doesn't mean he isn't discriminating.

let me make this easier for you. a business sells two items - apples and oranges. if a white man walks in and asks for an apple and they say 'no, we don't sell apples to white men, have an orange instead' that man has still been discriminated against.

is this too difficult for you to understand? i have not given you one incorrect fact, yet you still seem unable to grasp the basics.