Muslim flight attendant suspended...

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Factually incorrect.

In both of the cases, Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon) and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado), the transaction never reached the point of discussing any type of cake design. As soon as the baker identified that the clients were a same-sex couple they peremptorily refused service.

This can be confirmed by review the uncontested ("uncontested" meaning that both parties, including the bakers agreed that is what happened) statement of facts from the case.

Sweetcakes -->> http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/BOLI Sweet Cakes Interim Order.pdf
Masterpiece Cakes -->> http://media.thedenverchannel.com/d...1-PD.pdf?_ga=1.88503899.1710761070.1439519391


>>>>

 

[ogibillm]

Thing is....

be sure who do you hire.....

so you avoid future problems

thats all really!

Mile High Club. :thup

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.

i'm awful at subtext. why don't you just say what you mean?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

A topper with two men was unreasonable? That's a simple wedding cake.

They never ordered any type of topper.


>>>>

 

[Buzz Jenkins]

Serving alcohol is a bona fide requirement of the job. Plus, she KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that she would be required to serve alcohol. I imagine that making accommodations for her would create a scheduling problem and be disruptive.

I do not see why she cannot legally be fired.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You like to make it personal, do ya? We could go that way.

Speaking of facts and logic, you got none. You see how it goes?

Baker doesn't sell cakes for homosexual weddings. It's against his religious beliefs. You could straight walk in that bakery and try to order a cake for your homosexual friend wedding, you would not get it. Gay could walk in that bakery and order wedding cake for his straight friend wedding, he would get it.

I already made it easy for you by saying, its about the product they sell, not about who they are, but it seems even that is too hard for you.

Want it simpler than that? The business makes shoes in women sizes 6 thru 10. Bruce Jenner walks in and ask for shoe size 12. They say they don't make nor sell that size. Bruce Jenner sue them for discrimination against gender confused people. In leftards mind, business is discriminating against LGBT, yet in reality, business is just not making that product. Is this easy enough, or you need me to get my kids crayons?

 

[Ame®icano]

Serving alcohol is a bona fide requirement of the job. Plus, she KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that she would be required to serve alcohol. I imagine that making accommodations for her would create a scheduling problem and be disruptive.

I do not see why she cannot legally be fired.

Finally. I agree with this.

If serving alcohol is a bona fide requirement of her job, then they are allowed to fire her for refusing, even if it is against her religion. So it all goes to explanation - Is serving alcohol a bona fide requirement of being a flight attendant with that airline? The airlines lawyers will argue that it is, while her lawyers will argue that it isn't. If it goes like this, there would probably be a internal settlement, but if she keeps pushing, I'd put my money on the airline winning.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

You like to make it personal, do ya? We could go that way.

Speaking of facts and logic, you got none. You see how it goes?

Baker doesn't sell cakes for homosexual weddings. It's against his religious beliefs. You could straight walk in that bakery and try to order a cake for your homosexual friend wedding, you would not get it. Gay could walk in that bakery and order wedding cake for his straight friend wedding, he would get it.

I already made it easy for you by saying, its about the product they sell, not about who they are, but it seems even that is too hard for you.

Want it simpler than that? The business makes shoes in women sizes 6 thru 10. Bruce Jenner walks in and ask for shoe size 12. They say they don't make nor sell that size. Bruce Jenner sue them for discrimination against gender confused people. In leftards mind, business is discriminating against LGBT, yet in reality, business is just not making that product. Is this easy enough, or you need me to get my kids crayons?

wow. you really just can't grasp the concept.
if i go in and order a wedding cake for my gay friend and they turn me down they are still discriminating based on sexual orientation. you want to pretend that there is a substantive difference between a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple and one for a homosexual couple. there is not one. the bakers decided they would not sell a certain product they offer to a couple based on their sexual orientation. again, this is a fact, it is not up for debate.

 

[Ame®icano]

wow. you really just can't grasp the concept.
if i go in and order a wedding cake for my gay friend and they turn me down they are still discriminating based on sexual orientation. you want to pretend that there is a substantive difference between a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple and one for a homosexual couple. there is not one. the bakers decided they would not sell a certain product they offer to a couple based on their sexual orientation. again, this is a fact, it is not up for debate.

You're still making it personal? OK, fruitcake... those are facts that exists in your mind only. Everything is up for debate.

Baker is not refusing to sell cake to gays. He's refusing to bake wedding cake for homosexual wedding.
Based on his religious beliefs, he cannot do that. That's the same claim that flight attendant is making, but no, we have libshit hypocrisy at its finest: it's BAD to force a Muslim to serve alcohol, but it's NOT bad to force a Christian to make cakes for gay wedding.

Also, I hope you'll remember next time to answer the question I asked earlier. What law the baker was breaking?

 

[ogibillm]

wow. you really just can't grasp the concept.
if i go in and order a wedding cake for my gay friend and they turn me down they are still discriminating based on sexual orientation. you want to pretend that there is a substantive difference between a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple and one for a homosexual couple. there is not one. the bakers decided they would not sell a certain product they offer to a couple based on their sexual orientation. again, this is a fact, it is not up for debate.

You're still making it personal? OK, fruitcake... those are facts that exists in your mind only. Everything is up for debate.

Baker is not refusing to sell cake to gays. He's refusing to bake wedding cake for homosexual wedding.
Based on his religious beliefs, he cannot do that. That's the same claim that flight attendant is making, but no, we have libshit hypocrisy at its finest: it's BAD to force a Muslim to serve alcohol, but it's NOT bad to force a Christian to make cakes for gay wedding.

Also, I hope you'll remember next time to answer the question I asked earlier. What law the baker was breaking?

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.

 

[Gracie]

Hmm. Looks to me like the airline made arrangements with the employee that she would not do whatever she considered against her religion and other flight attendants filled that particular gap for her when she was on duty. Which MIGHT have pissed off another flight attendant or two, who in turn decided this gal is a pita, so "complained", tossing in the "strange writing on a book" and "headscarf" thing.
In short...females battling.

 

[skye]

Serving alcohol is a bona fide requirement of the job. Plus, she KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that she would be required to serve alcohol. I imagine that making accommodations for her would create a scheduling problem and be disruptive.

I do not see why she cannot legally be fired.

Exactly right!

serving alcohol along with orange juice is part of the job.

fuck her and her Sharia Law ok?

go back to Yemen bitch!

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

 

[skye]

Lord .... they will not win this fight ok?


these islamic scum ok?

 

[skye]

no Sharia Law in the West OK?

bloody hell!

who do they think they are? who?

not the winners ok?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

no Sharia Law in the West OK?

bloody hell!

who do they think they are? who?

not the winners ok?

Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.

 

[skye]

huh ^^^^

nothing


just waiting for the war and the confrontation....scum ...scum....


blow their heads off ok?

 

[skye]

look...in all reality...muslims should not be allowed to interfere with western world ok?


sharia law is not something we all are going to accept ok?


Fuck Sharia


ok?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If this flight attendant is right, then the cake store simply could have said "Its against our religion to sell homosexual goods of any sort." and they would have been scot-free?

In the real world she is perfectly capable of serving alcohol. I don't think there is Muslim law against serving alcohol, its the consumption which is 'haram'.

you are a very confused individual

How about, instead of judging me, you respond on what you disagree with me. Otherwise, fuck off.

okay. well, let's start with the fact that your conclusion is based on a poor understanding of what happened with the bakers.
they were required by law not to discriminate against customers based on their sexual orientation. what you are suggesting is exactly what they did and was/is against the law.
in the case of the flight attendant she is not discriminating against the passengers. she won't serve alcohol to anyone for any reason. there is no law requiring her to do so.

do you understand the difference?

And being against same sex marriage is the same as what you just described, Marriage is between a man and a woman and no one tried to prevent them from marrying only the abnormal illogical same sexes. No discrimination involved.

can you clarify? who is "them" who are you saying did not discriminate?

Michigan or Wisconsin a city in one of those had a process to provide favored status to cabs at the International airport, Somali cab drives made up like 70 percent of the drivers licensed and they started to refuse to drive anyone that was carrying alcohol claiming it was against their religious beliefs. So the city removed their favored status and was sued. The drivers lost when Islamic leaders in this Country stated for the record that Islam did NOT ban a driver of a cab from carrying some that happened to have alcohol on them. Nor were they banned from driving drunks either.

 

[skye]

what

easy

fuck sharia bloody law

simple

 

[S.J.]

This is why religion is complete horse shit. All it does is cause strife around the world.

Well, it ain't going anywhere so you'll have to deal with it.