Muslim flight attendant suspended...

[Ame®icano]

You don't seem to understand my point.

That you consider those passages to mean Muslims can drink and serve alcohol does not mean others cannot easily interpret them differently. I think it is clear that many Muslims do interpret those passages differently. They certainly do not say, in clear terms, Muslims can drink alcohol or Muslims can serve alcohol. Even if they did, I think the history of religious disputes shows that some people will argue even the clearest-seeming statements from holy books.

True, religious groups may have different interpretation. In my own opinion, most converted to Islam have no clue about Islam and Koran and rely primarily on someone else's interpretation and frankly I think that's the case with this flight attendant. Also, many got caught of meaning of one, while ignoring other verses with the different meaning, just like many here cant agree on the meaning of the Constitution parts which are meant to work as a whole not in pieces. Not to mention, some may argue what the meaning of the word "IS' is.

Your claims that the Koran says something and no other meaning can be gleaned is no more than a personal opinion. Add to that the fact that there are other passages in the Koran which do seem to call for Muslims to avoid alcohol, such as 5:90 "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful." and clearly, making a claim that Muslims are permitted to drink alcohol is not some kind of authoritative statement.

I made no such claims. I quoted some passages where no "haram" is mentioned in relation to alcohol. The passage you quoted is no exception, and as you can see it yourself, no alcohol is mentioned in it. We my argue what intoxication means, but there is no mention of alcohol being forbidden, like, for example, eating pork is.

If religions were as cut and dried as you seem to want to make Islam out to be, we wouldn't have had many of the internecine religious struggles that have and continue to occur around the world.

The reason for religious struggle in Islamic world is exactly because of different interpretations of the Koran. Some got stuck with meaning of one passage and ignore others, because it fits their current agenda. There are number of passages that explain Islam as "religion of peace" but they got thrown away by extremist just because some verse calls to kill the Jew.

 

[mudwhistle]

I respectfully disagree. I don't think you have the full story.

However, your story is not complete neither.

If all she did was refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, there shouldn't have been a problem. She could have advised others in her office that her faith prevented her from issuing licenses to gays and then asked them to help her by filling in for her when she needed them. When a gay couple came in, she could have discreetly absented herself and allowed another person to issue the license.

Read bold letters. you said it yourself, it's her office. Sh'e elected to clerk position by the people.

Snip

The problem is that she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to issue the license and this makes “reasonable accommodations” impossible.

Licenses can be issued by duly elected clerk only. Since it's her office that she was elected to run, ultimately as long she's elected clerk, every license that is issued without her permission, can be null and void and reissued by newly elected clerk.

Now, I am not defending her for not issuing licenses. By refusing to follow judges orders, she IS breaking the law. However, it's completely different issue for not allowing her employees to issue licenses in her name.

The judge did the only thing he could possibly do. His job was to enforce the law and the law said that the Clerk's Office would issue marriage licenses. The law also gives gays the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. The judge wisely refused to let her off with a fine. The judge knew the fine would not change her behavior because she would probably not pay the fine herself and would most likely profit by the affair.

Actually, the First Amendment right supersedes the law. She's not booked for breaking the marriage laws, she's locked up for contempt of court.

the office of county clerk does not have first amendment rights - and her first amendment rights do not allow her to ignore her oath of office or deny rights to others.

So not baking a friggen cake makes destroying their business fine and dandy?

Seems to me there is a massive lack of tolerance coming from the left.....and isolated cases on the right. The only problem is the establishment is pushing a gay agenda with the help of the courts, the media, and in some cases, the government. Anyone who gets in their way gets destroyed.......for a good cause of course.

i understand having a problem with the public accommodation laws. that's a legitimate argument.
but i don't think it's right to claim that enforcement of the law is somehow a lack of tolerance.

Enforcing laws doesn't involve death-threats and intentionally destroying their reputation.....eventually their ability to earn a living.

A fine should do the job.

You people feel you have the right to cause them pain and suffering as well.

Next you'll be stringing them up in the public square or burning their business to the ground.

The more you asswipes complain about rightwingers, the more you seem to act precisely like they did in the past.......and the funny thing is.....most of those rightwingers were God Damned Democrats.

 

[Ame®icano]

if you refuse to acknowledge what actually happened you can't be helped. you insist on creating a fantasy scenario where wedding cakes aren't wedding cakes and undisputed statements of facts are somehow open to debate.

I asked you to show the facts. You posted link on the baker's interview and debunked yourself.

Baker clearly said, he sell his product to gays on regular basis, he refused to bake the cake for homosexual wedding. The only fact here is that you keep repeating the lie about what baker said. He didn't say he denied service "because they're gays", those are your words to make it fit your agenda.

that you believe my link 'debunked' my statements of fact is a commentary on your comprehension ability, not on the facts. again, i can't hel you to understand if you refuse to accept reality

Use you own link and write word for word what baker said. Not your interpretation of what you think he said, but word for word, what he actually said. Can you do that much?

Also, you claimed that baker broke the law, but when asked to cite what law, and I asked several times, you ignored it every time. What's the problem?

 

[Ame®icano]

i understand having a problem with the public accommodation laws. that's a legitimate argument.
but i don't think it's right to claim that enforcement of the law is somehow a lack of tolerance.

You keep talking about "public accommodation laws", like you know what you're talking about, but can't cite the law you're referring to. Give a name of the law, a year of the law, US code, anything.

 

[Coyote]

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?

That's a faulty comparison.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a wedding cake. A standard item that this baker supplies.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a pie - something the baker does not make.

Whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual makes no difference. If they want a pie, they're shit out of luck. If they want a wedding cake, and can pay for it, they should have a reasonable expectation of being served.

Is this easy enough?

 

[Coyote]

I wonder what the company will do the next time a rag head applies to be a flight attendant?
Company policy is to serve passengers alcohol. She refused to adhere to company policy WHICH SHE KNEW was in place when she applied!
Fire the bitch!

Wrong. The company had made a reasonable accommodation for her that was working and then a year later changed it.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

That's a faulty comparison.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a wedding cake. A standard item that this baker supplies.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a pie - something the baker does not make.

Whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual makes no difference. If they want a pie, they're shit out of luck. If they want a wedding cake, and can pay for it, they should have a reasonable expectation of being served.

Is this easy enough?

It doesn't make difference if is homosexual or heterosexual and I agree with you on that. The difference is in what the cake is used for. If they asked baker for a cake, they would get it. They asked for a cake for homosexual wedding, and that makes a difference.

You go to gun store with intent to purchase a gun for self defense. I don't think you'll have a problem buying it unless you have criminal record. It's your right guaranteed by the Constitution. However, you want to buy the gun with intent to kill your annoying neighbor, I don't think you'll get it, regardless of your clean sheets and Constitutional right.

 

[Lakhota]

Stewardess is not an elective office. They can just fire her.

Or, just give her to ISIS. They'll probably soon have their own airline.

 

[Coyote]

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?

That's a faulty comparison.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a wedding cake. A standard item that this baker supplies.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a pie - something the baker does not make.

Whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual makes no difference. If they want a pie, they're shit out of luck. If they want a wedding cake, and can pay for it, they should have a reasonable expectation of being served.

Is this easy enough?

It doesn't make difference if is homosexual or heterosexual and I agree with you on that. The difference is in what the cake is used for. If they asked baker for a cake, they would get it. They asked for a cake for homosexual wedding, and that makes a difference.

You go to gun store with intent to purchase gun for self defense. I don't think you'll have problem buying it unless you have criminal record. It's your right guaranteed by the Constitution. However, you want to buy the gun with intent to kill your annoying neighbor, I don't think you'll get it, regardless of your clean sheets and Constitutional right.

They probably just asked for a wedding cake.

There's a world of difference between asking for something for a legal purpose and something for an illegal purpose.

 

[ogibillm]

I respectfully disagree. I don't think you have the full story.

However, your story is not complete neither.

If all she did was refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, there shouldn't have been a problem. She could have advised others in her office that her faith prevented her from issuing licenses to gays and then asked them to help her by filling in for her when she needed them. When a gay couple came in, she could have discreetly absented herself and allowed another person to issue the license.

Read bold letters. you said it yourself, it's her office. Sh'e elected to clerk position by the people.

Snip

The problem is that she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to issue the license and this makes “reasonable accommodations” impossible.

Licenses can be issued by duly elected clerk only. Since it's her office that she was elected to run, ultimately as long she's elected clerk, every license that is issued without her permission, can be null and void and reissued by newly elected clerk.

Now, I am not defending her for not issuing licenses. By refusing to follow judges orders, she IS breaking the law. However, it's completely different issue for not allowing her employees to issue licenses in her name.

The judge did the only thing he could possibly do. His job was to enforce the law and the law said that the Clerk's Office would issue marriage licenses. The law also gives gays the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. The judge wisely refused to let her off with a fine. The judge knew the fine would not change her behavior because she would probably not pay the fine herself and would most likely profit by the affair.

Actually, the First Amendment right supersedes the law. She's not booked for breaking the marriage laws, she's locked up for contempt of court.

the office of county clerk does not have first amendment rights - and her first amendment rights do not allow her to ignore her oath of office or deny rights to others.

So not baking a friggen cake makes destroying their business fine and dandy?

Seems to me there is a massive lack of tolerance coming from the left.....and isolated cases on the right. The only problem is the establishment is pushing a gay agenda with the help of the courts, the media, and in some cases, the government. Anyone who gets in their way gets destroyed.......for a good cause of course.

i understand having a problem with the public accommodation laws. that's a legitimate argument.
but i don't think it's right to claim that enforcement of the law is somehow a lack of tolerance.

Enforcing laws doesn't involve death-threats and intentionally destroying their reputation.....eventually their ability to earn a living.

A fine should do the job.

You people feel you have the right to cause them pain and suffering as well.

Next you'll be stringing them up in the public square or burning their business to the ground.

The more you asswipes complain about rightwingers, the more you seem to act precisely like they did in the past.......and the funny thing is.....most of those rightwingers were God Damned Democrats.

They only received a fine. Anyone making death threats should be prosecuted, and any harm to the reputation of the business os of their own doing

 

[ogibillm]

if you refuse to acknowledge what actually happened you can't be helped. you insist on creating a fantasy scenario where wedding cakes aren't wedding cakes and undisputed statements of facts are somehow open to debate.

I asked you to show the facts. You posted link on the baker's interview and debunked yourself.

Baker clearly said, he sell his product to gays on regular basis, he refused to bake the cake for homosexual wedding. The only fact here is that you keep repeating the lie about what baker said. He didn't say he denied service "because they're gays", those are your words to make it fit your agenda.

that you believe my link 'debunked' my statements of fact is a commentary on your comprehension ability, not on the facts. again, i can't hel you to understand if you refuse to accept reality

Use you own link and write word for word what baker said. Not your interpretation of what you think he said, but word for word, what he actually said. Can you do that much?

Also, you claimed that baker broke the law, but when asked to cite what law, and I asked several times, you ignored it every time. What's the problem?

Kiddo he admits to refusing to sell them a wedding cake, something he offers, because they were gay. Indisputable fact. Just because he says he sells other gay people other products does not mean he did not discriminate when it came to selling wedding cakes.
As for the actual law, that's trivia. It is not important for our discussion to have the statute number, but if you want it I'm sure it's available in the lawsuit. Feel free to look it up. But nobody is disputing that in their areas discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal

And it's ORS 659A.403 (3)
Feel better?

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

That's a faulty comparison.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a wedding cake. A standard item that this baker supplies.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a pie - something the baker does not make.

Whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual makes no difference. If they want a pie, they're shit out of luck. If they want a wedding cake, and can pay for it, they should have a reasonable expectation of being served.

Is this easy enough?

Course......you can't expect to be served if the service isn't available.

Next best thing is carry your lazy ass down the road to another establishment that will offer you the service.

I see what the problem is......liberals would lie and say that they were unable to meet the order for other reasons. In this case the Christian felt it was a sin to lie....so their honesty is what got them. But liberals would swear on a stack of bibles that being gay wasn't the reason service was refused......mainly because they don't believe in God anyway.

 

[Political Junky]

She's obviously pretty stupid to not know that a flight attendant serves alcohol.

 

[ogibillm]

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?

That's a faulty comparison.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a wedding cake. A standard item that this baker supplies.

Baker makes wedding cakes. Couple comes in and wants to order a pie - something the baker does not make.

Whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual makes no difference. If they want a pie, they're shit out of luck. If they want a wedding cake, and can pay for it, they should have a reasonable expectation of being served.

Is this easy enough?

Course......you can't expect to be served if the service isn't available.

Next best thing is carry your lazy ass down the road to another establishment that will offer you the service.

I see what the problem is......liberals would lie and say that they were unable to meet the order for other reasons. In this case the Christian felt it was a sin to lie....so their honesty is what got them. But liberals would swear on a stack of bibles that being gay wasn't the reason service was refused......mainly because they don't believe in God anyway.

Nice straw man you've built

 

[skye]

She's obviously pretty stupid to not know that a flight attendant serves alcohol.

I think she knew.

She just wanted to impose herself and her religious Islamic belief on others.

No doubt about it.

 

[ogibillm]

She's obviously pretty stupid to not know that a flight attendant serves alcohol.

I think she knew.

She just wanted to impose herself and her religious Islamic belief on others.

No doubt about it.

She didn't impose anything on anyone. Alcohol was still served on her flights

 

[Coyote]

She's obviously pretty stupid to not know that a flight attendant serves alcohol.

I think she knew.

She just wanted to impose herself and her religious Islamic belief on others.

No doubt about it.

No she didn't. She's not forcing anyone else to not serve alcohol. She wasn't Muslim when she started. She converted. The airline was WILLING to give her a reasonable accommodation and DID. Then one person complained and they backtracked

 

[skye]

hmmm....

 

[Coyote]

It's in the OP

 

[skye]

It's in the OP

I know

Always with problems always always....the ham/pig/pork ...the alcohol ....the veil....this that that LOL

I am ranting here please carry on!