Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html
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.
Here we go again ! Another demand for workplace religious exception. What's next ?
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Oh these pesky workplace requirements! If individuals cannot perform their jobs, they should leave...except weather forecasters, think they have special dispensation from the weather gods
except weather forecasters, think they have special dispensation from the weather gods
And occasionally be struck in the ass by lightening.
She changed, not the airline's policy of serving drinks. She does it or deserves to be fired.
When I was an undergraduate student, I worked as a bar tender after I turned 21 in a fancy down town express account restaurant. The foods and beverages they served there were not Kosher. So what?
I was happy for the opportunity to work, and help afford my education.
The owners coordinatedwith me so I didn't have to work on my Sabbath and other High Holy Days. That was extremely nice of them.
That I do what I do doesn'tmean anyone else has to do likewise. Its called freedom of choice. Its what makes America what it is. Freedom isn't measured by what decisions a person makes. It is the fact that they get to make them, not anyone else that gives us our freedoms. Freedom isn't and cannot be absolute.
We do all have first amendment freedom of religious expression, provided that it is for us, and not for us to imposed on others.
There are other jobs than flight attendant for this woman to do.
I took the bar tender job because I was lucky enough to meet a couple who hired me, and gave me a chance to help pay for my education. I could have done other work, some of which paid better. But that entailed working on my Sabbath.
I did not ask anyone in retail open on Saturdays to close because of my beliefs. Nor should I have asked.
Freedom is connected toresponsibility, or it isn't freedom for any of us.
No one has more or less freedom than anyone else.
E.
Agree and similar to Mrs. Davis.
Both woman claim a religious life experience that now prevents them from doing their jobs, ok I get that...resign. Mrs. Davis should trust God and Mrs. Stanley should trust Allah for new and different jobs that don't require capitulation on their parts
I believe both belief systems have a faith and trust component, I suggest they be utilized.
I find it a bit odd that she converted to Islam two years and and it took her those two years to find out that it is against the Koran to serve alcohol.
Beside that, she has a job to do, if she can't perform those services due to religious beliefs than she should find another job that accommodates those beliefs.
Each person is responsible for themselves, it is not the place of the business to accommodate those needs. They can, if they so choose, but are under no obligation to do so.
My friend Enoch,
Not a single sliver of light between us on this issue
Choices, life is all about choices and I thank G_d I live in a country that allows them.
Well said !
Hear! Hear!
Very good point Lynne, and very well taken. most religionists should learn it and memorize it.
Well said Brother!
Everyone gets to make choices in this society, any choice they want. AS long as they take the responsibility that goes along with the choices they make.
That is the essence of freedom, it is a shame so many do not abide by their agreements. They want to make the choices, but not take the responsibility for their choices.
They are the true cowards.
Very well said brother. Very well said!
Well that is true. because, as a government employee, Mrs. Davis has an even more "sacred" duty to obey the law.
Similar in that they have faith based beliefs hindering the performance of their job.
Good, market forces at work.
The similarity in these two cases is the religious aspect. One involves the private sector, one involves the public sector. Frankly I don't see the religious exception prevailing for either side. We shall see.
Obviously this is just another put-up effort on the part of CAIR, the Muslim-Brotherhood connected organization that is fighting to bring Sharia law to America, and America is bending to their demands. Look to the future - to your daughters having acid thrown at their faces on their way to school, to gays being thrown off the roofs of buildings, women literally being kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, and having to wear a tent when they go outside.
Small steps. They are taking small steps, and PC-infected America is allowing it to happen.
She pledged to follow the law, not just the law that was law when she was sworn in. Every elected official knows that laws are constantly changing and that your oath does not mean you follow just the ones you like or agree with, but all of them. Even the ones that changed after you were elected. You don't get to decide if a new or changed law is really a law or what the Constitution says about a particular situation. That's the job of the Supreme Court. They have ruled.
If she wants to affect change in the Supreme Court's decision that gay marriage is Constitutional, then she needs to work hard and get herself appointed to the Supreme Court. Other then that her job is to figuratively salute, say Yes Sir and do as she is told, or quit. Such is the life of minor public officials.
She has no case and she has already lost the one she did have when the Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal. She follows the law or resigns or sits in jail, as far as I'm concerned for years. I think a good compromise is to allow her to return to work, but make it a condition of her return that she does nothing to try to stop or influence the three clerks who are willing to issue gay marriage licenses in any manner at all, including prayer or quoting to them from the bible and that someone from the Court checks on her with surprise visits to see if she is complying with her orders. In short, release her on very closely supervised probation for a good ten years or so.
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
History: Not yet amended.
I just love the not having fought a duel part!
Not the right clerks oath Randy.
The one above is for the court clerks, not the county clerks.
They ARE two different positions. (I thought we went over this before)
That is definitely NOT the oath the clerk refusing to do gay marriage took
Not according to the Associated Press and ABC News.
In jailing a Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, a federal judge noted that the clerk had sworn an oath to perform her job, just as many other public servants do. "Oaths mean things," U.S. District Judge David Bunning told Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis on Thursday.
Here is the oath of office taken by county clerks in Kentucky:
Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys:
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
Source link
Good enough for me. The relevant part being " Here is the oath of office taken by county clerks in Kentucky: " they do not not say anything about only officers of the court. It says the oath taken by County Clerks . It does not say only County Court Clerks . Suppose we make it your turn and you find what oath she took, because according to a very, very, very reliable news source, this is the oath she took and you are just plain wrong. So you tell me, what other or different oath did she take? Or don't you have any idea? Because some of the most reliable news sources disagree with you. I have found and posted a crystal clear and extremely credible news source as a back-up. The ball is in your court now. What do YOU have to say differently. Show me the OATH THAT YOU SAY SHE DID TAKE IF IT'S NOT THIS ONE! Otherwise I'm going to take the AP's credibility over yours.
The one you posted above , that I responded to is this...
AS you can plainly see, the one you posted and I rejected is NOT the same one the AP and ABC news are quoting. (which is the correct one) Plainly it comes from the 2012 Kentucky Revised Statutes, CHAPTER 30A COURT PERSONNEL; Section ; 30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
Only applies to the courts and the court clerks. Not the county clerks.
THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT OFFICES. Every court jurisdiction in the country has it's own clerk, every county in the nation has it's county clerk. they are two very different jobs.
Obviously your confusing the two.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ONE???? SHOW ME THE ONE SHE DID TAKE, BECAUSE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SAYS YOU ARE WRONG, THAT SHE TOOK THE CONSTITUTIONAL 228 ONE AND THEY ARE MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE CREDIBLE THEN YOU. SHOW ME THE OATH SHE DID TAKE OR I AM SAYING YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S NOT THE SAME OATH THEY GIVE TO COUNTY CLERKS TOO?
Until you can prove different, you're just plain wrong.
EXCUSE ME SIR!
YOU posted the incorrect oath in your first post.
ALL I DID was point that out.
WHEN YOU POSTED THE AP QUOTE this is what I said.
SO I AM CHALLENGING THE FIRST POST YOU MADE AS INCORRECT. and I am absolutely correct in that challenge.
You posted a quote of the correct one and I agreed with it.
Obviously in your salacious drive thinking you have caught me in something you can challenge, you forgot to use your reading skills.
And have made a fool of yourself. My friend.
You initially posted the incorrect oath, I posted it's source from the Court rules, you claimed it was the correct one. Are you man enough to admit that? or you willing to accept the alternative.
I don't think your that foolish Brother.
You should know what your religious requirements are and you should know what your occupation requirements are. It you are a hard core Jewish person you only have 363 requirements to adhere to, so I imagine there aren't that many who are so hardcore. LOL
We're just getting started in the USA. Go to the United Kingdom, the new Muslim country and see how it is over there.
Examine Islam
Having spent the afternoon on Saturday with a survivor of a Muslim rape gang, it became horrifyingly clear as we discussed what happened to her that the state provided services which should have spotted there was a problem and intervened in the early days simply did not. We have all heard of the thousands of cases of young girls, children, being raped and exploited for sex, of parents reporting this to the police and for nothing to happen. Yet hearing it for myself was an eye opener.
Continue Reading
It is my belief the USA will become a Muslim country. It may take a 100 years, but little by little the pressure is on for Hope and Change and I don't see any end to it. They don't have to worry about us, they have our children.
You initially posted the incorrect oath, I posted it's source from the Court rules, you claimed it was the correct one. Are you man enough to admit that? or you willing to accept the alternative.
I posted BOTH parts of the oath and you said the entire thing was incorrect! I believe you did some research on you own and discovered that the second oath (really the second half of a whole according to the wording from the state) is indeed correct and are now acting like you knew it all along when it is obvious that you did not. The state indicated strongly that the second oath could only be taken after the first and that is what I was saying. Are you man enough to accept that?
Excuse me but you posted this here after I had posted BOTH oaths and you made no differential between the two and just said that I was wrong:
Not the right clerks oath Randy.
The one above is for the court clerks, not the county clerks.
They ARE two different positions. (I thought we went over this before)
That is definitely NOT the oath the clerk refusing to do gay marriage took
I had posted both oaths because one refers to the other and your first response was that I was just plain wrong. Not that one was right and the other wrong but you said my entire comment was just plain wrong. Not that one of the two were correct in this first post of yours, just that it was wrong. No indication that you thought one of them was correct in this first reaction. You said:
That is definitely NOT the oath the clerk refusing to do gay marriage took. PERIOD!
Instead you chose to insert a "(which is the correct one)" nearly hidden in the middle of another post. Your challenge as first presented could have only been read as saying both were wrong as you did not say otherwise in that first post that part of it was the correct county clerks oath. You gave no indication of agreement or even acknowledgement of the second oath that you decided was correct after I suspect doing your own online research, found it is correct. Only then, half hidden, did you acknowledge that the second part of the oath was there and was correct. That you saw the entire oath which some are require to take both, as one that required he other. I have not the slightest doubt that at the beginning of this exchange you were convinced both oaths, which are really two half's of a whole and one refers to the need to take the other first, believed that anyone taking the second oath must first take the first. Only after checking yourself did you realize that at least the second oath was correct as it pertains to County Clerks.
The clear indication is that they are presented by the state as the second one after the first, as two half's of one whole. So when you said it was wrong in your first post it and said nothing about the second oath, could only be understood that you were saying my entire post was wrong. Until you found out different for yourself and acknowledged what I asked, you showed me the oath the county clerk took. You acknowledged that at least (and I believe only after researching it your self in the meantime) the second part of my post was correct. And did not believe it in the first place because you never mentioned it at first. And only then you took the position that you knew all along that the second half was right when you obviously did not, according to your first post.You posted a quote of the correct one and I agreed with it.
Only after saying I was incorrect in the whole as it is indicated by the wording of the second oath (or really second part) that both oaths are taken by both kinds of people, county court officers and county clerks alike. The wording of the beginning of the second oath is clear or at least seems clear to me that it is the second half of two oaths that must be taken together by everyone. That a person could NOT take the second one without having first taken the first.
My posts keep disappearing, then reappearing, sometimes in whole and sometimes only the beginning portion and thendisappearing again. I wonder if they'll all be there when you read them. That is why I have posted so many of them in hopes that at least some of them will stay and make sense. I fear not as some are not there right now as I type this. I posted a long one where I went over everything from my side, point by point and now I can only see and read the first 3 lines of it.
Fuck it. We'll argue tomorrow Brother, or the next day when I am not so heavily medicated for the night like now. I think we both are guilty of some mis-interpertaion of some of the points of the other and I will man up to that, say I am sorry if it happened and that I still consider us friends.
You cant even follow your own conversation? WOW (or are you pulling a James Martin on me {chuckle})
Your first posting: (claiming that the district court clerk's oath is the oath she took)
Right here ....
You claim that is the first part of the oath in addition to that ancient "Duel" section which is no longer applicable and hasn't been used in over 100 years.
The true oath is Section 228 of the State constitution which is alluded to above the "Duel Section"
The section you posted as the first part is the oath taken by Court Clerks as prescribed by the RKS (the Revised Kentucky Statutes) and is applicable to court clerks only.
The states official oath (which she did take) is legally referred to Sec 228 StCon.
and
The court mandated Court Clerks oath (which she did not take) is universally referred to as KY Rev Stat 30A.020 (2012)
I suggest that you read sections 99 & 100 of the Kentucky Constitution if you really want to know if Court clerks and County clerks are two different people, just like they are all over the country.
A curt Clerk needs written approval by a sitting judge before he or she can even apply to the court for the position. A county clerk has no such requirement.
And besides whenever has a constitutional section been codified in statute? Explain that one?
Two different oaths, and in your first post you cited the incorrect one. In your second you cited the correct but unused additional oath. (which made reference to the proper oath)
It wasn't until you posted the AP article that you cited the proper oath.
Twist and turn all you want, I could easily say you researched once I made the challenge and then found out your wrong in your first posting and are now trying to turn it around to save your own face.
Face it, you claiming what you now are is an admission by you that you posted wrong to start.
I expect that is all I will get.
And I expect you will deny to the end of time.
No point to go further and at this time I will leave it to the readers to judge the veracity. (although I suspect they will think it a bit juvenile)
My sober position.
This is the oath all county clerks have to take according to the AP. I do concede that the first one I posted:
Source Link.
is for court clerks and other officers of the court, though it does say in addition to Section 228. However the second one I posted,
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.History: Not yet amended.
which we both agreed is the correct one also says officers and you said it is no longer used but that the AP post referred to the correct one.
Two different oaths, and in your first post you cited the incorrect one. In your second you cited the correct but unused additional oath. (which made reference to the proper oath) .
The second oath posted is the same one in the AP article and you say it is the right one but is no longer used. You have said
You claim that is the first part of the oath in addition to that ancient "Duel" section which is no longer applicable and hasn't been used in over 100 years.
The true oath is Section 228 of the State constitution which is alluded to above the "Duel Section"
"The states official oath (which she did take) is legally referred to Sec 228 StCon."
that the one posted by the AP post was the correct one, but no longer used, but did reference to the proper one, which is Kentucky Section 228 (the only other oath referred to in the AP post and which you say above is the right one to use) and Kentucky 228 IS the one in the AP post , (which has never been amended). Which then what, word for word, is the oath that she took? Because Section 228 is also a court officer's and attorneys, etc. oath. How could they have used the correct, but no longer used one, to be the one she and Court Officers, including Court Clerks and Attorneys, were sworn in under?
You said she was sworn in under Section 228 and what I posted IS Section 228 and so did the AP.
The only possible answer, according to what you have posted, is that Court Clerks and Officers of the Court, including Court Clerks and Attorneys and County Clerks are all sworn in using the exact same oath, which is no longer used.
ALSO! Since 30A.020, Oath of clerk and deputies. States:
presence of the Circuit Court
A Court Officer must not only take the oath in 30A.020, Oath of clerk and deputies, they must also take the oath in Section 228. So they are indeed, as I argued stoned out of my mind on my nightly meds and with little to no sleep, dual oaths. And the second one I posted was posted, word for word in the AP article which you said was correct, but no longer in use and then you pointed me to Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, which also says, word for word, what I had previously posted as valid and word for word what the AP article stated and was the oath that you said she was sworn in with.
Section 228 of the Constitution of Kentucky, while very old, has never been amended and is still in use, word for word, today (or at least still was as of 2012 from the news report I posted in my previous post to this. ). Do you have any evidence that it has become no longer in use since 2012?
No point to go further and at this time I will leave it to the readers to judge the veracity.
More then happy to do that. Let others judge. I have zero doubt that it will be shown that I posted correctly the first time, that it is a dual oath (for court officers) and that the second oath I posted you said was right, but was not longer being used is the exact same one that was referred to by the AP and that it is word for word the and the exact same section (228) of the Kentucky Constitution that I said it is the correct one and the one you later told me was the one she took as her oath of office, even though you said before was old and no longer used. The one you said is the correct oath for her to take and that you said was used to swear her in ("The states official oath (which she did take) is legally referred to Sec 228 StCon".), is the exact same oath that I posted, the AP posted and that you said wasn't used any longer and then you referred me to the exact same post as the correct one. The oath has not been changed, is old and is still being used. It is also Sec 228 StCon.
To put it bluntly brother, you are just plain wrong and even with my drunken (via meds) ramblings I was 100% correct. The first oath I posted is the one for Court Officer, however they have to swear to the second one also (Sec 228 StCon.) and county clerks only have to swear to the second one, that you said she swore to, but also that it is no longer being used.
She should go find a job that doesn't offend her religious beliefs.
Great article, Pat!
I agree that we all have the right to freedom of expression-- but not the right to impose our beliefs on others.
The oaths I took when I became a Board Member were similar to both oaths published above-- both of them required that I swear that I had not fought a duel. I do not remember the exact wording, but it is the oath all state employees and elected officials take. We see the dual part as a quaint anachronism, and nothing more. I kind of like it.
We have not seen fit to amend our constitution here in the state of KY. We've been too busy naming state things... The state rock is a mineral, state mineral is a rock, state fish, state fossil, state tree, etc. That takes a lot of time.
Plus, in our state government, the legislatures are deeply divided. The Senate is deeply republican and the House is deeply democratic. They will oppose each other on anything, just for politics. The state has been at sort of a standstill for legislation for the past 10 years or so. Yes, some things have been passed by both houses, but a lot has not.
When we have our legislative sessions, it's kind of fun to go watch them shout at each other.