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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. I think both should be given accommodations to allow them to complete the work they are able to without violating their beliefs.
  2. Just a question for all those who say they should just get another job (to which in my opinion in just heartless, these women have the right to exercise their religious beliefs even if you don’t agree). Would you also state that teachers who teach at a Catholic school and fail to either live by Catholic teaching or wish to speech out against the Church should just find other jobs? Or do you think that the school and archdioceses don’t have any right to tell these people what to do?
 
If, for any reason, you choose not do the job you were hired to perform, ethically you should resign. If your employer can make reasonable accommodations and wishes to do so, great. If not, you have an obligation to leave and not accept a salary for work you do not do.

I’ve worked long enough to know that almost every job changes over time, often because of technology. Those who couldn’t handle the new technology were never paid to continue in the position and not perform the work.

(And there’s a very big difference between having to resign because you refuse to perform a portion of it and facing death or other serious consequences that refusing to follow orders under a regime like the Nazis’. Comparing the two is offensive.)
 
Abigail_Phantom said:
  1. I think both should be given accommodations to allow them to complete the work they are able to without violating their beliefs.
  2. Just a question for all those who say they should just get another job (to which in my opinion in just heartless, these women have the right to exercise their religious beliefs even if you don’t agree). Would you also state that teachers who teach at a Catholic school and fail to either live by Catholic teaching or wish to speech out against the Church should just find other jobs? Or do you think that the school and archdioceses don’t have any right to tell these people what to do?
Click to expand...
Many Catholic schools, like many religious schools, have contracts that their employees sign that do in fact state that employees are expected to adhere the teachings of the Catholic church in word and deed. This is a requirement for hiring and cause for dismissal. In many of the cases that make the news, looking deeper into the case you will find situations where those institutions either did not have such things written into their contract or did not enforce them at all or at best selectively.

In my experience as an adjunct teacher in colleges I encountered many Christian colleges where I had to sign statements agreeing by the schools’ view of acceptable Christian behavior plus having a letter from my pastor that I was a member in good standing. BTW, I never had to do that for a Catholic college.

I have also been an employer and I expect my employees to do the job they are hired for, period. My employees were always free to express their religious beliefs as long as the job got done and did not disrupt operations, period. If the job duties were abborant to their religious beliefs it was THEIR responsibility to discuss this in the interview process and/or deselect themselves from the interview process.

I am sure that sounds heartless, but we all have to make choices sometime and those choices are not easy.
 
TARRAT said:
Sure. My job used to entail only 6900v circuits. Now I must also work on lower voltages.** I was not asked to violate my religious principles**. I’m sure if the lady was asked to make coffee for fellow workers she would not have minded it, may not have like it, but done it.
Click to expand...
So where do we draw the line on religious principles…whose religious principles…do we mean like the 30,000 or more Protestant denominations who split over a passage of scripture…even Catholics have differing views on religious principles…some Catholic bakers might not like Jews…some might…some might not like Protestants…or Muslims…or Jehovah’s witnesses…or Mormons…Jews might not like Christians or Muslims…and on and on…and all because it violates their personal religious principles…millions of Christians probably have varying degrees on what their own personal religious principles are…many whites here in the US a few decades ago didn’t have a problem with quoting verses of scripture they said showed that the races should not mix…aren’t they religious principles…shouldn’t they be allowed to refuse to serve black people…pretty soon we’ll have anarchy…where do we draw the line…I don’t agree with SSM neither…and if I was in a position where I had to choose on some matter of faith then I would do what my religious principle told me…probably I would resign…some other Christians would see it differently…I wouldn’t try to force my belief onto others so they would be made to suffer…I do realize that SSM has been forced on us by a small vocal group with support from some Supreme Court judges…if in the next federal election a government is elected that is sympathetic to Christian values then laws can be changed…then those Christians who are opposed to SSM will be satisfied…other Christians who see it differently mayl start protesting along with SS couples again…and so it starts all over again…maybe when we get to suffering for our faith like those Christians in the middle east and elsewhere we really will know we are being persecuted for our faith…it’s a mess for sure.
 
Wow!!! Talk about religious freedom! If she was a Christian who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, would you also say should get a different job?!!!

Everyone should be able to practice their own beliefs, it’s not like she is working in a bar!
 
TARRAT said:
Actually there is a slight difference in the cases. As somebody mentioned earlier in a post the muslim knew when she took the job she would have to serve adult beverages. The clerk when she took her job did not know she was going to have to violate her religious principles. There lies the difference in these two cases.👍
Click to expand...
Great explanation:thumbsup:
 
TARRAT said:
Actually there is a slight difference in the cases. As somebody mentioned earlier in a post the muslim knew when she took the job she would have to serve adult beverages. The clerk when she took her job did not know she was going to have to violate her religious principles. There lies the difference in these two cases.👍
Click to expand...
Mega dittos. :thumbsup:This “It’s-part-of-the-job” argument was beat to death in another thread recently regarding the clerk, along with the observation that the requirements changed after she was elected to the position, whereas the flight attendant job didn’t change in regard to serving alcohol.
 
She could always work for a strict Muslim no-alcohol airline and not worry about it, however, she doesn’t mind people drinking or serving it, as long as she doesn’t have to do the handoff? Seems opportunistic.
 
Neofight said:
So I guess we all agree that the county clerk in Kentucky was not being punished for her religious convictions, but for failure to do her job…I’m glad we’re consistent in thought!🙂
Click to expand...
Actually I think that you are NOT applying the same standard.

Was the County clerk compelled to issue same sex marriage licenses when she was appointed?

If the answer is YES! then I agree with you, she should have gotten another job.
However that is NOT the case is it?

Was the law that ordered the internment of all German Jews in concentration camps lawful?

Had there been courageous county clerk, policemen, civilian authorities taking a stand and say in no uncertain terms “This law is bad, Inconstitucional, and we will not obey it”. Perhaps the holocaust would have not happened.

The Supreme Court is totally overstepping their bounds by trying to legislate over an institution that was founded EONS before any of those now sitting on those benches. They have NO RIGHT to do so. That is very dangerous slippery slope they and all who give support to them thread on.

IF you are a Catholic you CANNOT but lend your support for her, or believe me when they come fro you there will be nobody to help you either.

…
 
Abigail_Phantom said:
  1. I think both should be given accommodations to allow them to complete the work they are able to without violating their beliefs.
  2. Just a question for all those who say they should just get another job (to which in my opinion in just heartless, these women have the right to exercise their religious beliefs even if you don’t agree). Would you also state that teachers who teach at a Catholic school and fail to either live by Catholic teaching or wish to speech out against the Church should just find other jobs? Or do you think that the school and archdioceses don’t have any right to tell these people what to do?
Click to expand...
I have said numerous times that I believe those teachers who violate Catholic teaching in word or deed should be dismissed and seek other jobs. A private religious school has the right to set its hiring and firing policy based on its own moral and religious values. So does an airline and a government office, and, yes, even a privately-owned bakery shop. If any of these establishments wishes to provide accommodations, so much the better; but they should not be pressured to do so.

Heartless? We’re dealing with the worlds of business and government: heartless is their middle name. The world of academia, however, whether public or private, is none the better with regard to equitable accommodations, and I know from many years of experience.
 
What comes to my mind on much of what has been commented on this matter is Jews before WWII in Germany where descrimination against them was ok because that’s what the regime had implemented. It seems that many don’t know where to draw the line or to make connections with history. We’re pretty much repeating history once again.
 
Some things people seem to be missing here is that she converted to Islam approximately 1 year after she became a flight attendant, so she knew she would have to serve alcohol.

She states that she only realized in June, that serving alcohol was against her religion.

Instead of going to her employer, she worked out an “arrangement” with other employees, so she wouldn’t have to serve alcohol.

A coworker complained, and she got suspended.

Read it here.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223926/Muslim-flight-attendant-files-discrimination-complaint-against-employer-claiming-suspended-refusing-serve-alcohol.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223926/Muslim-flight-attendant-files-discrimination-complaint-against-employer-claiming-suspended-refusing-serve-alcohol.html
 
meltzerboy said:
… If any of these establishments wishes to provide accommodations, so much the better; but they should not be pressured to do so.
…
Click to expand...
I think the public accommodation laws were passed to eliminate racial discrimination at lunch counters, etc.
 
meltzerboy said:
I have said numerous times that I believe those teachers who violate Catholic teaching in word or deed should be dismissed and seek other jobs. A private religious school has the right to set its hiring and firing policy based on its own moral and religious values. So does an airline and a government office, and, yes, even a privately-owned bakery shop. If any of these establishments wishes to provide accommodations, so much the better; but they should not be pressured to do so.

Heartless? We’re dealing with the worlds of business and government: heartless is their middle name. The world of academia, however, whether public or private, is none the better with regard to equitable accommodations, and I know from many years of experience.
Click to expand...
I think it only goes so far. For example, I don’t think it would be legal or even morally right, for a private bakery to refuse to sell a cake to someone because she suspects that the person is Jewish.
 
twopekinguys said:
Some things people seem to be missing here is that she converted to Islam approximately 1 year after she became a flight attendant, so she knew she would have to serve alcohol.

She states that she only realized in June, that serving alcohol was against her religion.

Instead of going to her employer, she worked out an “arrangement” with other employees, so she wouldn’t have to serve alcohol.

A coworker complained, and she got suspended.

Read it here.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223926/Muslim-flight-attendant-files-discrimination-complaint-against-employer-claiming-suspended-refusing-serve-alcohol.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223926/Muslim-flight-attendant-files-discrimination-complaint-against-employer-claiming-suspended-refusing-serve-alcohol.html
Click to expand...
I am sorry to hear that Americans are now discriminating against Muslims.
 
meltzerboy said:
I agree with you; but do you feel the same way about the Kentucky woman who refuses to issue same-sex civil marriage licenses?
Click to expand...
Yes, and this in spite of the fact that the flight attendant’s job description involved serving booze from the get-go, while Kim Davis’s job description basically underwent a major shift after the SCOTUS ruling. This has been well dissected subsequent to your posting this query. I have nothing to add to that discussion, except to emphasize that for many centuries conscientious Christians have been changing their employment when either a change of faith (Roman soldiers who became Christians) or a change in job description raised an irreconcilable conflict between the two.

Shalom lekha 😃
 
Tomdstone said:
I am sorry to hear that Americans are now discriminating against Muslims.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. She willfully refuses to do the job she was hired to do, and you’re upset about that? I’m guessing she would be a laugh riot during an evacuation.🤷

How would that work out in your workplace? I"m guessing not so well.

Again, if she had been honest with her employer instead of trying to do a sneak around, I am sure the outcome would be different.
 
Tomdstone said:
I think it only goes so far. For example, I don’t think it would be legal or even morally right, for a private bakery to refuse to sell a cake to someone because she suspects that the person is Jewish.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, in the bakery case(s), there was a religious objection which involved participation in a ceremony that was contrary to the owner’s religious and moral values, and he was the private owner of the shop rather than a county clerk employed by the government. Moreover, the owner would be willing to sell cakes to gay people but not for their wedding reception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top