Muslim Flight Attendant does not want to serve liquor

A Muslim flight attendant, Charee Stanley, claims that she was suspended from her job with ExpressJet Airlines because she refused to serve alcohol. She has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – and now the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has jumped onto the case.
So now we have yet another Muslim workplace lawsuit from CAIR – once again designed to impose Islam on the workplace. This is what they do.

Looks like another attempt to force Muslim rules on people

She should get a job on a Muslim airline . . .

1 Like

The attendant needs to be sent to jail like Kim Davis.

Private sector; just let her do without a job. As to Kim Davis, God bless her for having the courage of her convictions in a world gone mad.

There is no comparison in the two situations. Charee Stanley wants to force her employer to submit to her values. Kim Davis doesn’t want to **force **anyone to do anything. I assume that she took some kind of oath of office and she believes that her actions are consistent with that. She is practicing non-violent civil disobedience and is prepared to suffer the consequences. More courageous people like her can change the world.

2 Likes

Actually, they are quite comparable. Charee Stanley wants to force her employer to submit to her values. And Ms. Davis wants the public (that is, her employers) to submit to her values.

In each case, if their values are so important to them, they should find other, more suitable employment. Now THAT would be courageous - resign from an $80,000 per year job in deference to her values. But no, she’s selfish - she wants to both keep her job and her paycheck AND violate her oath of office.

1 Like

Kim Davis Oath of office:

“I, Kim Davis, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of Rowan County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

Now, as an alleged attorney, you should know, since it has been articulated, that the Kentucky Constitution holds this view:

Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

She is enforcing the Kentucky Law as written. She is actually DOING HER JOB. Only bigoted gay activists could remotely discern that the whims of Obozo and the Gooberment trump the rights of the States. This is not one of the enumerated powers. This is specifically, by the US Constitution, reserved for the States.
But, of course, you will ignore all that and continue to call her a bigot. You will continue to spew leftist hate for a socially conservative woman who merely takes her oath seriously. Regardless of her personal views, her oath was to the County government, not the Federal. Since the Federal Government has no right to rule on a States Rights issue, she is well within her job description, by refusing to issue a marriage license forbidden by Kentucky Law.
But, carry on with the Leftist crud.

3 Likes

Now, Tiny, [Insult deleted by PeteS] you should be able to recognize that Kim Davis is arbitrarily declining to recognize the legal rights of two citizens, and that such behavior on the part of a government official is tantamount to tyranny. We are a nation of laws, not men.

Now, Tiny1, you should realize that your post will be totally ignored by its intended recipient no matter how based in fact that it is. Lawyers are seldom interested in the facts of the law. They are only interested in digging in their heels and winning their initial argument no matter how screwed up it is.

2 Likes

If we really WERE “a nation of laws and not men,” gay “marriage” would never have been taken up by the SCOTUS, which has NO AUTHORITY over the institution–nor does any other part of the federal government. If the STATES decide to OK it, that’s one thing…and a couple HAVE. That is in no way binding on the States which have rejected it, however, which include California, of all places. No State judge has the authority to declare a Constitutional Amendment, passed by referendum in a State that recognizes “referenda” as legitimate ways to pass laws to be “unconstitutional” because of his personal agenda, either.

Bull Puckey.
We ARE a nation of laws, and one of those is that the SCOTUS cannot make law. The Kentucky Law is as stated above. This is a State matter, and the Federal Gooberment has no business defining marriage for the States. That is not an enumerated power.
But you know all of this.
Kim Davis swore an oath to uphold KENTUCKY law, not the federal over reach of the Supreme Court Jesters. THAT is what she did.

3 Likes

Kim Davis is a Democrat isn’t she? Where is that tolerance the left preaches.

2 Likes

Bull Puckey is what describes every word of this idiotic post. Even Kim Davis isn’t questioning the authority of the Supreme Court or basing her position on Kentucky law. She’s seeking a special dispensation on “religious” grounds to both keep her lucrative position and deny her services to certain of her constituents. She’s both pernicous and selfish. If she truly had the courage of her convictions, she’d resign. That’s what a public servant is obliged to do if she can’t uphold her oath of office. But her devotion to God isn’t, it appears, worth $80,000 a year.

Why does Kim Davis deserve a speck of tolerance? She’s a public servant, and next time out it may be YOUR rights she seeks to deny.

What are you blabbering about? Kim Davis is a democrat and yet she lacks the tolerance the left holds in high regard. That is what I was saying.

Try reading my post before post stupid comments because of a you have a beef with me in another thread.

1 Like

What you are saying makes no discernable sense to me.

Doesn’t matter what the news reports say were her “motivations.” The fact is, she WAS upholding the law. The ONLY law, in fact, that is relevant to this issue…the Kentucky Constitution…period.

Really? You are actually making me spell it out for you?

The left is always preaching tolerance, and how the right has no tolerance, for every little thing. Yet Kim Davis, a Democrat aka The Party of the Left aka a Liberal, is showing no tolerance.

Got it now, or do I need to break out the crayons?

Don’t be an ass. Are you saying that Kim Davis is a liberal? On what basis? Because she’s a Democrat? If that’s so, then folks here should stop accusing me of being a RINO. Jazzhead, a Republican aka the party of the Right aka a conservative. Thanks for the support, Seravee.

And on what basis is she “showing no tolerance”? She’s engaging in discrimination on the basis of her religious beliefs. Are you suggesting that religious belief is based on intolerance?

You need to brush up on your communications skills.

Am I smoking something? Is Jazz defending Kim Davis now?

And Jazz yes do consider you a Republican. The GOP has been slowly sliding to the left and you reflect that.

Jazz I get it. You are upset with me based on comments in other thread but please do not let that spill over into other discussions. We are better than that. I may call your views foolish in on thread but will agree with you in another. In this thread I am on your side. Kim Davis is being intolerant and using her religious views as an excuse. She is signing a piece of paper and does not have to participate in anything. The judge is the one marrying homosexual couples not her.

Take your issues with me on other threads and leave them there.