[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Business
See other Business Articles

Title: Muslim flight attendant: I was suspended for not serving alcohol
Source: CBS
URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim- ... t-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/
Published: Sep 3, 2015
Author: CBS Staff
Post Date: 2015-09-06 09:37:11 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 44180
Comments: 251

A Muslim flight attendant filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming she was suspended from her job for not serving alcohol, which is against her religious beliefs, CBS Detroit station WWJ-AM reports.

Lena Masri, an attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Michigan, said Charee Stanley followed management's directions, working out an arrangement with her coworkers to accommodate passenger requests for alcohol.

However, Masri said, ExpressJet Airlines put Stanley on administrative leave after another attendant filed "an Islamophobic complaint" that referenced Stanley's head scarf.

"We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley's religious beliefs," Masri said at a news conference in Farmington Hills on Tuesday. "Instead, ExpressJet close to violate Ms. Stanely's constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months, after which her employment may be administratively terminated."

Masri said the arrangement Stanley had with other attendants to serve alcohol for her had been working out fine since Stanley converted to Islam about a month after becoming a flight attendant for ExpressJet.

"I don't think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living," Stanley said. "I shouldn't have to choose between one or the other because they're both important."

Contacted by WWJ-AM for comment, airline spokesman Jarek Beem responded with the following statement:

"At ExpressJet, we embrace and respect the values of all of our team members. We are an equal opportunity employer with a long history of diversity in our workforce. As Ms. Stanley is an employee, we are not able to comment on her personnel matters."

The Islamic-relations council is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization with the mission "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 205.

#3. To: cranky (#0)

So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   10:58:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#3)

So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?

Your statement reeks with support for sodomites.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-06   16:31:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: A K A Stone, SOSO, sneakypete (#13)

Your statement reeks with support for sodomites.

No, it doesn't.

I'm asking if conservatives now support the "right" not to do the job an employee (or public official) agreed to do (instead of resigning from that job).

I'll point out that the KY clerk is on her fourth marriage. What if she ran across a Catholic or Church of Christ or Jehovah's Witness serving as a county clerk who don't believe in divorce. Does this much-married KY clerk think they should have the right to refuse to issue her and husband #5 a marriage certificate?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   20:39:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: TooConservative (#14)

I'm asking if conservatives now support the "right" not to do the job an employee (or public official) agreed to do (instead of resigning from that job).

I'll point out that the KY clerk is on her fourth marriage. What if she ran across a Catholic or Church of Christ or Jehovah's Witness serving as a county clerk who don't believe in divorce. Does this much-married KY clerk think they should have the right to refuse to issue her and husband #5 a marriage certificate?

An employee to a company is different then an elected official.

Please cite the Kentucky law that authorizes her to issue faggot pretend marriage licenses. You can't because no such law exists.

The Judge is a homosexual activist like the Peter.

She is in her fourth marriage. Irrelevant. She wasn't a Christian before.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-06   20:50:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, SOSO, sneakypete (#17) (Edited)

Please cite the Kentucky law that authorizes her to issue faggot pretend marriage licenses.

You mean, the same laws that require her to issue interracial marriage licenses?

IOW, the decision of the Supreme Court when they decided decades back that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional and that a state could not forbid the marriage of a white man to a black or an Asian or a Hispanic.

So this KY clerk is already issuing marriage licenses based solely on previous decisions of the Supreme Court.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[X 1] [X 2] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Yes, Kentucky was one of those states in the Loving verdict. All interracial marriage certificates in Kentucky have been issued solely on the authority of the Supreme Court's decision. No Kentucky laws were ever written to support interracial marriage.

Sixteen states saw their anti-miscegenation laws overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967:

Alabama (1819)
Arkansas (1836)
Delaware (1787)
Florida (1845)
Georgia (1788)
Kentucky (1792)
Louisiana (1812)
Mississippi (1817)
Missouri (1821)
North Carolina (1789)
Oklahoma (1907)
South Carolina (1788)
Texas (1845)
Tennessee (1796)
Virginia (1788)
West Virginia (1863)

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   21:33:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: TooConservative (#40)

You mean, the same laws that require her to issue interracial marriage licenses?

No I'm talking about fag pretend marriage.

No such thing as interracial marriage. Only one race the human race.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-06   22:21:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: A K A Stone (#49)

No such thing as interracial marriage.

Well, Kentucky certainly thought so from 1792-1967 when the Supreme Court finally told them otherwise.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   22:23:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: TooConservative (#50)

Well, Kentucky certainly thought so from 1792-1967 when the Supreme Court finally told them otherwise.

Who cares. It wasn't the truth then or now.

God made Adam and Eve. We are all decendants of them.

We just have different characteristics. One race the human race.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-06   22:30:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: A K A Stone (#53)

God made Adam and Eve. We are all decendants of them.

I guess that makes Cain and Abel MoFO's,right?

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-07   0:03:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: sneakypete (#82)

Cain and Abel had sisters, and married them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   7:46:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Vicomte13 (#84)

Cain and Abel had sisters, and married them.

So it was just "regular" incest?

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-07   9:54:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: sneakypete (#99)

Incest only became a crime under the Laws of God when God revealed that to Moses at Sinai. Before it was revealed, it wasn't.

Arguably, it's only a crime before God for Hebrews in Israel, but even if it isn't a crime as such, it's clear - by the fact that God gave the law to the Hebrews in order to protect them and so they would prosper - that there is something unhealthy about incest that we God wanted his people to avoid. It could be the genetic problem of inbreeding. Or it could be something more spiritual.

In any case, there was nothing at all wrong, in a spiritual/moral sense, with brothers and sisters marrying before it was revealed by God to Moses that they should not.

Cain did nothing wrong by marrying his sister.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   12:02:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: Vicomte13 (#140)

Incest only became a crime under the Laws of God when God revealed that to Moses at Sinai. Before it was revealed, it wasn't.

Oh Horseshit!

Incest has been an issue since the begiining of time; the probability of children being born with inferior capabilities is well known and understood well before any Jews. In rural societies, child bearing for the strongest features have been well known and identified; so the rite of passage about marriage was bound with strong familes. It was important to identify strong traits for survival.

You act like this planet is centered on the fake Israel and its history. Its a BIG world out there ... you might want to explore it before you start wearing a skull cap.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   12:10:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: buckeroo (#145)

Incest was required at the beginning of the species. Always is for all species. It's the nature of things.

Animals don't care about incest. They do it without notice. That's how we get special dog breeds.

People care about it, because after a certain point we were told not to do it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   12:37:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Vicomte13 (#152)

Incest was required at the beginning of the species. Always is for all species. It's the nature of things.

I have realized, you don't no much of anything. You act as though ALL things originated from a unique location on the planet and in tyme. You are so full of SHIT, you stink up the discussion.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   12:41:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: buckeroo (#156)

If you trace back your human origins through chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA, you will discover that geneticists speak of chromosomal "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve". The dominant view of anthropologists in a long-running debate about origins is that humans did indeed originate from one specimen, not all over the place. There was always the alternative view, that humans originated in many places, but DNA studies have come down decisively on the side of chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

So, while it may well be that there is a great big world out there, our human entry into it was in one small space and time, through a breeding pair. Traditionally, we have called them Adam and Eve. You may redeem them whatever you like. The biology remains the same. And the fact of originating with a breeding pair perforce means incest to perpetuate the species. As the population grew and spread, isolation caused specific races and local traits to grow more prominent - through inbreeding. Then as expansion continued further, inbred local populations re-encountered humans expanding from their own isolated centers, and the miscegenation that is seen all around the world today occurred.

Nevertheless at our origins we were in one place, alongside a body of water, eating shellfish.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   12:50:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: Vicomte13 (#161)

If you trace back your human origins through chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA, you will discover that geneticists speak of chromosomal "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve".

It is a metaphor.

Your argument starts right off stinkin' to high heaven.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   13:03:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: buckeroo (#167)

The NAMES are a metaphor - the REALITY of genetic origins in single individuals is the point. The names are metaphorically given to the original individuals.

That you don't understand that is surprising.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   13:09:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: Vicomte13 (#168)

The names are metaphorically given to the original individuals.

Science s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s metaphors to within the local culture, it serves. And why not? You think the Jewish culture came before the Swahili?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   13:15:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: buckeroo (#169)

I think the Basque culture came before all of them. Age of culture is not interesting when speaking of divine revelation. God is older than all, so if God bends down and tells an American what happened when, and the American writes it in modern English, that's STILL more accurate than the ancient contemporary accounts of what happened, because it's God, and his memory is perfect, and also his knowledge of everything that really happened.

The Scriptures TELL US when the Hebrew culture was made: it was made by God with slaves from all over the place, in the desert, after the Exodus from Egypt. The written Hebrew language was devised by God to record the stories. There was no Hebrew literature before that. The Hebrews didn't EXIST as a large people before that.

Egyptian, Sumerian and many other cultures are much older. But that doesn't make any difference because God spoke in Hebrew, and his knowlege is perfect, so to the extent that there were earlier records, what God said in Hebrew CORRECTS those records, because he's God.

Obviously.

This has nothing to do with Mitochodrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam though, other than the metaphoric names for the first specimens of each sex being named after the English words that translate the Hebrew Scriptures.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   13:30:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: Vicomte13 (#171)

Obviously.

Your concept of "God" is cultural; in your case, you think Judaism is the most profound religion on the planet. It has little to do with objectivity or any serious truth about the world around us, you argue from cultural experience is all.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   13:34:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: buckeroo (#174)

Why is everyone making special accommodations for sodomites?

My knowledge of the existence of God is based on direct personal revelation and miracle.

I have fleshed out my understanding of who God is and his historical interaction with people through the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures, and by considering also certain Vedic and Bhuddist writings.

God is. That I know directly. Likewise, I know that America is, today, because I live in it. For me to know God or America BEFORE my immediate time, and to understand what each means more profoundly, I have to read. Hebrew, Christian and Muslim writings are the most accurate sources of information about the particular God who talked to me and saved my life by miracle.

That's my concept of God. Culture's got nothing to do with it. In fact, as I read I have to control for culture and strain it out, so that can discern what God himself says and does from the cultural reactions and writings about it.

If you really want to argue with me about what I believe, then you need to start with the proper factual basis. My concept of God is not cultural. Id ton't think that Judaism is the most profound religion on the planet. Catholicism is. My view of God has everything to do with objectivity and the desire to absolutely precise.. The world around us is the God-made proving ground for all ideas.

I more than ignore cultural experience. When speaking of God, I actively denigrate it and shred its dignity, and claim that culture must always be thrown away as evil garbage whenever and wherever it conflicts with the pure moral pronouncements of God.

You will not find a person more hostile to culture as a normative force than me. Culture is entertainment, food styles, art. But as a basis for law, it is shit. All of it. Including American.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   13:51:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: Vicomte13 (#178)

My knowledge of the existence of God is based on direct personal revelation and miracle.

That is a fairly limited perspective.

What sets mankind apart from all other animals on the planet is the respect for the dead; hence a reverence of a creator. Mankind is the only animal on the planet that buries the dead.

This has been going on for millions of years and is not limited to any Jewish tradition.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   14:02:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: buckeroo (#179) (Edited)

That is a fairly limited perspective.

Yes. Like Galileo's. He looked through a telescope and all he really saw were the moons of Jupiter. Which is really just a little thing, objectively speaking. So, Jupiter has moons. Who knew? Now Galileo knew.

But one little objective fact that other people don't know, or don't know for sure, can change everything. Depends on what the fact is, and what mind has it in its possession.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   15:26:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: Vicomte13 (#180)

You consistently discuss "God" as though the Jews invented the creature. That is your problem, not mine.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   15:39:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#191. To: buckeroo (#181)

You consistently discuss "God" as though the Jews invented the creature. That is your problem, not mine.

I have no particular problem at all. You merely have a problem comprehending me.

We have not been generically discussing God. We have specifically, on this thread and others, been discussing aspects of the moral law revealed by God.

If we were looking at physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology, we would not be discussing the moral law at all. God has a law of physics also, and we would be discussing that.

God first revealed his detailed moral law directly to Moses, and through him, to the Hebrews. Ancient Israel was the only human state that God ever ruled DIRECTLY, so by studying his laws, we study the statecraft of the King of Kings, and we discover various subtle provisions that God put in place that the Hebrews, at their level of development, could not even understand. They simply had to DO them.

With our greater knowledge, we can see what God was addressing - for example, with the cleanliness laws.

Jesus modifies the Jewish law and takes it out to the whole world. Still, this particular law is the only one that came from God, and that's why we have to study the Hebrew Torah: it's the only place where God himself laid out a complete law for mankind. All other law codes are man groping forward based on his own will, enlightened by God, perhaps, on a detail or two, but ultimately focused downward on material things and power. God's law alone keeps our eyes lifted off the dirt to understand that the reason WHY we must do these things that are hard is for our own ultimate good, because it pleases God. The Jewish cultural aspects of God's law are pretty irrelevant. That the Jews (partly) followed God's law for so long caused his law to form the structures of their part of their culture, so there is an affinity between aspects of God's law and Jewish culture, though they are long estranged.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   16:29:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#194. To: Vicomte13 (#191)

[We] been discussing aspects of the moral law revealed by God.

And morality is not confined to Judeo-Christian religions.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   16:34:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#198. To: buckeroo (#194)

And morality is not confined to Judeo-Christian religions.

True enough. Morality is the set of social customs.

The moral law revealed by God is the only true one that will lead to mankind's ultimate happiness, will cause him to please God, and will give him a place in the City of God in the afterlife, though. That's why it's the only one worth focusing on.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   16:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#200. To: Vicomte13 (#198) (Edited)

The moral law revealed by God is the only true one that will lead to mankind's ultimate happiness, will cause him to please God, and will give him a place in the City of God in the afterlife, though. That's why it's the only one worth focusing on.

What God is this? Your God? Where is this God, so I can admonish the creature for all your silly concepts that do not lead to survival of the fittest?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   16:47:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#203. To: buckeroo (#200)

Where is this God, so I can admonish the creature for all your silly concepts that do not lead to survival of the fittest?

You will know soon enough.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   17:08:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#205. To: Vicomte13 (#203)

You will know soon enough.

I would rather face my maker with the force of free will as opposed to adhering to some faerie-tale that you adhere towards. At least I can go down as a MAN as opposed to some silly, little groveling idiot that shouldn't be on the planet anyways.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-07   17:16:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 205.

        There are no replies to Comment # 205.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 205.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com