[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: 44257
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 # 249.

#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  


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

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

Well, it was true enough to send interracial couples to prison for 175 years in Kentucky.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   23:21:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#228. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#72)

As I understand it, she does not object to recording a sodomy marriage, merely to signing it in advance, considering that she is giving her official blessing to such a marriage in advance.

She objects to having her name on it certifying that is was authorized by her as County Clerk. State law required that her name be on the certificate. If state law changed and took her name off, then she would be accepting.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   13:10:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#234. To: nolu chan (#228)

She objects to having her name on it certifying that is was authorized by her as County Clerk. State law required that her name be on the certificate. If state law changed and took her name off, then she would be accepting.

But it is not "Kim Davis, private citizen" signing those licenses. It is "Kim Davis who embodies the lawful authority of an elected Kentucky county clerk".

It's silly to pretend that an official signing a document is rendering a personal political or religious decision. They are certifying, as required by law, that the applicants have met the state's (or federal) requirement to receive said license.

She has no basis at all to refuse on religious grounds. That she discriminates against hetero couples just as much as gay couples in a way to shield herself only compounds her guilt. Even by her own standards, she has and is violating the rights of the vast majority of couples (straight) applying for marriage licenses in her county.

I've begun to think she should be prosecuted and spend 6 months to a year in jail or in a state prison.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-08   13:34:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#241. To: TooConservative (#234)

That she discriminates against hetero couples just as much as gay couples in a way to shield herself only compounds her guilt.

Not handing out licenses to heteros is not discrimination. Not handing out any licenses at all is not discrimination and she has not been charged with discrimination.

What Federal crime are you going to convict her of? The State has taken no action against her. She is certainly not in violation of the State laws.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   16:30:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#244. To: nolu chan (#241)

Not handing out licenses to heteros is not discrimination. Not handing out any licenses at all is not discrimination and she has not been charged with discrimination.

She had handed out licenses to straight couples for years. Her sudden refusal to hand out licenses when some of the applicants were same-sex tells any court all they need to know. No judge will be fooled by this amateur window dressing.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-08   17:33:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#245. To: TooConservative (#244)

She had handed out licenses to straight couples for years. Her sudden refusal to hand out licenses when some of the applicants were same-sex tells any court all they need to know. No judge will be fooled by this amateur window dressing.

Of course! She believes in marriage, and gays getting together isn't marriage. So she refused to call it marriage, and refused to hand over a certificate that said it was marriage.

If she handed them out just to heteros, it would be discrimination on the face. By refusing the hand them out at all, under her name, she avoided the direct offense.

The mighty government came down and jailed her. Then let her go when it got its way.

Once again the government takes the side of evil. Once again, yet another Republican judge comes down on the side of wrong and commits oppression in support of evil.

And Christians are forced to choose between their state and its laws, or their God. This time, this woman chose her God. And many Christians criticized her. I was inclined to criticize the logic, but mainly to keep her out of jail. I'm more of the subtle-as-serpent type. She is unsubtle and straightforward and honest - and that is good, actually.

Christians are going to be challenged more and more. We see bakeries shuttered and people bankrupted because they won't make wedding cakes for gays. And we see photographers broken because they won't photograph gays.

Christians shatter and divide over these things. I think more and more that the ones who defy the law are the holy ones, and the ones who try to defend the law or the honor of the state, are the ones who are siding with evil, because they fear confronting it, and because they have made an idol of the law.

I'm halfway there. I DO fear the law and what the state can do. I have obligations, people depending on me. I cannot afford to make a beau geste that will imperil other people. So I will opt to be subtle as a serpent. But I'm not going to try so hard to criticize the braver ones. In fact, I admire them, and I'm going to root them on. For a time I was inclined to try to make peace with Caesar. I was also inclined to take the traditional read of Paul that would have "rulers" mean civil authorities.

But I'm more inclined to read rulers as meaning ecclesial authorities, and not the state at all. The bonds of loyalty are snapping, because the country is just too evil.

My ancestors left countries in Europe because they became too evil for their blood. America now has the most liberal abortion laws in the Western world, and a very aggressive approach to gay marriage that seeks to visibly crush, as an example, people who stand up to it. More and more, it seems as though the system itself is evil, the people who man it are evil, and that's erasing any residual feelings of affection I had for it.

I felt sorry for her all along. Increasingly, I think she is right.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-08   17:49:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#246. To: Vicomte13 (#245)

If she handed them out just to heteros, it would be discrimination on the face. By refusing the hand them out at all, under her name, she avoided the direct offense.

You're being silly and you know better. The sudden change in her behavior makes it clear she is discriminating and knows that she is, hence her attempt to avoid prosecution by shielding herself with the refusal to issue any marriage licenses, including those she had issued for years with no problems.

No federal judge will fail to discern her motives or fall for her amateur legerdemain.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-08   18:04:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#247. To: TooConservative (#246)

She has the right to discriminate. God discriminates against gays. She's following his law.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-08   19:53:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#248. To: Vicomte13 (#247)

An argument that would get you laughed out of any courtroom. And you know it.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-08   20:00:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#249. To: TooConservative (#248)

Of course I know it would get me laughed out of the courtroom. "I am the Son of God" got Jesus laughed out of a courtroom too. Those judges are not laughing now.

My point is that there are two realities. A temporary, artificial, human law reality that only lasts for a short time and then is gone with the wind. That is the reality of Supreme Court decisions and laws and politics.

And then there is the permanent reality of God's law, with Heaven and Hell at stake for each man. That is true reality. Nothing done in the transient reality should risk that true reality. But that is what is happening. We have a legal system and a culture that believes more in its own philosophies than in the Truth, and that has set itself with a will directly against the truth on so many things that it is not possible to actually enforce American law and still keep the Law of God. The former has been structured to directly attack the latter.

I take the "subtle as serpents" approach to these things. I would not go into a courtroom. I would try to show Mrs. Davis the truth about marriage licenses - that they are nothing, meaningless - that they are the equivalent of meat sold at the marketplace sacrificed to idols: the idols are not real, and you know it, so there is no sin in eating the meat. I would hope that by facing the full truth she would not enter into the full on conflict with the authorities that will have her laughed out of court into a jail cell - even though she is right and the judge has imperiled his own future horrendously by oppressing her.

I would try to persuade her to be strong and remember the truth, and not become entangled in superstitions about idols. You're not serving an idol if you do not believe in it. But if those words were unpersuasive to her (and they seem to have gone right over everybody's head here too, because people here are so angry about the issue that they just can't pull back to see the overarching theology), if she is one of those who is weak and really sees the meat "sacrificed" "to idols" has being really sacrificed to idols, such that eating it is idolatry, well then I would encourage her to be strong in facing the martyrdom coming her way.

Christianity survived its early trials BOTH because some people were strong and went to the lions, inspiring others, but ALSO because most were quiet, passive, subtle as serpents, maintained their faith within but shrugged their shoulders at the outward demands. This allowed them to SURVIVE. Had every Christian been a lion and strode into the arena, there would have been none left. Christianity survived because most Christians were subtle as serpents - and under God's law, deceit of the enemy is a legitimate tactic in warfare. Christians must be honest in their dealings, BUT Christians can lie in warfare as a tactic against their enemies, just as Hebrew prophets under the law deceived their enemies in order to defeat them.

The Falun Gong in China are aboveboard, passive, straightforward. And Falun Gong will not be around in a century to be a new Christianity, because the Falun Gong are not subtle. The openly defy, and they openly die. Christians both openly defied, but much moreso quietly resisted, passively (and with the deception permitted to warriors of God, when necessary), and actively when they dared risk it.

This is why Christianity wore out the Empire. The Christians presented an ever-shifting, and growing, mosaic of people, some of whom were lions who inspired others by their martyrdom, and others who were serpents who preserved themselves, their families and those around them by dissimulation, while expanding the reign of God through silent marches in back passages.

Both the lions and the serpents advanced the cause.

Davis here was a lion. I am pleased she is out of prison. Her example will embolden other Christians: the state really can't do much to defiance. It can jail you - at significant cost to itself. If poor Christians, especially, take a tough stance and refuse to back down, they can become so numerous that they act as support for each other in prison - a political prisoner class - and they can begin to impose immense costs on the state which the state is ill-prepared to bear.

Christians outside can visit them (as we are supposed to do) and provide them succor and support - and jobs and reinsertion into society when they come out.

Christians should actively discriminate in their hiring practices in favor of other Christians, just as Jews have done for centuries. If this nation wants to go to war with the reign of God, then Christians need to rise to the challenge, undermine the nation just as they undermined Rome, and through their superior cooperation with one another, cause a new thing to be born.

It is clear from the pagan's behavior that Christians and pagans really cannot any longer live side by side in peace. The pagans are waging war on the Christians, and stepping up their attacks. The Christians have been torpid, in the lazy and excessively hopeful belief that it was a "Christian" nation whose traditions would prevent persecution of Christians.

But that is no longer true. The nation has turned on Christ. Therefore Christians must undermine it and destroy it, and replace it with a Christian government.

If they won't, then the Muslims will eventually get here and do it, as they are in Europe.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-08   20:59:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 249.

        There are no replies to Comment # 249.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 249.

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