“coffee, tea, or………water?” No vodka?

airline alcohol

HERE WE GO….the Muslim flight attendant just doesn’t want to serve alcohol on a flight.  And won’t.

SO…should she?   If so, why?  If not, why not?

Those of you who are angry over the fact that Kim Davis is in jail because she won’t give gay marriage licenses because you feel it’s her right, how’s this different? (other than the fact that there IS no law, nothing codified, that says she must, by the way).

?
Z

Advertisements
This entry was posted in islam. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to “coffee, tea, or………water?” No vodka?

  1. jerrydablade says:

    Kim Davis was following the laws of Kentucky. This Muslim flight attendant apparently following the laws of sharia? Express Jet is a private company and they can do what they want. I believe they made the right choice. As a passenger, I wouldn’t be comfortable with a Muslim flight attendant. Especially one who has shown a propensity to follow her ‘faith’.

    Like

  2. fredd says:

    The Muslim flight attendant doesn’t want to serve alcohol because of her faith. I don’t like to climb ladders because I fear heights. What would happen if I worked as an electrician or roofer, and simply told my boss that I would only do jobs that don’t require me to climb a ladder?

    You know what would happen to me. I know what would happen to me. Same thing that should happen to that Muslim flight attendant.

    The Kim Davis story is fascinating. It certainly shows the coming clash between religion and government is heating up. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and why on earth it requires a government permit is beyond me.

    Like

  3. On a simpler note.
    Express Jet’s alcohol rules did not change after she hired on. Flight Attendant’s religion did.
    Kim Davis’ job description changed after she signed on.
    Imagine a nurse at Planned Parenthood who gets saved and insists on getting paid to do nothing because she won’t assist abortion anymore…

    Like

  4. Here’s my position regarding Kim Davis.

    She should not be jailed. Certainly not jailed with no possible bail.

    But the fact is that she has not fulfilled her duties in a government job and has also defied a federal judge’s court order to issue marriage licenses.

    Kim Davis’s salary is 80K/year. Prorate that to determine the minimum fine. That would be $308 for every day that she refused to issue marriage licenses and all the way to the end of her term as clerk or until she is replaced via a legal procedure (New election?).

    Like

  5. Ed,
    Kim Davis’ job description changed after she signed on.

    Yes.

    But that happens in all kinds of government jobs — including working for a public school system. At that point, a teacher either has to abide by the new rules or resign.

    Like

  6. Jerry,
    Kim Davis was following the laws of Kentucky.

    Yes. She swore to uphold the KY state constitution.

    Did she also swear to uphold the United States Constitution?

    Like

  7. AOW, The Ky constitution is much clearer than the US on this.
    Justices making stuff up is something to fight, not aquiesce to.

    Like

  8. Ed,
    I understand what you are saying. But that SCOTUS decision last June is the law of the land because of the principle of judicial review: Marbury v. Madison (1803).

    Effect thereof:

    By providing for judicial review, this case made America a country that would do more to protect the rights of unpopular minorities of all sorts…

    Like

  9. bunkerville says:

    When the Mayors of sanctuary cities go to jail, come back around and talk to me about jailing this poor woman. At the very most the Judge could have used House arrest.

    Like

  10. Kid says:

    Give that flight attendent a parachute as a going away present.
    Bunkerville makes an excellent point.

    Like

  11. silverfiddle says:

    I agree with AOW: We may not like a decision handed down by the 9 Mullahs in black robes, but that is the law of the land, and we can’t pick and choose. They also handed down decisions deciding once and for all that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals and not militias.

    While I sympathize with Kim Davis, she is an officer of the government and needs to obey the law. My lament is that we don’t subject ALL politicians to such scrutiny. Obama, congress and many federal bureaucrats would be in jail if we held them to the same scrutiny.

    Like

  12. silverfiddle says:

    That kooky flight attendant is one more muslim convert trying to be more catholic than the pope.

    Like

  13. FB says:

    This is really simple. If you want to disobey your boss, gov or corp, then either quit or expect to be fired. It’s that simple.

    Like

  14. geeez2014 says:

    Huckabee’s being slammed all over the leftwing world today for having said that SCOTUS doesn’t MAKE laws, Congress does, and so Kim Davis is acting legally. Google that and see what’s up! I found it kind of fascinating. He says it’s judicial tyranny.

    What bothered ME was that I heard that her judge said she’s going to have to stay in jail until she’s had time to think about her stance, which I found unacceptable…imagine??

    On the airline thing, if the flight attendant refused to get a blanket for a customer who felt cold, she’d be fired. The job has ALWAYS entailed serving liquor…you’re gone, Fatima. And, by the way, your headdress is not what our airline uniform designer wanted as ‘the look,’ either. As McLaughlin would say “by byyyyyy”

    Come back and serve alcohol, dress like the others, and you’re welcome.

    if we vetted you enough………..can we vet enough?

    Like

  15. bocopro says:

    Well, the overt hypocrisy of most of the Muslim well-to-do concerning booze notwithstanding, I’ll just say this about it all:

    I’ve distilled my many discussions of Islam down to this: if Muslims could be made to listen to reason, Islam would vanish as a force on the planet.

    Like

  16. Lisa says:

    I find myself agreeing with Bunkerville here . Since when do we pick and choose who can override which laws of the land?
    I say force feed her a pork chop and be done with it

    Like

  17. Mal says:

    She shouldn’t have applied for the job in the first place. THAT should be the issue, not if she is right or wrong to refuse serving alcohol. These complainers need to get a life! And we need to quit being so PC.

    Like

  18. Mustang says:
    A few years ago, Florida denied a female Moslem a driving license because she refused to remove her Zorro mask for the picture. She sued the state and lost; she does not have a right to drive without first meeting the state’s requirements. An employee of the government who is unable to comply with the law does not have a right to deny a marriage license based on her religious beliefs. She does have a right to refuse to issue the license, as her conscience moves her, and then resign from her office, as she is no longer “upholding the law.” It does not matter whether the law changed; laws change all the time. As Bunkerville has so aptly pointed out, however, this is a case involves selective prosecution. Unhappily, we cannot allege judicial misconduct since these matters occurred in separate jurisdictions.

    When Georgia ignored the Supreme Court over the Indian Removal Act, Jackson joined with Georgia against the Cherokee. Chief Justice John Marshall insisted, “The Court has made its decision, sir.” Jackson commented famously, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

    A federal judge has enforcement authority. He or she can order an arrest to enforce the will of the court; this is how the U. S. Marshall’s Service makes a living. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has no enforcement ability. Nor should it, as the denial of enforcement power is one of the checks against judicial absolutism; the high court must rely upon the willingness of the people to circumscribe their behavior so that it meets the judicial standard. Alternatively, as in the case in question, a lower federal judge can order the arrest of Kim Davis and charge her with violating the civil rights of two sexual deviants. I would not be surprised to learn that the judge himself is sexually abnormal.

    I personally believe that the American people have every right to the anger they direct toward the federal government and its unwieldy bureaucracy —and to the Supreme Court. However, they do not have a right to interrupt the social contract. If they do, then they have disrupted the essence of what makes America unique. Stare decisis means that the court has made its decision; the legality of homosexual marriage is now a matter of case law. Further resistance is a waste of time. Further resistance is not going to change the direction of this abominable Roberts Court.

    As to the female Moslem … the primary function of the flight crew is passenger safety; serving refreshments is an additional duty. How the airlines demonstrated “an unreasonable fear” of Islam is puzzling, as most everything about Islam is to normal people. If this woman does not want to fulfill her duties, as clearly outlined and part of the duties of flight crews, then she cannot continue in that employment. Does she refuse to serve Hebrew National Pork Sausage, too? Equally puzzling is why the airline hired her in the first place. I hope Express Jet has a damn good legal team standing by.

    Like

  19. silverfiddle says:

    There’s a lot of wisdom in bocopro and Mustang’s words.

    Like

  20. geeez2014 says:

    I wonder if there’s ever been a flight attendant who’d not flown before becoming a flight attendant. Did she not KNOW this was something she’d have to do?

    bocopro..’distilled’: GOOD ONE 🙂

    Mustang: I agree. The problem is the courts make rulings, it’s not their place to make LAW. So Kim Davis is not breaking any law if you think of it that way. Apparently, Huckabee’s argument is this, but the leftwing blogs are all over him about it calling him stupid and uninformed. I think he has a point….but it doesn’t really matter.

    KIM DAVIS HAS BEEN TOLD SHE”S BEING RELEASED, by the way…I just heard it on the radio.

    This morning, I heard that what really bothered her was her name is on the marriage certificate and, while I believe she must do what her office duties proscribe, I could see how that would bother her, big time.

    And for the judge to say she was to stay in jail to think over her views, THAT really bothered me….that’s Gulag stuff…….

    Like

  21. geeez2014 says:

    Kid, a parachute….:-)

    Mal, Lisa, Bunk…that’s the whole point…Like I said above WHAT FLIGHT ATTENDANT DOESN’T REALIZE PART OF THE JOB IS SERVING BOOZE?

    Like

  22. geeez2014 says:

    HERE’s a REAL BUMMER that CAIR will wrap its arms around; apparently, another flight attendant said that this Muslim attendant had ‘some book with weird writing in it’ (the koran)…Oh, ya….that might break the whole line of legality here: She’s ONLY being let go because she’s MUSLIM. wait for it, compliments of CAIR. Oh, and she might be rich soon, too.
    Like Freddie Gray’s family just became. For no reason

    Like

  23. Imp says:

    Speaking of….another nail in France’s coffin:

    A lawmaker in France will introduce a draft bill proposing to make vegetarian meals obligatory in all French schools as a way of bypassing the nation’s strict rules on secularism, and so accommodating for religious sensitivities. An online petition in support of the idea has garnered over 125,000 signatures.

    On August 13th this year, a French court upheld a local authority decision to stop offering alternatives to pork when it was served in schools. The mayor of Chalon-sur-Saone, Gilles Platret, tweeted at the time: “A first victory for secularity,” Religion News reports. The ruling was seen as setting a precedent for other school across France, and religious campaigners having been searching for a way around it since.

    Like

  24. geeez2014 says:

    Imp; Well, the good thing about that situation is that it’s not that they’re taking meat out all together, it’s just that they’re offering a vegetarian substitute meal to Muslim and Jewish children. I’m not even sure they’ll stop serving pork, it’s just that they’ll have something else if someone doesn’t eat pork.

    Like

  25. Imp says:

    @Z…agreed. Seems like just another pol over reaching to me?

    Like

  26. geeez2014 says:

    Sort of…but if my kid is Jewish or Muslim and won’t eat pork, I’m thinking it’s better to have a veg dish there to choose from when the other kids are eating pork…no?

    Like

  27. geeez2014 says:

    Imp; what about Freddie Gray’s family being awarded $6.4 million dollars …..for ‘wrongful death’? There’s nothing proven, and they get THIS?

    Like

  28. bocopro says:

    Although I’ve had to almost eliminate mammal flesh from my diet because of hypertension exacerbated by an inverted HDL/LDL ratio, I’m always suspicious of anyone who’d voluntarily say, “That’s too much bacon.”

    Just seems unamurkan to me.

    Like

  29. Sparky says:

    I just read where Kim Davis has been released.
    Our country has become a fascist nation when a Judge is making his own laws and then enforces them. The Judge should be fired and jailed for breaking the law. If we don’t do that, it’s allowing for total lawlessness in the courts and our country.
    As for the muslim on an airline … is that for real? What kind of moron would actually go out of their way to hire one!? Have people gone insane or stupid? Get her off the flight and away from people. They’re not to be trusted. And history bears out that little fact.

    Like

  30. Sparky: I would have liked to have seen WHY she was released.

    The problem with this is that a judge ordered her to break the law. The law of Ky.
    He should have been forced to go after the governor and the legislature to change the law to his liking.
    As to the Marshalls “enforcing the law”? They don’t see it that way: http://www.usmarshals.gov/montage/
    Kim is a state official, not a federal one.
    No one was suffering harm here.
    There was no reason to jail her except to terrorize her.
    Like Bunkerville said about sanctuary mayors, and I’ve said about D.C. officials banning guns still,
    When those issues are resolved by jailing officials, it’ll look a little less prejudicial.

    Like

  31. geeez2014 says:

    bocopro; You’re speaking my language. My friends know I’m the BACON QUEEN!! mmmm
    I was at a restaurant Sunday for lunch where two gals had milk shakes and I looked at the menu to see what they were and they had BACON chopped into a vanilla shake with caramel!?? When they left I asked if the drink was good and they said PHENOMENAL! 🙂

    Sparky..ya, she’s out now…..there’s Huckabee standing RIGHT THERE next to her for the photo op wiping away his tear..ugh. And yes, the judge should be the one in jail today. As I said above, I heard him to have said that she had to stay there until she could reassess her opinions….that’s Gulag Archapelago

    Ed…I’ve been wondering WHY? too….big time. WHY TODAY? As I said above, the judge said she needed to rethink her opinions……in America we don’t put people in jail for that. He said ” she would remain in jail until she complies with the ruling.” WHAT?? And has she now? I don’t think so. Her own son is also a registrar there…five of the six Christians who share her views say they will issue licenses, her son had no response when asked if he would.

    Like

  32. Imp says:

    @Z..”Imp; what about Freddie Gray’s family..”

    Ironic isn’t it? That the only benefit to these families of Brown, Martin and Gray…would be their deaths? I mean..it’s clear they weren’t headed to Yale or down the same road as Ben Carson did.
    Judging by the only measure we have of Brown and Gray, the latter with a rap sheet of 22 felonies and Brown as a street thug who’s last act was a robbery and an assault on two people, the last one a cop….and little Trayvons record could well indicate that he was well on his way to prison sooner than later due to his drug, gun and violence prone character. That their demise would be the only ‘positive’ thing that would ultimately, financially benefit their survivors? But in Grays case….rewarding this perpetual criminal with a post mortem benefit? I don’t understand why criminality and thuggery should be rewarded. But…these are their chosen heros and saints.

    Like

  33. bocopro says:

    Saints indeed:
    St. Trayvon of Skittles, St. Michael of Swisher Sweets, St. Eric of Marlboro Lights, and St. Freddie of Choom cases.

    Like

  34. Imp says:

    One more question. Will Grays family be allowed to continue to collect welfare now that they’re millionaires in the ghetto lottery?

    Like

  35. Imp says:

    @bocopro..Well done. How soon before we erect monuments and statues?

    Like

  36. viburnum says:

    The point that’s being missed here is that Mrs. Davis was not upholding the laws and Constitution of Kentucky. Any law on the books, and any wording in that Constitution, that would have allowed her to deny a marriage license to two people of the same gender was rendered null and void by the decision in Obergefell.
    That fact was recognized by the Governor of Kentucky who ordered all state agencies into compliance with it, including the creation of a gender neutral application for a marriage license.
    So Mrs. Davis was defying the Commonwealth of Kentucky as well.
    Continuing her contumacy weeks past the 8/12/15 issuance of the order requiring her to issue a marriage license to the people who sued for their right to have one, it’s little surprise that she finally exhausted Judge Bunning’s patience.
    It’s amazing what you can find on the internet these days
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/015-cv-00044-43/

    Like

  37. So, like Obama with the federal constitution, “Governor of Kentucky who ordered all state agencies into compliance with it,” the governor has the same latitude to ignore the constitution of Ky?
    From whence this authority?

    Like

  38. viburnum says:

    Obergefell. And he’s not ignoring it, that portion is now dead letter.

    Like

  39. geeez2014 says:

    viburnum, some scholars say the law isn’t even on the books, that a court doesn’t MAKE laws, and so she didn’t break one. It’s all interesting.
    I’m not sure why you thought your point was missed among a lot of us; we’re more angry that the judge did what he did. JAIL? Not by a very looooong shot should that have happened, don’t you think?

    Bocopro and Imp: Great points…it’s UNBELIEVABLE that they’re getting that much. Megyn Kelly talked about this tonight with 2 lawyers and they said that this is the quickest thing EVER and there wasn’t even a civil suit FILED by the family!!!!!
    This just tells any kid who’s troubled’s family to let him do his thing and, if you’re lucky, you’re going to get rich.
    A GREAT point brought up by Mark Eiglarsh was “HOW DO YOU GET A JURY TO BELIEVE THE COPS AREN’T GUILTY WHEN THE DEAD MAN’S FAMILY GOT OVER SIX MILL? FOR WHAT?”

    Right?

    Like

  40. baysider says:

    “…religious campaigners having been searching for a way around.” Searching? I can’t eat bread and, hence, sandwiches, which are uber common at gatherings. I haven’t had to ‘search’ for a way around it – I just bring my own food! Now, how hard was that?

    Like

  41. Kid says:

    Z, Even the national DOJ couldn’t put a case together to bring a wrongful death trial for Trayvon, or Mike Brown where there is a Lot more latitude given to the prosecution for bringing evidence and details. The fact that the natives are not impressed by that shows how little they and actually many people don’t understand about the judicial system. Freddie Grey? There should have been court proceedings before an award is given. Unreal. It’s a loser feeding frenzy.

    Seriously, the cops and business owners should simply Vacate Baltimore and Ferguson. Let them figure out where the hell they’re gonna swipe their EBT cards and get stuff.

    Like

  42. Ray Cole says:

    I just wonder when the consent of the governed is breeches? When do we decide we’ve had enough of the oligarchy? At what point does following our conscience supercede the rule of law? Especially in light of selective enforcement. I think of Boenhoffer

    Like

  43. Ray Cole says:

    Breeched

    Like

  44. Ray Cole says:

    If she resigns does ones religious beliefs now become a litmus test for a government job?

    Like

  45. baysider says:

    Mustang + 1

    About the stewardess: I’m sympathetic. I understood she converted after her employment. Personally, as a team member, I would try to make an accommodation with her. But I don’t know how much alcohol gets served on planes. If it’s a little, accommodation is easier. If it’s a lot maybe that’s too much of a burden to place on everyone else. I used to “the single” staff in an office that always had to stay late if a project had to get out because mothers had to get their kids. I didn’t mind usually, but that accommodation did become a burden eventually because I was always The One. But I would NOT allow the headgear get-up. Swathing yourself in head scarves is like a big “f you” to our culture when you insist it takes precedence over normal, reasonable work rules/uniforms. And I’ve hired a muslim woman with headscarf. Office job, 30 years ago. That’s how she came, she had the quals and we hired her. So I don’t say this from a position of general prejudice.

    Like

  46. baysider says:

    And Ray has gone to the core of the other problem: clearly, this is a religious test that will discriminate against Christians. State judges are facing this, too. Can’t be a scout leader in California now.

    Like

  47. Imp says:

    A little more perspective on Gray family payoff and windfall.

    When an American soldier dies in combat his survivors get around $400,000 in benefits. Someone please explain to me how a criminal, mental-case thug is worth sixteen times more than an American hero?

    Like

  48. baysider says:

    Ooh, that makes me angry Imp. But thanks for providing that fact. I wish I could post a fuming frownie face.

    Like

  49. Ray Cole says:

    Just had a discussion with a fellow who said that reasonable limits have to be placed on our freedoms. To some degree I understand, the 2nd Amendment is not a right to own a nuclear weapon….but I’m curious…..What’s a reasonable limit if the Constitution is not the objective framework for our laws? Whose reason? Wasn’t it reason that led to the Dred Scott decision? Wasn’t it reasonable to the Nazi’s to send the Jews to concentration camps? At what point does our conscience, (religious beliefs etc) trump the “rule of law”? We cannot be ruled by reason alone!

    Like

  50. viburnum says:

    The decision in Obergefell did not rescind the laws of any state regarding marriage. It removed the restriction that said they weren’t applicable to two people of the same gender, just as Loving v Virginia removed the restriction imposed on people of different races.
    Mrs. Davis was given ample time to comply with the order that she issue the licenses, and steadfastly refused. One baits a judge at one’s own peril.

    The right to live in accordance with your conscience ends when doing so impacts others trying to live in accordance with theirs, just as surely as your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose. The flight attendant who refused to serve drinks is no different than Mrs. Davis refusing to issue licenses. Neither was doing their job.

    Like

  51. Ray,
    If she resigns does ones religious beliefs now become a litmus test for a government job?

    No matter what happens now with the Kim Davis case, one’s religious beliefs are that litmus test. The SCOTUS already saw to that! 😦

    Like

  52. Ray Cole says:

    The problem viburnum is in determining whether it really impacts anyone or not. Those couples could have gone somewhere else. In determining reasonable limits in our freedoms what is the objective foundation if the Constitution is a living document? Or in other words if its always open to interpretation in light of the times and culture and original intent is ignored, how can we be sure the most fundamental of our rights will be protected? How can the consent of the governed be ignored and laws imposed by judicial decree? At what point does our conscience supercede the rule of law (reason)?

    We cannot be ruled by reason alone, history has shown this to be a very bad idea.

    Absolutely right AOW

    Like

  53. viburnum says:

    If you read the order of the court linked above you would see that it weighs the impact on both parties, and applies several other tests, including your assertion that they could just ‘go somewhere else. Mrs. Davis was, to borrow a phrase, weighed in the balance and found wanting.

    No one here who has known me over the years would ever imagine that I subscribe to the notion that the Constitution is a “living document’. It is a sublime work, by extraordinary men giving serious thought to the best means of establishing enduring freedom. No other compact approaches it in either longevity or wisdom, and as such is, and should be, sacrosanct. Being honest men, they also knew that they could never adequately address the future, though they could see all too well it’s dangers. So while they included a provision to amend it, they purposely made it difficult to do so, to shield it from the vagaries of popular opinion. The Amendment at issue here is not exactly a recent innovation. It’s 147 years old. Yes, it’s protections have been expanded numerous times over the years, but that is not evidence for the malleability of the Constitution. It is, rather, evidence of our growth, and an indicator of our willingness to live up to it’s wise tenets.

    As I pointed out to Ed the other day ” … the price of your liberty is my liberty, the cost of my freedom is your freedom, and the surety of your rights, is the guarantee of mine.”

    If you see an alternative to that that doesn’t end badly, please let me know what it is.

    Like

  54. Ray Cole says:

    I wasn’t casting aspersions on you viburnum, only to the problem. Forgive me if it sounded as if it was persinal

    Like

  55. Ray Cole says:

    When I said if the Constitution is a living document I meant to be referring to the SC justices

    Like

  56. viburnum says:

    No offense taken. It is an admittedly fine line to draw. While some of the court have expressed an adherence to that notion, which BTW was first postulated by Thomas Jefferson, the ruling in Obergefell does not hinge on that argument. The equal protection clause is IMO unequivocal.

    Like

  57. Ray Cole says:

    He said judicial tyranny made the Constitution “a thing of wax.”

    If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

    Like

  58. Mustang.Koji says:

    This is yet another sign that the American fabric is fraying. I blame all the textbooks brainwashing our kids that America is a land filled with discrimination and racism… and that the courts will make an individual rich just by suing on such grounds. In fact, a HUGE majority of us just really don’t care. The squeaky wheel syndrome at its ugliest.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s