muslim hostess wont serve alcohol so fired, now sues

[BigNBAfan]

A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith.

In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith -- just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.

"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

She approached her supervisor on June 1 and was told to work out an arrangement for someone to fulfill passenger requests for alcohol.

"It was at the direction of the airlines that she began coordinating with the other flight attendant on duty so that when a passenger requested alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request," Masri said. "We know that this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident and that it hasn't caused any undue burden on the airline. After all, it was the suggestion of the airline."

It seemed to be working out until another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley on August 2 claiming she was not fulfilling her duties by refusing to serve alcohol, Masri said. The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress.

On August 25, the airline sent a letter to Stanley informing her that it was revoking its religious accommodation to exclude her from service of alcohol and placing her on administrative leave.

"They placed her on unpaid leave and they advised her that her employment may be terminated after 12 months," Masri said. "We are requesting that her employment be reinstated and the accommodation of her religious beliefs be reinstated as well."

A spokesman for ExpressJet declined to discuss Stanley's complaint.

"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," spokesman Jarek Beem said in an email.



why are you keeping muslim hostesses anyways... :facepalm

[NumberSix]

So, all the people who are happy that the Christian woman (a democrat by the way) who won't process "gay marriage" licenses got jailed, will definitely not side with this muslim woman who refuses to do her job, right? :confusedshrug:


#ProbablyNot

[wakencdukest]

So, we have to waste taxpayer dollars for some stupid idiot who can't fulfill her job requirement? After she loses, she should have to pay the entire court cost.

[NumberSix]

This whole "protected class" nonsense needs to be done away with altogether.

[KyrieTheFuture]

How the **** does it take you a YEAR after converting to learn you can't drink alcohol? This shit is so dumb. This would be like a slaughterhouse worker converting to Hinduism and then being appalled he's still supposed to kill cows at work. Get a different ****ing job if your religion doesn't allow it, don't force the company to work around your senseless sensitivities.

[NugzFan]

tell me this is just mocking that crazy homophobic lady from kentucky.

[BigNBAfan]

So, we have to waste taxpayer dollars for some stupid idiot who can't fulfill her job requirement? After she loses, she should have to pay the entire court cost.

Yup... last thing i would want is a rag head on my plane, let her get fired.

[niko]

She should be fired. Same as other woman. She sued, so? Who doesn't

[BigNBAfan]

She should be fired. Same as other woman. She sued, so? Who doesn't

Everyone sues so who cares... nice mentality. Are you on disability?

[Vaniiiia]

Dumbass bitch... I'd be ****in' pissed if some muslim prevented me from getting my drink on...

especially some bandwagon muslim :facepalm

[NugzFan]

does anyone have a link to this article? I feel like its fake.

[BigNBAfan]

does anyone have a link to this article? I feel like its fake.

just google the first sentence.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/

[navy]

Fire her and that clerk. Both fake religions.

[niko]

Everyone sues so who cares... nice mentality. Are you on disability?
I mean it doesn't change my opinion that she should be fired. It's in the headline like it's relevant to the discussion.

Giving someone a license doesn't mean that you endore the action personally, it just means you were the facilitator paid by the state. When you serve someone a drink, it doesn't mean you think people need to go drink. It's a job. When you take a job, you agree to the tasks required by the job. This "it's against my religion" is stupid, do something else. There are a billion jobs. Not just one.

If you hate gays so much that you can't marry them, DO ANOTHER JOB. Not ask the state to change the law to accomodate you.

I hope this women not only gets fired but her next 200 employers are scared to hire her and hear about it.

[warriorfan]

why are you keeping muslim hostesses anyways... :facepalm

:applause:

[bluechox2]

she shouldnt be near anyone who eats pork...but thats fine

[warriorfan]

according to her religion she is supposed to murder all infidels but if she can ignore that, why can't she ignore serving booze?

[NugzFan]

just google the first sentence.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/


I was so sure it was fake I didn't even bother. But thanks

This is basically identical to that stupid bitch from Kentucky.

If you can't or won't do your job, quit. You can't change the rules because you don't believe in it.

[KnittingRyu]

She approached her supervisor on June 1 and was told to work out an arrangement for someone to fulfill passenger requests for alcohol.

"It was at the direction of the airlines that she began coordinating with the other flight attendant on duty so that when a passenger requested alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request," Masri said. "We know that this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident and that it hasn't caused any undue burden on the airline. After all, it was the suggestion of the airline."

It seemed to be working out until another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley on August 2 claiming she was not fulfilling her duties by refusing to serve alcohol, Masri said. The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress.


Seems that the villain of this story was the anti-Muslim crybaby bitch. The system was fine until somebody hated her Muslim clothing and book.

[imdaman99]

Seems that the villain of this story was the anti-Muslim crybaby bitch. The system was fine until somebody hated her Muslim clothing and book.

Seems fitting OP left this off his original post :roll:

This seems thread worthy. Another thread for bigots to come in and spew angry things on the internet :oldlol:

[KnittingRyu]

I was so sure it was fake I didn't even bother. But thanks

This is basically identical to that stupid bitch from Kentucky.

If you can't or won't do your job, quit. You can't change the rules because you don't believe in it.

No, this is very different. The Muslim employee was not stopping customers from getting alcohol, she just wasn't serving them directly. The Kentucky bitch was actually stopping others from getting marriage licenses that they are legally entitled to. If the airlines couldn't make reasonable accommodations while still meeting customer needs, then firing her makes sense, but that wasn't the case.

[BigNBAfan]

Seems fitting OP left this off his original post :roll:

This seems thread worthy. Another thread for bigots to come in and spew angry things on the internet :oldlol:

:confusedshrug:

If i had to do more work because some rag head decided to practice her religion during work i'd say **** that too. I didn't alter the article in anyway. It's all posted there... no idea what you're talking about.

[Droid101]

So, all the people who are happy that the Christian woman (a democrat by the way) who won't process "gay marriage" licenses got jailed, will definitely not side with this muslim woman who refuses to do her job, right? :confusedshrug:


#ProbablyNot
Of course. If your faith prevents you from doing a job, get a different job.

[Akrazotile]

Seems that the villain of this story was the anti-Muslim crybaby bitch. The system was fine until somebody hated her Muslim clothing and book.


The thing is, the company management might not have cared who serves the alcohol and who doesnt as long as it gets done, but imagine if youre a stewardess who's trying to do one of your responsibilities, and then your coworker comes up and says someone asked her for a beverage but shes too holy to serve it so how about your lowly unholy ass drops what youre doing and go do it for her.. Nobody wants to work with someone like that.

Serving drinks is part of the job requirement. The combination of separating herself culturally AND having her coworkers do some of her own obligations will naturally piss people off. If her religion is that important to her, she shouod move to a M.E. country that officially observes Sharia law. GTFO out America.

[GIF REACTION]

The thing is, the company management might not have cared who serves the alcohol and who doesnt as long as it gets done, but imagine if youre a stewardess who's trying to do one of your responsibilities, and then your coworker comes up and says someone asked her for a beverage but shes too holy to serve it so how about your lowly ass drops what youre doing and go do it for her.. Nobody wants to work with someone like that.

Serving drinks is part of the job requirement. The combination of separating herself culturally AND having her coworkers do some of her own obligations will naturally piss people off. If her religion is that important to her, she shouod move to a M.E. country that officially observes Sharia law. GTFO out America.
Where have you been champ!

[Akrazotile]

Where have you been champ!


I was banned for a few days for making a post with 10 consecutive images of the TMZ logo in a JohnMax thread. Even before that tho I'm postin less cause Ive been busier and finally on the grind for once homie. Hopefully I can make u proud :cheers:

[GIF REACTION]

I was banned for a few days for making a post with 10 consecutive images of the TMZ logo in a JohnMax thread. Even before that tho I'm postin less cause Ive been busier and finally on the grind for once homie. Hopefully I can make u proud :cheers:
:applause: :applause: :applause:

[iamgine]

Kinda torn on this.

On the micro side, serving alcohol is a small insignificant part of her job. As long as she's willing to compensate for that by doing extra work as an arrangement (cleaning the plane toilet more than her co-workers for example), there should be no problem. In that sense the company is unwise to fire her.

On the macro side though, there is more to be considered. what if all of their Muslims stewardess refuse to serve alcohol? Or if other groups start to demand more and more based on this? Clearly it can lead to a bigger problem. In that sense the company might be wise to take this stand.

[dunksby]

Do your job or lose it.

[KnittingRyu]

:confusedshrug:

If i had to do more work because some rag head decided to practice her religion during work i'd say **** that too. I didn't alter the article in anyway. It's all posted there... no idea what you're talking about.

Racial slurs. Nice. Stay classy BigNBAfan.

[KnittingRyu]

The thing is, the company management might not have cared who serves the alcohol and who doesnt as long as it gets done, but imagine if youre a stewardess who's trying to do one of your responsibilities, and then your coworker comes up and says someone asked her for a beverage but shes too holy to serve it so how about your lowly unholy ass drops what youre doing and go do it for her.. Nobody wants to work with someone like that.

Serving drinks is part of the job requirement. The combination of separating herself culturally AND having her coworkers do some of her own obligations will naturally piss people off. If her religion is that important to her, she shouod move to a M.E. country that officially observes Sharia law. GTFO out America.

I fly a lot. There are a few people per flight that order alcohol. It isn't that much of an inconvenience, and if that is pissing you off to the point that you are complaining to your boss, then you need therapy. What if they were disabled? Should we fire somebody for needing you to pick up a miniscule amount of slack because they are disabled? That person was just being a baby (or potentially a bigot).

[LJJ]

I don't really know about regional flights in the US. but whenever I fly longer than a 1-2 hour flight, I'm drinking the "free" hard liquor. And around dinner time, I see nearly half the rest of the passengers drinking alcoholic drinks.

When a stewardess isn't effectively capable of doing a drinks run or dinner run by herself, that's a giant part of her duty she refuses to perform. To the point where it pretty much requires an additional stewardess be on the plane to assist her.

That's a ridiculous expectation to have from your employer, but it's the US. Common nature to sue I suppose.

[KnittingRyu]

I don't really know about regional flights in the US. but whenever I fly longer than a 1-2 hour flight, I'm drinking the "free" hard liquor. And around dinner time, I see nearly half the rest of the passengers drinking alcoholic drinks.

When a stewardess isn't effectively capable of doing a drinks run or dinner run by herself, that's a giant part of her duty she refuses to perform. To the point where it pretty much requires an additional stewardess be on the plane to assist her.

That's a ridiculous expectation to have from your employer, but it's the US. Common nature to sue I suppose.

Are you talking international flights? When you say regional, I think only sections of the US, but even when I fly from 1 side of the country to the other, alcohol isn't free.

[LJJ]

Are you talking international flights? When you say regional, I think only sections of the US, but even when I fly from 1 side of the country to the other, alcohol isn't free.

I live in the Netherlands, so there is no such thing as a "non-international" flight except for hobbyists. And unless you fly with the most plebeian budget airlines, the drinks and food are always free.

If this is the kind of airline where you have to pay for drinks, I'm sure the issue is much, much less significant.

[KnittingRyu]

I live in the Netherlands, so there is no such thing as a "non-international" flight except for hobbyists. And unless you fly with the most plebeian budget airlines, the drinks and food are always free.

If this is the kind of airline where you have to pay for drinks, I'm sure the issue is much, much less significant.

This airline is based out of Georgia, but I don't know where all it flies to and if it does other things when going over seas if it goes over seas, but flights in the US don't give free alcohol on any of the airlines I have been to. People get complimentary water, juice, or soda typically, and are charged an arm and a leg for alcohol, so it is not ordered frequently. I've flown a few times in the last couple of weeks and did not see anybody in the neighboring rows order any alcohol.

[bluechox2]

stewardess working on flights between muslim dominated countries serve alcohol happily...this is just another, "this is merica , i demand more rights than i would have been given elsewhere"

in the land of arabia, her hands would have been cut off for this disobedience

[LJJ]

This airline is based out of Georgia, but I don't know where all it flies to and if it does other things when going over seas if it goes over seas, but flights in the US don't give free alcohol on any of the airlines I have been to. People get complimentary water, juice, or soda typically, and are charged an arm and a leg for alcohol, so it is not ordered frequently. I've flown a few times in the last couple of weeks and did not see anybody in the neighboring rows order any alcohol.
`
No free drinks on flights, damn. That's horrible. Hold this L, Muricans.

[dunksby]

stewardess working on flights between muslim dominated countries serve alcohol happily...this is just another, "this is merica , i demand more rights than i would have been given elsewhere"

in the land of arabia, her hands would have been cut off for this disobedience
I have flied Emirates, Qatar, Turkish, Malaysian airlines and were served alcohol without problems, it's the suing syndrome out of a misplaced feeling of self entitlement.

[NumberSix]

A stewardess not wanting to serve drinks in itself isn't a big deal. But if you grant her a special exception, you have to grant everybody else's wacky religious demands. This will obviously get out of hand very quickly.

[NugzFan]

No, this is very different. The Muslim employee was not stopping customers from getting alcohol, she just wasn't serving them directly. The Kentucky bitch was actually stopping others from getting marriage licenses that they are legally entitled to. If the airlines couldn't make reasonable accommodations while still meeting customer needs, then firing her makes sense, but that wasn't the case.

In both cases the person is still not doing their job. Granted the Kentucky lady is far worse.

[NumberSix]

In both cases the person is still not doing their job. Granted the Kentucky lady is far worse.
I disagree. The Kentucky lady is a necessary evil (for lack of a better word). She's perfectly displaying exactly why the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Marriage should be an entirely private institution.

5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices made up a "constitutional right" out of thin air. It's made up, but there is a process that has to be respected. You don't get to just choose not to obey certain laws, no matter how much the democrats are in favor of doing so.

Free practice of religion actually is a constitutional right. So what happens when two rights collide? Who gets to decide which one takes priority over the other? The simple answer is the government should stay out of these situations wherever it's reasonably possible. Cultural/religious practices/rituals like marriage is one of those situations.

The government should simply leave marriage to the citizens like baptisms or bar mitzvahs. There's no reason why cultural/religious practices like these should be the jurisdiction of government sanction.

[DeuceWallaces]

A stewardess not wanting to serve drinks in itself isn't a big deal. But if you grant her a special exception, you have to grant everybody else's wacky religious demands. This will obviously get out of hand very quickly.

Their job is to serve drinks. Seems like a big deal to me. She should just go work someplace else.

[MMM]

I disagree. The Kentucky lady is a necessary evil (for lack of a better word). She's perfectly displaying exactly why the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Marriage should be an entirely private institution.

5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices made up a "constitutional right" out of thin air. It's made up, but there is a process that has to be respected. You don't get to just choose not to obey certain laws, no matter how much the democrats are in favor of doing so.

Free practice of religion actually is a constitutional right. So what happens when two rights collide? Who gets to decide which one takes priority over the other? The simple answer is the government should stay out of these situations wherever it's reasonably possible. Cultural/religious practices/rituals like marriage is one of those situations.

The government should simply leave marriage to the citizens like baptisms or bar mitzvahs. There's no reason why cultural/religious practices like these should be the jurisdiction of government sanction.

can you just explain what makes one constitutional right more made up than the other???

[NumberSix]

can you just explain what makes one constitutional right more made up than the other???
One being in the constitution and the other not being in the constitution.

Let me clarify though. I actually do believe that what the government calls "marriage" is a constitutional right for gay couples in the sense that if it's being offered by the government to some people, it must be equally available to ALL people.

The real problem though is that, what the government calls "marriage", isn't actually marriage. It can best be described only as, social benefits contracts.

[KingBeasley08]

Practicing your religion isn't actually a guaranteed right. Believing or following a faith is

That's why Mormons aren't allowed to marry more than one person despite it being part of their religion and Satanists can't do human sacrifices

That woman still and can get arrested for not doing her job

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

[NumberSix]

Practicing your religion isn't actually a guaranteed right. Believing or following a faith is
Absolutely incorrect.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The government cannot prohibit the EXERCISE, not the just belief. It's not just a right to believe, it's a right to exercise your beliefs.


That's why Mormons aren't allowed to marry more than one person despite it being part of their religion and Satanists can't do human sacrifices

That woman still and can get arrested for not doing her job

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
That case about Mormons is not relevant. That is case case of whether religious beliefs can be used as a defense for breaking a law, not whether the law being broken is itself constitutional.

[KingBeasley08]

Absolutely incorrect.



The government cannot prohibit the EXERCISE, not the just belief. It's not just a right to believe, it's a right to exercise your beliefs.


That case about Mormons is not relevant. That is case case of whether religious beliefs can be used as a defense for breaking a law, not whither the law being broken is itself constitutional.
And Kim Davis was held in contempt of court for not doing her job? :confusedshrug:

So what's the problem here? As the Supreme Court has ruled, religion isn't an excuse to break the law

[NumberSix]

And Kim Davis was held in contempt of court for not doing her job? :confusedshrug:

So what's the problem here? As the Supreme Court has ruled, religion isn't an excuse to break the law
What law did she break?

[KingBeasley08]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

[NumberSix]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
Ok, I actually didn't know she was in contempt.

So, that being the case, then this is not a criminal proceeding. It's civil. So she actually is not accused of committing a crime.

So the question at hand is, does the judge actually have the legal authority to order to violate her religion and then hold her in contempt when she doesn't.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I disagree. The Kentucky lady is a necessary evil (for lack of a better word). She's perfectly displaying exactly why the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Marriage should be an entirely private institution.

5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices made up a "constitutional right" out of thin air. It's made up, but there is a process that has to be respected. You don't get to just choose not to obey certain laws, no matter how much the democrats are in favor of doing so.

Free practice of religion actually is a constitutional right. So what happens when two rights collide? Who gets to decide which one takes priority over the other? The simple answer is the government should stay out of these situations wherever it's reasonably possible. Cultural/religious practices/rituals like marriage is one of those situations.

The government should simply leave marriage to the citizens like baptisms or bar mitzvahs. There's no reason why cultural/religious practices like these should be the jurisdiction of government sanction.
If it's your job to hand out marriage licenses. Then you do it.

[kentatm]

http://i62.tinypic.com/15r15km.png

[NumberSix]

If it's your job to hand out marriage licenses. Then you do it.
Yes, and if that person doesn't do their job, you fire them. You don't put them in jail with no bail. Fcuking murderers and rapists get bail.

[niko]

Ok, I actually didn't know she was in contempt.

So, that being the case, then this is not a criminal proceeding. It's civil. So she actually is not accused of committing a crime.

So the question at hand is, does the judge actually have the legal authority to order to violate her religion and then hold her in contempt when she doesn't.

He's not asking her to violate her religion. She's not endorsing the marriage. She's just handing out the paper. He would be asking her to violate her religion if she'd been told to say "GAY MARRIAGE IS OK I ENDORSE THIS" as she does it. She's not.

She is free to do another job. She is not free to go to work, pick and choose which people she thinks are allowed to get licenses based on personal beliefs, nor is she allowed to go to work and **** things up intentionally so work cannot be done. When is that ok? Ever?

[NumberSix]

He's not asking her to violate her religion. She's not endorsing the marriage. She's just handing out the paper. He would be asking her to violate her religion if she'd been told to say "GAY MARRIAGE IS OK I ENDORSE THIS" as she does it. She's not.

She is free to do another job. She is not free to go to work, pick and choose which people she thinks are allowed to get licenses based on personal beliefs, nor is she allowed to go to work and **** things up intentionally so work cannot be done. When is that ok? Ever?
Apparently, her big problem is with her name being included on the marriage license (or at least she claims that's her issue). Is it really that much of a problem to just issue licenses without including her name? And if she still has a problem, then we know she was lying about the name being the issue.

[niko]

Apparently, her big problem is with her name being included on the marriage license (or at least she claims that's her issue). Is it really that much of a problem to just issue licenses without including her name? And if she still has a problem, then we know she was lying about the name being the issue.
Yes it is. It's an endorsment that she HANDED OVER THE PAPER. Do you work? You sign something, it means you checked it, or reviewed it, not that you believe it's the absolute best thing and what you'd do if you had full reign.

The judge said the reason he can't make special adjustments is he doesn't see how that opens him to also making accomodations for other cases, other things.

Her signing it means she did her job and handed out the license. She wants to give it more meaning, then have the way everything is done changed due to her giving it more meaning. It's ridiculous.

Note: The muslim women thing is just as (if not moreso) ridiculous. This isn't a gay marriage thing to me. This is a total non issue that's in her mind. In the real world, sometimes you don't get to make the rules.

If i go in tomorrow and decide i don't want to process transactions with any banks whose officers are gulity of stealing money in the recent financial crisis, i can't do so. These are thieves. I'd be fired. Such is how the world works.

[NumberSix]

Yes it is. It's an endorsment that she HANDED OVER THE PAPER. Do you work? You sign something, it means you checked it, or reviewed it, not that you believe it's the absolute best thing and what you'd do if you had full reign.

The judge said the reason he can't make special adjustments is he doesn't see how that opens him to also making accomodations for other cases, other things.

Her signing it means she did her job and handed out the license. She wants to give it more meaning, then have the way everything is done changed due to her giving it more meaning. It's ridiculous.

Note: The muslim women thing is just as (if not moreso) ridiculous. This isn't a gay marriage thing to me. This is a total non issue that's in her mind. In the real world, sometimes you don't get to make the rules.

If i go in tomorrow and decide i don't want to process transactions with any banks whose officers are gulity of stealing money in the recent financial crisis, i can't do so. These are thieves. I'd be fired. Such is how the world works.
I can't pretend to understand what her problem is.

If she's that religious, she probably shouldn't be doing marriage licenses at all. What the government calls "marriage" isn't actually marriage at all, whether gay or straight. They're social benefits contracts. She should be against the straight marriage licenses as well because the government is perverting marriage by referring to the sanctioning of social benefits contracts as "marriage".

[niko]

I can't pretend to understand what her problem is.

If she's that religious, she probably shouldn't be doing marriage licenses at all. What the government calls "marriage" isn't actually marriage at all, whether gay or straight. They're social benefits contracts. She should be against the straight marriage licenses as well because the government is perverting marriage by referring to the sanctioning of social benefits contracts as "marriage".

yep. I think at this point she is trying to just make a point because she's an old person in jail practically asking to stay in jail to make her point.

[DeuceWallaces]

I can't pretend to understand what her problem is.

If she's that religious, she probably shouldn't be doing marriage licenses at all. What the government calls "marriage" isn't actually marriage at all, whether gay or straight. They're social benefits contracts. She should be against the straight marriage licenses as well because the government is perverting marriage by referring to the sanctioning of social benefits contracts as "marriage".

Marriage has always been about legal contracts. It is not innately religious. Hence, what the US Federal government calls marriage is exactly what it is and should be.

[NumberSix]

Marriage has always been about legal contracts. It is not innately religious. Hence, what the US Federal government calls marriage is exactly what it is and should be.
I didn't say it's exclusively religious. That why I always specify it as being a religious/cultural practice.

And you don't need a marriage license at all to get married.

[niko]

I'm thinking of becoming a sanitation worker who refuses to pick up garbage from all the sinners due to my intense religious beliefs.

[poido123]

People who follow the book of their respective religion to the fine print are often unable to use common sense and often fall into fundamentalist thinking.


More worldy, free thinking Muslims don't do this shit or think this way. They will likely respect another person's beliefs and refrain from alcohol as an individual.

[poido123]

I'm thinking of becoming a sanitation worker who refuses to pick up garbage from all the sinners due to my intense religious beliefs.


You're not ugly enough sorry.


Sanitation workers are usually unattractive.

[pauk]

So stupid, in many ways... first i wanted to ask "Why take the job first of all?" but then i remembered that nowhere in Islam/Koran does it say you are not allowed to work in a place where serving/selling alcohol may happen, it only discourages alcohol consumption & why so, for very logical/rational reasons.... wtf... if her interpretation of what Islam/Koran has to say about alcohol was really true then any muslim i know who worked/works in a foodstore (where 99.9% of the time alcohol, tobacco, pig meat is for sale) has sinned..... including me... :facepalm

[BigNBAfan]

So stupid, in many ways... first i wanted to ask "Why take the job first of all?" but then i remembered that nowhere in Islam/Koran does it say you are not allowed to work in a place where serving/selling alcohol may happen, it only discourages alcohol consumption & why so, for very logical/rational reasons.... wtf... if her interpretation of what Islam/Koran has to say about alcohol was really true then any muslim i know who worked/works in a foodstore (where 99.9% of the time alcohol, tobacco, pig meat is for sale) has sinned..... including me... :facepalm

Theres a difference between selling and serving alcohol.

[pauk]

You know, i could have played in the NBA and been the GOAT, but my religion prohibits it since i may discover champagne allover me when i win a championship & cigar smoke afterwards... so....

I wonder how Hakeem & Kareem did it.... maybe was just water in the bottles?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/MmnIjQa.gif

[niko]

I read what the woman is alleging (who "approves" the gay marriage) and she's just delusional. Her sign off indicates paper work is correct. She checks if you filled out the paperwork correctly, paid, etc. and signs her name that you did so. In her mind, she is "approving the marriage". She's essentially decided her really unimportant job (she stamps that forms are filled) is a very important job (she decides if she allows you to get married).

It's really stupid. She's fighting allowing gay marriage in her opinion, but in reality she's fighting checking gay people's paperwork for typos.

[RidonKs]

I read what the woman is alleging (who "approves" the gay marriage) and she's just delusional. Her sign off indicates paper work is correct. She checks if you filled out the paperwork correctly, paid, etc. and signs her name that you did so. In her mind, she is "approving the marriage". She's essentially decided her really unimportant job (she stamps that forms are filled) is a very important job (she decides if she allows you to get married).

It's really stupid. She's fighting allowing gay marriage in her opinion, but in reality she's fighting checking gay people's paperwork for typos.
:lol

[UK2K]

I read what the woman is alleging (who "approves" the gay marriage) and she's just delusional. Her sign off indicates paper work is correct. She checks if you filled out the paperwork correctly, paid, etc. and signs her name that you did so. In her mind, she is "approving the marriage". She's essentially decided her really unimportant job (she stamps that forms are filled) is a very important job (she decides if she allows you to get married).

It's really stupid. She's fighting allowing gay marriage in her opinion, but in reality she's fighting checking gay people's paperwork for typos.

She agreed to sign off on the licences if the county gave her a generic stamp, and not one with her name. They won't, because they are turning this into a political statement.

Several of the people who got licences in that county aren't even from Kentucky. I believe the first couple was from Ohio. Again, just trying to make a statement and be dramatic.

[niko]

She agreed to sign off on the licences if the county gave her a generic stamp, and not one with her name. They won't, because they are turning this into a political statement.

Several of the people who got licences in that county aren't even from Kentucky. I believe the first couple was from Ohio. Again, just trying to make a statement and be dramatic.
If you stamp with a generic stamp and there's an issue, who did it? If the paperwork is not ok and they need to go back and look, who did it? That's why you sign your name, so there's accountability if something is wrong. So there needs to be something on the paperwork indicating it's her regardless.

She's not approving gay marriage, she's approving their is no typos, and if she can't do that the way it's said up, like the rest of us in the real world she should get another job.

Do people not have jobs? Everywhere you sign off on things. It doesn't indicate your approval of the people on the other end, it indicates the paperwork is ok. I'm sure some of the people I approve transactions with are evil mother****ers. I'm actually 100% sure i approve transactions with banks that have robbed the american public blind. Can i get a law passed stating I can pick and choose which papers to sign?

People want to be anti gay marriage, go ahead. I could give 2 ****s. Supporting this woman though means you are supporting her right not to sign papers and do her job and that courts should pass laws when people don't feel like doing their jobs.

[UK2K]

If you stamp with a generic stamp and there's an issue, who did it? If the paperwork is not ok and they need to go back and look, who did it? That's why you sign your name, so there's accountability if something is wrong. So there needs to be something on the paperwork indicating it's her regardless.
The county did. So go back to the county office, and have them fix it. What happened if she is out sick one day? Nobody can fix anything without her? What if she died? All of a sudden everyone with her name stamped is shit out of luck? Use some common sense please.


She's not approving gay marriage, she's approving their is no typos, and if she can't do that the way it's said up, like the rest of us in the real world she should get another job.

You're right, shes not. That's why she agreed to issue licenses.



Do people not have jobs? Everywhere you sign off on things. It doesn't indicate your approval of the people on the other end, it indicates the paperwork is ok. I'm sure some of the people I approve transactions with are evil mother****ers. I'm actually 100% sure i approve transactions with banks that have robbed the american public blind. Can i get a law passed stating I can pick and choose which papers to sign?

That's your choice. You certainly don't have to. If you don't want to sign off on anything from the bank, then dont.


People want to be anti gay marriage, go ahead. I could give 2 ****s. Supporting this woman though means you are supporting her right not to sign papers and do her job and that courts should pass laws when people don't feel like doing their jobs.

I don't support her at all. I think shes being stupid, I am just pointing out both sides, her and the Gay Mafia, have taken this incident this far to try to make a point.

[Jailblazers7]

Usually people get fired when they refuse to do their job. Doesn't matter why.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Question I've been wondering: What is the Bible verse that makes it a sin to grant a homosexual marriage license?

[Patrick Chewing]

Question I've been wondering: What is the Bible verse that makes it a sin to grant a homosexual marriage license?

Unfair question. Considering how some 2000 years ago there were no city clerks in Kentucky and marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Unfair question. Considering how some 2000 years ago there were no city clerks in Kentucky and marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman.
So your excuse is that your omniscient God didn't think that this could happen?

I am being more than fair. I didn't point out the easy "separation of church and state" argument. I am actually arguing on what should be the Conservative's turf, the Bible that they draw the justification for this woman's refusal to do her job from. If you don't yourself know how the Bible is the direct justification I can understand because I don't either. But please don't waste both our time with the nonsense argument that requesting people that say their justification is the Bible actually justify with the Bible is somehow unfair. That's facepalm-worthy.

[UK2K]

So your excuse is that your omniscient God didn't think that this could happen?

I am being more than fair. I didn't point out the easy "separation of church and state" argument. I am actually arguing on what should be the Conservative's turf, the Bible that they draw the justification for this woman's refusal to do her job from. If you don't yourself know how the Bible is the direct justification I can understand because I don't either. But please don't waste both our time with the nonsense argument that requesting people that say their justification is the Bible actually justify with the Bible is somehow unfair. That's facepalm-worthy.
The Bible also doesn't say thou shalt not commit wire fraud either, but that would be a sin.

I dunno. I'm not religious and I haven't read the bible, but everyone interprets the bible differently, right? Cause if there's only ONE way to interpret the bible, every Muslim on earth needs to be killed, NOW. Since their bible says they should be killing us.

It's not an all or nothing thing.

Personally I think religion is dumb, but this whole incident is just a mud slinging contest between her and the Gay Mafia for popularity.

[iamgine]

Question I've been wondering: What is the Bible verse that makes it a sin to grant a homosexual marriage license?
None.

However, the logic goes like...God hates homosexuality, therefore Christians who love God should not support it in any way and fight it if need be while still loving the people practicing it. Granting gay marriage license could be seen as supporting the behavior somewhat.

[NumberSix]

So your excuse is that your omniscient God didn't think that this could happen?

I am being more than fair. I didn't point out the easy "separation of church and state" argument. I am actually arguing on what should be the Conservative's turf, the Bible that they draw the justification for this woman's refusal to do her job from. If you don't yourself know how the Bible is the direct justification I can understand because I don't either. But please don't waste both our time with the nonsense argument that requesting people that say their justification is the Bible actually justify with the Bible is somehow unfair. That's facepalm-worthy.
And what argument would that be?

[NumberSix]

None.

However, the logic goes like...God hates homosexuality, therefore Christians who love God should not support it in any way and fight it if need be while still loving the people practicing it. Granting gay marriage license could be seen as supporting the behavior somewhat.
To be fair, the bible only says that male on male homosexuality is an abomination. It doesn't actually say anything about lesbians.

However, the bible does also say....

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God


The bible fully supports respecting gods authority, but also accepting the governments authority to govern what falls into its jurisdiction.

[niko]

To be fair, the bible only says that male on male homosexuality is an abomination. It doesn't actually say anything about lesbians.

However, the bible does also say....


The bible fully supports respecting gods authority, but also accepting the governments authority to govern what falls into its jurisdiction.
God likes some lesbian action.

Seems like this may end somewhat logically, she's let out, and they are trying to find her another job in the same place. So she'd be able to keep working (since she seems insane and settled) but not have a moral conflict. (Which i know it's a broken record, but she's got issues if she honestly think her role is approving who gets married and not checking paperwork).

[imdaman99]

Cause if there's only ONE way to interpret the bible, every Muslim on earth needs to be killed, NOW. Since their bible says they should be killing us.
Wrong. Stop talking about things you are ignorant about. And don't bring up verses taken out of context because than you would have the same comprehension issues that the terrorists have. Tell me something, do you think like a terrorist? :oldlol:

[Real Men Wear Green]

The Bible also doesn't say thou shalt not commit wire fraud either, but that would be a sin.Wire fraud is an act of deception. What's granting a marriage license?


I dunno. I'm not religious and I haven't read the bible, but everyone interprets the bible differently, right? Cause if there's only ONE way to interpret the bible, every Muslim on earth needs to be killed, NOW. Since their bible says they should be killing us.Completely unrelated bigot ranting based on nothing worth listening to does not deserve a response.


Personally I think religion is dumb, but this whole incident is just a mud slinging contest between her and the Gay Mafia for popularity.
The "Gay Mafia" is fighting for their legal rights. Anyway enough of your trolling.
None.

However, the logic goes like...God hates homosexuality, therefore Christians who love God should not support it in any way and fight it if need be while still loving the people practicing it. Granting gay marriage license could be seen as supporting the behavior somewhat.
As you acknowledge yourself there's no part of the Bible that directly supports the idea that granting gays the right to marry is a sin. The logic that you present for them is the best that they can do and it kind of sucks. If you are going to think that way then what the Christians really should be doing is killing or at least castrating gay people as that's the only way you're going to prevent gay sex. Does anyone think that the two guys that get denied their marriage are now going to stop doing what they were doing in the bedroom? The right to sex isn't what marriage equality is about.
And what argument would that be?I'm not sure this is a serious question, but FYI Church and State are supposed to be separate so this woman should not be forcing her religious beliefs into the law, especially when that goes against the law.

[ballup]

It's a bitch move of her coworker to file a complaint. The hostess worked out a manageable system with her company and most of her coworkers. Part of being a good coworker is assisting others if they have trouble doing their job.

[KNOW1EDGE]

It's a bitch move of her coworker to file a complaint. The hostess worked out a manageable system with her company and most of her coworkers. Part of being a good coworker is assisting others if they have trouble doing their job.

Um, no.

I'm not going to do my job, and do the parts of your job that you refuse, while we get paid the same.

If you want me to do part of your job, give me part of your paycheck.

This sh1t is absolutely retarded.

I'm gonna get a job at a coffee shop and then after a week say I refuse to serve caffeine Cuz it's against my religion. Hopefully you will be my coworker and agree to do my job for me

[Derka]

I'm not sure this is a serious question, but FYI Church and State are supposed to be separate so this woman should not be forcing her religious beliefs into the law, especially when that goes against the law.

This is the part I'm amazed so many people are missing, especially the ones calling this woman's act a stand in favor of religious liberty. This is the complete opposite...its this obese turd forcing her religious beliefs on everyone who wants a marriage license.

[9erempiree]

Political correctness.:facepalm

[NumberSix]

This is the part I'm amazed so many people are missing, especially the ones calling this woman's act a stand in favor of religious liberty. This is the complete opposite...its this obese turd forcing her religious beliefs on everyone who wants a marriage license.
So what about the government officials who refuse to follow deportation laws? Why aren't they being thrown in jail without bail like this woman was? Why wasn't the mayor of San Francisco thrown in jail for performing gay marriage ceremonies when gay marriage was still illegal?

The real problem is that the government under this particular president is not consistent about laws needing to be followed. It seems like only the laws that the left agrees with have to be enforced.

[ballup]

Um, no.

I'm not going to do my job, and do the parts of your job that you refuse, while we get paid the same.

If you want me to do part of your job, give me part of your paycheck.

This sh1t is absolutely retarded.

I'm gonna get a job at a coffee shop and then after a week say I refuse to serve caffeine Cuz it's against my religion. Hopefully you will be my coworker and agree to do my job for me
Easily solved by having her always do the preflight safety instructions or other duties. It was reported that only one of her coworkers filed the complaint, not the majority of them.

Sure, I'll take the coffee duties if you agree to take my bathroom cleaning duties, mopping duties, and take out the trash.

[Patrick Chewing]

So your excuse is that your omniscient God didn't think that this could happen?

I am being more than fair. I didn't point out the easy "separation of church and state" argument. I am actually arguing on what should be the Conservative's turf, the Bible that they draw the justification for this woman's refusal to do her job from. If you don't yourself know how the Bible is the direct justification I can understand because I don't either. But please don't waste both our time with the nonsense argument that requesting people that say their justification is the Bible actually justify with the Bible is somehow unfair. That's facepalm-worthy.


Listen, I'll save you and I the trouble. You're rambling. And rambling nonsense. You're a Liberal from Massachusetts. You don't believe in God, therefore you think you are superior and wiser than those that do believe in God and worship a certain religion. That's your first mistake.

Going back to your original argument, of course there is nothing that states a Kentucky clerk must not wed homosexuals. What the bible and Christianity and many other religions have been teaching for more than two millennia is that homosexuality is a sin. And this woman believes that she is celebrating and promoting this sin by signing off on marriage certificates to homosexuals. I'm not saying she's right, but it's that belief that is preventing her from doing her job. Very simple to understand.

She should not work for the city, especially after 5 crusty old Supreme Court judges decided the gay marriage ruling for 300+ million Americans. I'll give you that. But jailing her for her religious beliefs apparently takes us back to Medieval times which you Liberal nancy's seem to have no problem with.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Easily solved by having her always do the preflight safety instructions or other duties. It was reported that only one of her coworkers filed the complaint, not the majority of them.

Sure, I'll take the coffee duties if you agree to take my bathroom cleaning duties, mopping duties, and take out the trash.

What if I just want to do my job?

Am I obligated to conform to her religious wants and desires?

What if I don't to do part of your job and have you do part of my job? Does that make me a bad person?

[Derka]

So what about the government officials who refuse to follow deportation laws? Why aren't they being thrown in jail without bail like this woman was? Why wasn't the mayor of San Francisco thrown in jail for performing gay marriage ceremonies when gay marriage was still illegal?

The real problem is that the government under this particular president is not consistent about laws needing to be followed. It seems like only the laws that the left agrees with have to be enforced.

Not a single thing in what you wrote there relates in the slightest to my point about this woman pretending she's some crusader for religious liberty, which was the only point I was trying to make.

As to what you did type, if you think it's "this president" that this happens under...unless you can provide hard evidence otherwise, this happens under every president. American history is rife with selective enforcement of laws by both major parties and in all branches of government at all levels.

[dunksby]

Everybody agrees the Muslim woman here is in the wrong and full of shit, so our resident rednecks hijack the thread to show everyone else up.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Listen, I'll save you and I the trouble. You're rambling. And rambling nonsense. You're a Liberal from Massachusetts. You don't believe in God, therefore you think you are superior and wiser than those that do believe in God and worship a certain religion. That's your first mistake.You have this stupid habit of making a bunch of assumptions about me personally whenever you are losing an argument. Which is fairly frequent. Please don't pile on to the garbage you're posting relevant to the discussion with a bunch of extra garbage that has nothing to do with anything. I don't feel like sifting through your mental garbage.

Going back to your original argument, of course there is nothing that states a Kentucky clerk must not wed homosexuals. Ok then.

[ballup]

What if I just want to do my job?

Am I obligated to conform to her religious wants and desires?

What if I don't to do part of your job and have you do part of my job? Does that make me a bad person?
That's why I offered a negotiation to redistribute some of my duties onto you because your primary duties will be shifted onto me. Your primary function of your job is to serve coffee and other caffeinated beverages. That's where this little coffee shop comparison of yours falls short. An airline hostess' primary duty isn't serving alcohol.

Most of the time, airline hostesses come in pairs when they are pushing the carts to serve their passengers beverages . Even in the situation where a passenger orders alcohol at another time, you can make an arrangement for her to take the next request that isn't alcohol related. It's a simple arrangement and as reported in the OP, every other host/hostess was fine with her request.

[NumberSix]

Not a single thing in what you wrote there relates in the slightest to my point about this woman pretending she's some crusader for religious liberty, which was the only point I was trying to make.

As to what you did type, if you think it's "this president" that this happens under...unless you can provide hard evidence otherwise, this happens under every president. American history is rife with selective enforcement of laws by both major parties and in all branches of government at all levels.
Do you know how to logic?

[niko]

Do you know how to logic?

When you use logic are you logicing?

[NumberSix]

When you use logic are you logicing?
Can you sarcasm?

[KNOW1EDGE]

That's why I offered a negotiation to redistribute some of my duties onto you because your primary duties will be shifted onto me. Your primary function of your job is to serve coffee and other caffeinated beverages. That's where this little coffee shop comparison of yours falls short. An airline hostess' primary duty isn't serving alcohol.

Most of the time, airline hostesses serve their passengers beverages in pairs when they are pushing the carts. Even in the situation where a passenger orders alcohol at another time, you can make an arrangement for her to take the next request that isn't alcohol related. It's a simple arrangement and as reported in the OP, every other host/hostess was fine with her request.

All of my questions remain, as you responded to my post but didn't answer any of the questions I posed.

You aren't acknowledging my point, which is, nobody has to conform to your religious beliefs and do your job for you, or "negotiate" a special arrangement, or trade off parts of their job, it simply doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter if some people were willing to bend over backwards for this ladies religious beliefs. Nobody is obligated to do part of your job, even if you offer to do part of theirs. if somebody doesn't want to "negotiate" they don't have to, and that doesn't make them a bad person or intolerant.

[ballup]

All of my questions remain, as you responded to my post but didn't answer any of the questions I posed.

You aren't acknowledging my point, which is, nobody has to conform to your religious beliefs and do your job for you, or "negotiate" a special arrangement, or trade off parts of their job, it simply doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter if some people were willing to bend over backwards for this ladies religious beliefs. Nobody is obligated to do part of your job, even if you offer to do part of theirs. if somebody doesn't want to "negotiate" they don't have to, and that doesn't make them a bad person or intolerant.
Have you ever held a job before? People trade duties at work all the time. Hell, it's common for people to trade entire shifts. :oldlol:

I never said you were obligated to trade duties either nor are obligated to do part of my duties either. I merely laid out duty trading as an option because it's the most sensible one. If you can't figure out a viable solution between you and said coworker, you bring your disagreement to someone higher up to create some kind of arrangement to accommodate the both of you. Inciting that your coworker is not doing her job just because you aren't professionally flexible is petty.

[Derka]

Do you know how to logic?

About as well as you seem to know how to irony.

[Patrick Chewing]

You have this stupid habit of making a bunch of assumptions about me personally whenever you are losing an argument. Which is fairly frequent. Please don't pile on to the garbage you're posting relevant to the discussion with a bunch of extra garbage that has nothing to do with anything. I don't feel like sifting through your mental garbage.
Ok then.


No need to make assumptions. I've seen your posts. We can write a history book together of your heathen ways.

Getting back to topic, just because it is not written in the Bible does not mean that the government can force her to NOT exercise her religious beliefs. Let's face it, without this huge LGBT movement that we've had in the last 20 years or so, this would be a non-issue. I'm more concerned by your fervent belief that 5 old farts that probably shit themselves in their chambers made the decision for 300 million Americans on gay marriage. How can you, an American, living in one of the oldest parts of America, support this?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Have you ever held a job before? People trade duties at work all the time. Hell, it's common for people to trade entire shifts. :oldlol:

I never said you were obligated to trade duties either nor are obligated to do part of my duties either. I merely laid out duty trading as an option because it's the most sensible one. If you can't figure out a viable solution between you and said coworker, you bring your disagreement to someone higher up to create some kind of arrangement to accommodate the both of you. Inciting that your coworker is not doing her job just because you aren't professionally flexible is petty.

Although you won't answer any of my questions I will answer yours.

Yes, I have had a job. And I've had jobs where my coworkers and managers have asked me to do parts of my coworkers job and I have refused, without consequence or feeling guilty.because that's the way the real world works

[ballup]

Although you won't answer any of my questions I will answer yours.

Yes, I have had a job. And I've had jobs where my coworkers and managers have asked me to do parts of my coworkers job and I have refused, without consequence or feeling guilty.because that's the way the real world works
Fine then.

What if I just want to do my job?
Sure if you want to alienate yourself from your coworkers. You that guy in the office who works by himself and everyone else avoids because you are unpleasant to work with?


Am I obligated to conform to her religious wants and desires?

Nope. But if you have some form of empathy and some real social skills, you'd have the decency to work with your coworkers, not against them.



What if I don't to do part of your job and have you do part of my job? Does that make me a bad person?
No, but you are twisting the scenario to victimize yourself. By leaving out context, you misconstrue the situation. Obviously, I'd ask you beforehand if we can work out some kind of arrangement and that's what was done by the Muslim hostess as indicated in the OP.

Does it make you a bad person to refuse the arrangement? Not really. It makes you hard to work with, something that is undesirable in a vast majority of jobs.

[KNOW1EDGE]

See, now we're on the same page ballup :cheers:

[ballup]

See, now we're on the same page ballup :cheers:
I convinced you of my points that quickly?

Damn, usually it just ends up with me and the other guy flipping each other off.

[Jailblazers7]

No need to make assumptions. I've seen your posts. We can write a history book together of your heathen ways.

Getting back to topic, just because it is not written in the Bible does not mean that the government can force her to NOT exercise her religious beliefs. Let's face it, without this huge LGBT movement that we've had in the last 20 years or so, this would be a non-issue. I'm more concerned by your fervent belief that 5 old farts that probably shit themselves in their chambers made the decision for 300 million Americans on gay marriage. How can you, an American, living in one of the oldest parts of America, support this?

If she disagreed, then she should have quit. Either do your job or walk away. It's really not that complicated.

[niko]

Although you won't answer any of my questions I will answer yours.

Yes, I have had a job. And I've had jobs where my coworkers and managers have asked me to do parts of my coworkers job and I have refused, without consequence or feeling guilty.because that's the way the real world works

No it's not. If you are hired to do something and you say no, you'll be removed the first time they are able. It's ridiculous. Hey, we need you to finish this. NO I WON'T - I HAVE DECIDED I DO NOT WANT TO.

No ****ing way that goes over. It doesn't even sound right typing it. :lol

[niko]

Can you sarcasm?
I can but it's against my religion so i won't.

[Patrick Chewing]

If she disagreed, then she should have quit. Either do your job or walk away. It's really not that complicated.


You don't see the conundrum? She's being forced to resign for her religious beliefs which then violates her 1st Amendment Rights?

[niko]

You don't see the conundrum? She's being forced to resign for her religious beliefs which then violates her 1st Amendment Rights?
She's not being forced to resign, she's being forced to do her job which she agreed to do. She's allowed to get another job. Having your job in perpetuity is not a right. What if the company moved somewhere that didn't have her church? Should they move back? What if her boss was gay? Should he be fired? She might have to sign off on things he does.

The problem is there is no reason for her to have an issue. The issue is because she has decided that she is "approving marriage". She's not. She's signing off that the paperwork is correct. Literally. She is not stamping "I AM GLAD YOU TWO DYKES ARE GETTING MARRIED". She's signing that they paid the fee, had their licenses and dotted their i's.

If stuff like this is ok it opens a huge can of worms. What if work is scheduled during prayer time? What if the new boss is guilty of adultery? What if the company buys paper from a company run by a gay couple?

Common sense at some point needs to come into play and this women deciding signing that paperwork is ok equates to her allowing people to get married is way over that line. The judge said as much, he respects her beliefs, but if he allows laws to be changed based on one person's interpetation of what they want to follow then he needs to review all requests like that, and they just can't.

[KNOW1EDGE]

No it's not. If you are hired to do something and you say no, you'll be removed the first time they are able. It's ridiculous. Hey, we need you to finish this. NO I WON'T - I HAVE DECIDED I DO NOT WANT TO.

No ****ing way that goes over. It doesn't even sound right typing it. :lol

You are obviously a little confused, as we arent discussing the tasks someone was hired to do, but rather the tasks their coworkers were hired to do and are instead being pushed on to you.

Like I've stated, it is not up to person B to do person A's tasks and vice versa. That's how it works. It's not complicated at all.

[Patrick Chewing]

I know she wasn't being forced to resign, but she was put in jail for God knows what reason. This is a moot point now because she has clearly stated that all she wants is her name off of the marriage certificates which that shouldn't be hard to do. Once she's up for re-election, let the public decide whether or not to keep her. Seems to me that she has a lot of support.

I get a kick out of the fact that she's a Democrat, and the resident Libtards can't use this as ammo to bash Conservatives. Liberals won't touch God or the God issue with a 10-foot pole which is pretty sad in itself. They won't even come to her aid and defend religious liberty.

My stance is that she should do the job, but I can also support a separate situation in which people like her have the choice to be left out of certain things per their religion. Take Jehova's Witnesses for example. Those sad sack of shits don't even celebrate their own birthday lol.

I think as a country we're catering too much to the LGBT community. Like those bakers that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The government fined them and basically forced them to shut down. So in two separate instances, we have the government fining you and forcing you to bake a cake, and the government jailing you for failing to issue marriage certificates based on your religious beliefs. That's insane. Under no circumstance is this alright in the United States of America.

[Real Men Wear Green]

No need to make assumptions. I've seen your posts. We can write a history book together of your heathen ways.I can't be the only one that noticed he used the word "heathen."


Getting back to topic, just because it is not written in the Bible does not mean that the government can force her to NOT exercise her religious beliefs. Let's face it, without this huge LGBT movement that we've had in the last 20 years or so, this would be a non-issue. I'm more concerned by your fervent belief that 5 old farts that probably shit themselves in their chambers made the decision for 300 million Americans on gay marriage. How can you, an American, living in one of the oldest parts of America, support this?You clearly don't understand that church and state are supposed to be separate. She can't force her religious beliefs onto the law in opposition of that law. She does not have that right. That's why she was just in jail and if she tries to prevent marriage certificates to be issued she will once again be removed her post of power. This has already happened once and yet you don't see how it can happen again.

And no, I don't care that this is due to a Supreme Court ruling. That pisses you off? Good.

[KNOW1EDGE]

So you guys are talking about gay marriage now?

I'm confused I thought we were talking about the Muslim flight attendant who refused to do her job. Lol later

[Jailblazers7]

You don't see the conundrum? She's being forced to resign for her religious beliefs which then violates her 1st Amendment Rights?

What the **** are you talking about? She exercised her rights and got fired...because she didn't do her job.

[ThePhantomCreep]

So what about the government officials who refuse to follow deportation laws? Why aren't they being thrown in jail without bail like this woman was? Why wasn't the mayor of San Francisco thrown in jail for performing gay marriage ceremonies when gay marriage was still illegal?

The real problem is that the government under this particular president is not consistent about laws needing to be followed. It seems like only the laws that the left agrees with have to be enforced.

So what about police officers who refuse to pull over every driver going over the speed limit? :rolleyes:

See how dumb your comparison is?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Conservatives, would you be cool with a policy like this?

http://www.lolzhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Funny_Pictures_in-a-show-of-religious-solidarity-with-all-county-clerks-who-will-not-issue-marriage-licenses-ive-decided-to-convert-to-islam-and-take-a-management-job-at-the-dmv_19467.jpeg

[imdaman99]

Conservatives, would you be cool with a policy like this?

http://www.lolzhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Funny_Pictures_in-a-show-of-religious-solidarity-with-all-county-clerks-who-will-not-issue-marriage-licenses-ive-decided-to-convert-to-islam-and-take-a-management-job-at-the-dmv_19467.jpeg
Source? That's how the Saudi wahabis operate. They give women NO rights, which is stupid because they bore them into the world. Heaven is under our mother's feet :rockon:

EDIT nevermind, it's a Cali funnies. They got me :oldlol: Although women are not allowed to drive or leave the home alone in some of these countries :facepalm

[NumberSix]

You clearly don't understand that church and state are supposed to be separate. She can't force her religious beliefs onto the law in opposition of that law. She does not have that right. That's why she was just in jail and if she tries to prevent marriage certificates to be issued she will once again be removed her post of power. This has already happened once and yet you don't see how it can happen again.
Maybe he doesn't understand that, but to be fair, you don't either.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a religious belief. That doesn't mean laws forbidding murder are unconstitutional. And laws that are clearly motivated by religious belief aren't necessarily unconstitutional. That doesn't result in the ESTABLISHMENT of religion by the government.

Also, the first amendment says "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not that religious belief is banned. That the government will make NO LAW (for or against) an ESTABLISHMENT of religion. And it doesn't say anything about whether state laws can legislate these matters. It say CONGRESS can't.

It also says that CONGRESS can't make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say it can make no laws that prohibit the exercise of religion.... except at your government job. It say NO LAW shall be made that prohibits the free EXERCISE of religion. This woman has as much right to exercise her religion at her government job as she does anywhere else.

[Patrick Chewing]

What the **** are you talking about? She exercised her rights and got fired...because she didn't do her job.


She's not fired. She's headed back to work. And what rights did she exercise?

You're refusing to acknowledge that she was ultimately put in jail for her religious beliefs. That's a dangerous precedent. If they can fire her, then fire her. Don't put her in jail.

[Derka]

She's not fired. She's headed back to work. And what rights did she exercise?

You're refusing to acknowledge that she was ultimately put in jail for her religious beliefs. That's a dangerous precedent. If they can fire her, then fire her. Don't put her in jail.

Because it doesn't matter how many times you say it, that's not what happened.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Maybe he doesn't understand that, but to be fair, you don't either.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a religious belief. That doesn't mean laws forbidding murder are unconstitutional. And laws that are clearly motivated by religious belief aren't necessarily unconstitutional. That doesn't result in the ESTABLISHMENT of religion by the government.

Also, the first amendment says "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not that religious belief is banned. That the government will make NO LAW (for or against) an ESTABLISHMENT of religion. And it doesn't say anything about whether state laws can legislate these matters. It say CONGRESS can't.

It also says that CONGRESS can't make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say it can make no laws that prohibit the exercise of religion.... except at your government job. It say NO LAW shall be made that prohibits the free EXERCISE of religion. This woman has as much right to exercise her religion at her government job as she does anywhere else.
You have no clue what you're talking about. By refusing to grant marriage licenses a county clerk that is not even "congress" is forcing her religion onto the government. No one is saying she can't be Christian. You make no sense whatsoever. Thou shalt not post.

[NumberSix]

You have no clue what you're talking about. By refusing to grant marriage licenses a county clerk that is not even "congress" is forcing her religion onto the government. No one is saying she can't be Christian. You make no sense whatsoever. Thou shalt not post.
Sorry pal, but it's you who has no idea what he's talking about.

She's not forcing anything on the government. She simply doesn't want her name on the license. Anybody who works in her office can issue these licenses, just not with her name on them. It's a simple religious accommodation that is already the law.

What do you care if her name isn't on the marriage license? Why is that a deal breaker?

[UK2K]

Sorry pal, but it's you who has no idea what he's talking about.

She's not forcing anything on the government. She simply doesn't want her name on the license. Anybody who works in her office can issue these licenses, just not with her name on them. It's a simple religious accommodation that is already the law.

What do you care if her name isn't on the marriage license? Why is that a deal breaker?

Because he can't 'win' without forcing her to put her name on it.

Like the Gay Mafia.

[NumberSix]

Because he can't 'win' without forcing her to put her name on it.

Like the Gay Mafia.
The funny thing is, I don't even know why I'm making these arguments. I would have totally fired her. :roll:

[UK2K]

The funny thing is, I don't even know why I'm making these arguments. I would have totally fired her. :roll:

I believe because she was elected, she can only be impeached?

But same here, as I've said from the beginning, both sides (her and her religious friends and the gays who traveled across the state just to get their license signed in Rowan county) are basically trying to prove a point.

And, as I have said for years now, both sides are about 'winning' whether or not its right or wrong. Like Democrats and Republicans, one side would rather 'win' and destroy the country rather than have the other side 'win' and have a positive impact.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Sorry pal, but it's you who has no idea what he's talking about.

She's not forcing anything on the government. She simply doesn't want her name on the license. Anybody who works in her office can issue these licenses, just not with her name on them. It's a simple religious accommodation that is already the law.

What do you care if her name isn't on the marriage license? Why is that a deal breaker?
If that was true then her office would have been issuing marriage licences and none of this would have come about to begin with. Again you have no idea what you're talking about. If she stays out of the way going forward then there problem is over but she was definitely obstructing the issuance of marriage licenses. Have time been paying any attention at all?

[DonDadda59]

Both this woman and the silly hick pretending she's a freedom fighter need to either quit or be fired if they are not willing to fulfill the duties they were hired to carry out. It's as ridiculous as being a fast food worker and refusing to serve fat/sloppy people or working as a cashier and refusing to deal with people with tattoos because the bible classifies them as sinners.

[DonDadda59]

Conservatives, would you be cool with a policy like this?

http://www.lolzhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Funny_Pictures_in-a-show-of-religious-solidarity-with-all-county-clerks-who-will-not-issue-marriage-licenses-ive-decided-to-convert-to-islam-and-take-a-management-job-at-the-dmv_19467.jpeg

If you are against this then you are a bigot heathen who hates God. Stop attacking people's religious freedom. :rant

[NumberSix]

If that was true then her office would have been issuing marriage licences and none of this would have come about to begin with. Again you have no idea what you're talking about. If she stays out of the way going forward then there problem is over but she was definitely obstructing the issuance of marriage licenses. Have time been paying any attention at all?
Wow. Looks like I gave this woman too much credit. They took her name off the licenses, but apparently she's still not willing to cooperate. Her lawyer is now saying that her name being removed is not enough because the licenses are still "under her authority".

At this point, it's clear she's just an extremist.

[KnittingRyu]

The funny thing is, I don't even know why I'm making these arguments. I would have totally fired her. :roll:

Apparently she can't be fired. She is an elected public official, which means she would have to be impeached, which won't happen because she has the support of the Republicans in the state office. Heck, they even celebrated her release from jail. The Republican president of the state Senate spoke at a rally at the state Capitol and filed an amicus brief asking Bunning not to hold Davis in contempt of court for defying his order.

Edit: Assuming you were talking about the clerk. The hostess could be and was fired.

[Dresta]

I would say a national religion has already been established by the state: a religion of equality, democracy, fraternity and diversity, one that is buttressed and supported by the whims and wants of King Numbers, the undeniable lord of the land. Dare to repudiate this perverted religion, and risk being made into a social outcast, and slandered with all kinds of outrageous calumnies, by the high-priests of said religion (the media, business interests, and the celebtocracy).

[KirbyPls]

I would say a national religion has already been established by the state: a religion of equality, democracy, fraternity and diversity, one that is buttressed and supported by the whims and wants of King Numbers, the undeniable lord of the land. Dare to repudiate this perverted religion, and risk being made into a social outcast, and slandered with all kinds of outrageous calumnies, by the high-priests of said religion (the media, business interests, and the celebtocracy).

:applause:

[ThePhantomCreep]

I would say a national religion has already been established by the state: a religion of equality, democracy, fraternity and diversity, one that is buttressed and supported by the whims and wants of King Numbers, the undeniable lord of the land. Dare to repudiate this perverted religion, and risk being made into a social outcast, and slandered with all kinds of outrageous calumnies, by the high-priests of said religion (the media, business interests, and the celebtocracy).

Sounds good to me. Bigots/homophobes/xenophobes/religious hypocrites belong exclusively on the fringe. They should be BIGGER social outcast, as they add nothing of value to society.

[ace23]

I would say a national religion has already been established by the state: a religion of equality, democracy, fraternity and diversity, one that is buttressed and supported by the whims and wants of King Numbers, the undeniable lord of the land. Dare to repudiate this perverted religion, and risk being made into a social outcast, and slandered with all kinds of outrageous calumnies, by the high-priests of said religion (the media, business interests, and the celebtocracy).
Lol y you always post this corny shit

[NumberSix]

Sounds good to me. Bigots/homophobes/xenophobes/religious hypocrites belong exclusively on the fringe. They should be BIGGER social outcast, as they add nothing of value to society.
It must be eating you that these baseless accusations are losing their power.

You've cried wolf too many times. People don't care about these baseless claims anymore.

[ThePhantomCreep]

It must be eating you that these baseless accusations are losing their power.

You've cried wolf too many times. People don't care about these baseless claims anymore.

What baseless accusations? Are you arguing that these people don't exist in this country? I hope you're not that naive.

Did my post touch a nerve because the GOP is often linked to these types of people? :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

What baseless accusations? Are you arguing that these people don't exist in this country? I hope you're not that naive.

Did my post touch a nerve because the GOP is often linked to these types of people? :oldlol:
Straw man

[Patrick Chewing]

Did my post touch a nerve because the GOP is often linked to these types of people? :oldlol:


Bobby Jindal
Carly Fiorina
Marco Rubio
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson

What do these people have in common? They're all minorities in today's America and are all Republican.

What are the Democrats offering again?? A few white guys and one white witch? And you want to talk about bigotry? With a straight face?

[Simple Jack]

Unless you have an in-depth understanding of either Employment Discrimination law or Constitutional law, you'd be better off stating what you BELIEVE to be the correct solution, rather than what the legal outcome will be.

Saw someone quoting the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause acting like the plain language meaning is the legal test used to determine whether public action is in violation of either....it's not.


Yes, I'm an attorney.

[RidonKs]

Lol y you always post this corny shit
:banghead: :hammerhead: :lol

[dunksby]

Lol y you always post this corny shit
My boy Dresta is new to the world, he's just started to see how dirty it's run, he will settle down once he manages to choose a side or become numb.

[Akrazotile]

Sounds good to me. Bigots/homophobes/xenophobes/religious hypocrites belong exclusively on the fringe. They should be BIGGER social outcast, as they add nothing of value to society.


Uhh, these people make up a huge portion of the country's doctors, lawyers, construction workers, teachers, athletes, business people. They occupy both sides of the political spectrum.


You have so much angst over perceived bigotry. Like youre a nutjob with all your bigotry accusations. You dont even sound sane. You go into blind rages ranting abiut bigotry in every post.

Weirdo...

[BasedTom]

https://i.4cdn.org/tv/1441957641604.png

[NumberSix]

Unless you have an in-depth understanding of either Employment Discrimination law or Constitutional law, you'd be better off stating what you BELIEVE to be the correct solution, rather than what the legal outcome will be.

Saw someone quoting the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause acting like the plain language meaning is the legal test used to determine whether public action is in violation of either....it's not.


Yes, I'm an attorney.
Well, if we're talking about the flight attendant, it's not a constitutional matter. It's a matter of title 7 of the 1964 civil rights act. Private businesses are required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. It's a stupid law in my opinion, but it is the law. It would seem that they tried to make an accommodation, but it just wasn't able to work.

If we are talking about the gay marriage lady, this doesn't apply. This title 7 protection doesn't apply to elected officials.

[KirbyPls]

Unless you have an in-depth understanding of either Employment Discrimination law or Constitutional law, you'd be better off stating what you BELIEVE to be the correct solution, rather than what the legal outcome will be.

Saw someone quoting the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause acting like the plain language meaning is the legal test used to determine whether public action is in violation of either....it's not.


Yes, I'm an attorney.

Very true. Attorney here as well.

[Akrazotile]

Very true. Attorney here as well.


Same here.