There is an interesting counterpart to the Kim Davis debate over the right of people to follow their religious beliefs in the denial of services to others. A Muslim flight attendant Charee Stanley says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith. While there are clearly significant differences between a public official using her office to impose their religious views and an employee demanding accommodation in the work place, the controversy shows the increasing conflicts occurring between religious principles and public accommodation. We have seen this conflict most vividly in the controversy over Christian and Muslim bakeries and photographers declining to service same-sex weddings. We have previously discussed (here and here and here) the growing conflicts over businesses that decline to accommodate same-sex weddings and events in a clash between anti-discrimination and free speech (and free exercise) values. Despite my support for gay rights and same-sex marriage, I have previously written that anti-discrimination laws are threatening the free exercise of religion. Yet, these cases also raise concerns over rising burdens on both customers and businesses in having to deal with a myriad of different religious objections as in the ExpressJet case.
Stanley refused to serve alcohol on flights and was suspended since that is a central part of the duties of flight attendants. She has filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.
Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated “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.” However, the airline is likely to argue that this is like someone applying for a bartending job or a waitress job in a bar/restaurant and then refusing to serve drinks. The counterargument might be found in the common statement of pilots or flight stewards that their primary job is to guarantee the safety of the passengers. Thus, they could argue that the the food and drinks are optional or collateral elements to their positions.
A similar controversy has erupted in cities like Minneapolis where Muslim taxi drivers refused to take anyone carrying alcohol — a common practice at the airport with people bringing back wines or liquors. They lost in court. One could easily view Stanley’s case in the same light.
Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam and this year Masri said she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it.
Masri said that a supervisor said that she could work out an arrangement with other flight attendants to have them handle the alcohol and “this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident.” However, one flight attendant clearly disagreed and filed a complaint that she was not fulfilling her duties and requiring other flight attendants to take up the slack. The complaint also reportedly objected to her having a book “foreign writings” and wearing a headdress. The airline ruled against Stanley and said that it would no longer accommodate her religious objections. She was placed on unpaid leave and told that she would be fired in 12 months if she did not comply with standard rules.
We recently discussed another case involving Abercrombie in which an employee insisted on wearing a headscarf despite the rule of the store for employees to fit a certain “Abercrombie look.” The case raised the right of businesses to maintain certain styles and appearances among employees. The Supreme Court ruled against the company after the !0th Circuit ruled for the company. The case specifically turned on the level of knowledge and disclosure required to trigger the protections under federal law for religious accommodation. However, many businesses are unclear now as to how far they have to accommodate such practices. Would Abercrombie be required to allow a full burka or, alternatively, ultra-orthodox clothing for a Jewish employee.
The question is how much a burden a company is expected to bear. There are a host of businesses that seek to supply a common level of services and common look among employees. Should the airline or its customers have to accommodate employees who object to handling alcohol or particular types of foods? We discussed a British stores that already allows Muslim employees to refuse to ring up purchases of pork or alcohol .
There are a wide array of such religious practices that might come into play in such circumstances. The result could be delays in service or an unacceptable burden on flight attendants who are willing to perform all of the functions of their position. Likewise, what if a majority of flight attendants then claim a no alcohol accommodation. An airline would likely be sued if it only allowed one practicing Muslim to work on any given crew. It would also be on difficult ground in demanding to know the religion and religious practices of applicants. The airline would seem on strong ground to claim that the need to serve alcohol is a bona fide occupational qualification, even if it is optional on flights. It is a standard part of service for most flights in this market.
What do you think?
Source: CNN
Hi Nancy: does that mean the gay community as well? Why do we need to be subject to their views?
Nancy Parris,
Don’tcha know… It’s never oppressive when I make you live by my Holy Book. However, if you complain about my Holy Book, now THAT’S oppressive.
Where are a nation of whiners and complainers. PERIOD!
We are quickly becoming a nation of complainers where our religions are concerned. If one is going to take a position that goes against our religious beliefs or finds that we are in a position that is in contradiction to our newly found religious beliefs, the impetus should not be on everyone else, but the religious person. Not everyone should be subject to or have to compensate for your religious views.
Debbie, Ari, has been spewing fear for a looong time!
That’s why I get annoyed with Karen S here when she brings everything round to shariah law, which is so nonexistent in most Muslims’ lives it is funny.
I have never lived under shariah law, ever, not have most muslims I know, and most shariah courts don’t even deal with major crimes anyway, they are merely religious courts as found in amish, Mormon, Christian and Jewish communities, which deal with marital and civil issues.
Po … you must “love” our local nut case “Debbie Schlussel” …a self anointed expert on Shariah 😀
According to that idiot, as well as Sharon Angle (the nut who assured another term for harry Reid), I live under Shariah law now. Who knew?
“Sharia law” is kind of like “The Law of The West”. Many things are vague. In Sharia law one cannot do certain things but those things are not always certain. One cannot serve alcohol to another. What about rubbing alcohol to a wounded warrior with a cut on his cheek? In the law of the west one should be able to bear arms. But, can one arm bears? Grizzly yes, brown bear no.
Discussing religion brings out all kinds of cracks in the minds of those who discuss. I wonder what a room full of Southern Baptists would say about no alcohol on planes. Or what a group of Catholics would say about a ban on condoms being sold out of coin machines in bathrooms in gas stations. Or what a Catholic Bishop would say about the execution of a pedophile priest for acts of sexual abuse against a six year old boy.
forgotwhoiam
Do you also pluck out unwanted grey hairs?
The good thing Ari, is that since most muslims do not even agree on what shariah law includes, and of those who are for shariah law, whose type of shariah law to use, and since any group of islamic “scholars”can have they own shariah law, applying shariah law in the US is the proverbial herding cats.
It is a great deal more likely that Dominionism would be imposed on us than shariah law.
And I have yet to meet a muslim who wants to live under shariah law…:)
Aw come on Nick … Max-1’s Amish airline pilot was a good one 😀
When one lives in a Muslim community there is always a remote chance we might elect a mayor who decides Sharia law is what he will enforce…on all of us. He’d/she’d hardly announce that during the campaign, however. Doubt it would happen, but if it did the guns (literally) would come out. No need for that. Really. Religion & politics do not mix and never should. Keep them separate and the guns lay silent.
Alexander Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point:
*****
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous* compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
*****
George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued:
*****
“The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
*****
*HETEROGENEOUS
het-er-o-ge-ne-ous
[het-er-uh-jee-nee-uh s, -jeen-yuh s]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
adjective
1.
different in kind; unlike; incongruous.
2.
composed of parts of different kinds; having widely dissimilar elements or constituents:
Hey Nick,
Another cartoon for ya…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMsRDPzWEAAnV5-.png
randyjet … especially since her “conversion” was after she took the job without conditions of accommodation. She had a choice, as did Po in his anecdote above, and chose to whine instead of the honest thing to do….which is what Po did and I did in a different venue. It really isn’t that hard to do unless you think you’re a “special little flower.”
The more I read about the flight attendant, the more I think this is a scam. Ms. Stanley is a 40 year old black American from Georgia, who attended Tuskegee Institute. She became a flight attendant for ExpressJet, which is a commuter jet, not a long-distance carrier. The jets are small, and cannot hold more than 70 passengers. There are only 1 or 2 attendants on each flight. In some interviews she says she became a Muslim a year ago, in others she claims it was two years ago. There are no records, as Islam only requires one to orally state a brief phrase of acceptance. The concept of a formal conversion process, requiring a year of classes and ceremonies and certificates like we see with Catholics and Lutherans is a western tradition, not Islamic. There is also no expectation or requirement that one change his or name to an Arab name, which Ms. Stanley has not done. All in all, “conversion” to Islam is a very casual process, at least by western standards where it is very formal and ritualistic. After the other flight attendant complained about having to do all the alcohol service, the airline put Ms. Stanley on administrative leave for 12 months. Thus she is getting paid to stay home, during which time she could be applying for jobs with mainline carriers who have enough attendants on board to accommodate her. Or she could be using the paid leave to train for another job. Instead, she is suing the airline for damages. Although CAIR attorneys are representing her, I don’t believe they are helping their cause. The more that comes out about this woman, the more she will be perceived as frivolous and greedy.
LTMG
Ah yes, the human condom saves us once again…
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/ba/69/72ba697aa6c9753f86109c1ea50d0974.jpg
draytonoysters said …
Why did Kim Davis take an oath (so help me God?) to do her job only to do not her job? Why did Ms. Stanley take a job knowing that part of the job is to serve booze? Why would I apply for a job I can’t do? I wouldn’t and neither should these idiots.
Actually, in both cases Ms Davis and Ms Stanley took their jobs before they “converted” or were “reborn” and then decided everyone else owed them forbearance. They got it bass akwards.
I repeat my praise for Po when he stood on principle (cited here) and didn’t demand accommodation post facto…upon dutiful consideration of his position. THAT is integrity.
As a retired airline captain, I can say that the airlines require a full service from ALL employees dealing with passengers. There is no room for exceptions on dress or duties, and this person knew this before being hired. One cannot simply say I wish to change the rules I agreed to before I was hired. The uniform sans headscarf is mandatory as is the full range of passenger service. Simple. If she cannot do the job, she needs to be fired.
Aridog
I have long argued against religious freedoms as outlined by the Conservative Christian front. Whose gawd is supreme to them? Most certainly not mine… Ergo, we’ll be forced to worship their gawd on their terms and in their churches.
While living in Malaysia for three years, I sometimes bought non-halal products in the grocery store. If the cashier was Muslim, he or she would put a plastic trash bag over the hand before moving my purchases into a sack. No fuss, no bother, no nasty looks at me, no grumbling comments from me to them. The cashiers accommodated me, I accommodated them, all were happy. There is nothing barring the flight attendant from doing the same as her co-religionists in a predominantly Muslim country.
John Smith,
Like this… ?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMtfNruWcAEKVqp.png