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
Aridog, seriously? You just said that. Oh my. The poor things don’t want to go there or the poor things don’t want to take them in. The question was rhetorical. Send them there. Close the borders (i.e. Turkey, Austria) and send them there. Let the Arabs take care of the Arabs. Western taxpayers have no obligation to take care of Arabs especially if the Arabs don’t even have an obligation to take care of Arabs. America is overcrowded. Americans stopped increasing the population by birthrate in 1960. It sure seems like Americans enjoying “freedom” get “dictated” to a lot. How’s that work? Free people being told what to do.
No doubt, Annie, and that is a good thing 🙂
Forgotwhoyouare, good question!
I can venture an answer, which is that the Muslims you talk about, many of whom are actually Christians, are not offered refuge in many of those countries you list because it is not where they are seeking refuge . Most are heading to Europe, and the others are in Turkey and Lebanon, which are offering them refuge.
It’s like asking why didn’t the Irish go to Britain instead of coming to the US?
You go where you hope to find what you are looking for.
Why would they go to Egypt, a dictatorship, used by the West to launch attacks against their own countries?
Why would Libyans looking to escape the civil war in their country- civil war created by NATO, lest we forget- go back to Libya?
If you don’t want refugees coming to your shore, just stay the hell out of other people’s shores.
African refugees go to France because France colonized their countries. Pakistanis and Indians go to Britain because Britain colonized their countries.
Syrian refugees go to Europe because Europe’s incitement and support for a rebellion against their president, Assad, led directly to this situation.
By the way, the US hasn’t taken many “Muslims” yet!
forgotwhoiam I answered you question (about some Arab nations not taking refugees) previously here or elsewhere (I’m old & forgetful)…other than Bahrain, the countries you cite are primarily Sunni while the bulk of the refugees are Shia’ or Christian…e.g., not welcome and unlikely to want to go there for that reason.
Po, I worked with Bosnian Muslims who actually drank alcohol and ate pork and thought nothing of it. There seems to be as much diversity among Muslims as there is with Christians and that seems like a good thing.
Why aren’t Muslim countries taking in Muslims?
Why are America, Europe, Australia et al. assuming large quantities of guilt and illogically and counterintuitively taking in Muslims?
Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, etc. have taken in untold trillions of western dollars but they don’t take in any Muslims. How about Egypt, Libya, Russia, China, Turkey, Uzbekistan, etc. taking in Muslims? Why does every cost on the planet default to the American taxpayer (not charity dollars)?
I’m beginning to think that Westerners are either complete, immutable idiots or some shadow government is controlling them. It’s like the government, in a nation of free men with a thesis of freedom, telling private property owners whom to sell or rent their houses to, or whom to matriculate or hire or manipulating children and forcing them to get on a bus to go to a different school as ordered by the government to achieve collectivist “social engineering.” None of this dictatorship existed in America 1789. And none of it exists in the founding documents except when “interpreted” by socialists/collectivists.
Free! Oh hell yes.
Free to have Muslims forced on America while their neighbors get off scot-free.
Po said …
I know of [M]uslims who pray the 5 prayers but also eat pork and drink alcohol, and some who don’t pray but fast [R]amadan, and some who don’t pray but don’t eat pork or drink alcohol…
Hey, when did you move in to my neighborhood? 😀
Haha…I know… you must see a lot of variety over there…
Po …I agree that conflating Muslim and Arab is silly…given the majority of Muslims in the world are NOT Arab at all.
I am tired of the accommodating crap to Muslims. If they all moved to Muslim dominated countries they could avoid alcohol and dogs; beat their wives; kill their daughters for dating; have sex with eight year old girls and boys; keep their daughters from attending school; wash and wipe their asses with their left hand, not toilet paper. But NO, we in the United States have to accommodate these insane jackasses, in big part as a result of the policies of the Muslim asshole in the White House.
And, aw dang it, by turning that job down I missed out on unarmed participation in Desert Storm chasing tanks across the desert to support them. Sorry…did my time doing that long ago (and armed to boot)…no need to relive it. 😀
Davidm2575 … I suspect many would be surprised to know just how many bars and saloons cater to Muslims here where I live. No one speaks of it, of course…but they go none the less….just like on Emirates Airlines traveling to anywhere but Saudi Arabia. The KSA is hardly a bastion of tolerance for Shia’ Muslims or Christians. Just try to live your faith there if not Sunni, preferably Wahabist. I turned down a very good job in KSA simply because I’d have had to live in near internment compounds for infidels….mostly defense contractor outfits ran them. No thanks.
that’s also why, Ari, I get so frustrated when people lump Muslims together without any consideration that too often, we use Muslim in lieu of Arab.
Is a Muslim the practicing follower of islam?
The non-practicing one?
The atheist person born to muslim parents?
The one with an arab name?
The convert who does not pray?
The one who believes the Quran is inerrant?
The one who believes it is not the word of God?
The one who believes in evolution?
The one who disbelieves in it?
The one who know the quran by heart?
The one who has never read it?
The one who steals, lies, cheats and kills?
The one who doesn’t?
Is the Saudi king a muslim when he buries Yemenis alive?
Is he not?
Is the muslim onn who follows the sunnah of the prophet?
Or the one who rejects it and follows the quran only?
I know of muslims who pray the 5 prayers but also eat pork and drink alcohol, and some who don’t pray but fast ramadan, and some who don’t pray but don’t eat pork or drink alcohol…
It’s a mess, same as for Jews and Christians…all shades of grey…
The cultural context of the first amendment was dissenters versus Church of England, and even deists & atheists versus Christians.
In the postwar era it became Jews versus Christians. Lest I be called a bigot for saying so, the the profile of Jewish atheist Michael Newdow in the Jewish Forward publication. The history of Jewish “leadership” in this area is well known.
Christians have been utterly atomized, divided, and conquered — so now the guns and stratagems of the secular materialists and their financiers turn on Muslims who are the only remaining cultural block standing in the way of the erstwhile “progress” of modernity.
Wait until Flight-Attendant-Fatima decides to become a martyr, meet Allah and take as many infidels with her on one of those flights. After all, why not? She deserves a religious accommodation be made to allow her to practice her belief system, which dictates killing those vile and despicable infidels. Her right to practice her religion, while I am trapped in an aluminum tube with her at 40,000 feet, is paramount.
▼ An easy fix — apply for a job with one of the following airlines • ▼Arabian Airlines Pakistan International Airlines Kuwait Airways Royal Brunei Airlines Egypt Air Iran Air Bahrain Air Afriqiyah Airlines Air Arabia Jazeera Airways
From: JONATHAN TURLEY To: docileb007@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 5:35 AM Subject: [New post] Muslim Flight Attendant Files Complaint Against ExpressJet After She Refuses To Serve Alcohol On Flights #yiv9809804815 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv9809804815 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv9809804815 a.yiv9809804815primaryactionlink:link, #yiv9809804815 a.yiv9809804815primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv9809804815 a.yiv9809804815primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv9809804815 a.yiv9809804815primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv9809804815 WordPress.com | jonathanturley posted: “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 serv” | |
I think there should be an ACLU Airline. Where there is no discrimination, no profiling, not even any bad thoughts. I will never fly it, nor would most people. But, it should be given a chance and see how well it does. Any takers? Any prospective investors?
Maybe we need a Muslim Express Airline. Only Muslims need apply or fly. Then the other airlines can say to this complainer: Go to Muslim Express Airline for a job. And for passengers who dont want alcohol on board then they can go on that new airline. The Saudi’s have a lot of money. This needs to happen.
BitchinDog wrote: “… for passengers who dont want alcohol on board then they can go on that new airline. The Saudi’s have a lot of money.”
The Arab airlines often have the best first class and serve free alcohol. However, Emirates will not serve alcohol on flights going to Saudi Arabia. So in a way, what you describe does exist.
This is basically a determination of the company’s rights vs the employees’. Does the company have the right to require its employees to serve alcohol, and is it required to delegate more duties to some attendants than to others to accommodate religious beliefs? If forced to accommodate Muslim attendants’ requirements not to handle alcohol, will the company be allowed to restrict the number of Muslim attendants on flights so that customers can be served? Does the company have the right to say, “No?”
This brings me back to the Kim Davis controversy. After living a wild lifestyle, Ms Davis became a Born Again Christian, and felt she was unable to perform her duties as county clerk. She should have resigned.
In some cases, it is nice for a company to accommodate religious beliefs, such as allowing employees time to pray to Mecca during the work day without interruption. But accommodations are not always possible. For instance, if a stripper converts to Islam or conservative Christianity, the club can hardly accommodate a request for modesty of dress.
Again, it is clear that there needs to be a line on where the company’s rights and the employees’ intersect. It will be very interesting on what we come up with. This is also the underlying issue on business owners’ desire for religious freedom.
As there are several business owners among my family, I am very interested to see these issues play out.
Karen S wrote: “… accommodations are not always possible.”
Nobody disagrees with this. The law says that the employer must make reasonable accommodations. In this case, the woman worked things out fine for years by asking other attendants to serve alcohol. It’s called teamwork. Then she got a disgruntled person who perhaps wanted to persecute her for this religious views, so she filed a complaint.
In Kim Davis situation, when the laws changed after she had been working in that office for 30 years, she sought for some relief from the State in the form of asking that marriage licenses be issued like driver’s licenses or fishing licences… without her name and signature giving authorization. That is a reasonable accommodation. Instead, people want to crucify her because of her religious conviction. They want her to quit her job that she has performed well and can continue to perform well. That is wrong.
“Some animals are more equal than others.” As are some agendas.
it’s actually not that complicated, everyone is pushing an agenda, whether individual or communal, religious or atheist, gay or hetero…
The problem is that everyone is, at the same time, complaining that other people’s agendas are infringing upon one’s own agenda.
Which is crazy and shortsighted.
tofu, What about the Church of Environmentalism? I’m sick and tired of their religious proclamations.