September 7, 2015 at 12:09 pm #13667
And rightfully gets suspended. She should have been fired.
I look forward to Mike Huckabee supporting her cause.September 7, 2015 at 2:36 pm #13669
Absolutely. It’s her belief and her acceptance that alcohol is not acceptable.
Not true for others, and this idea of religious advocacy through protest needs to be nipped in the bud.September 7, 2015 at 2:48 pm #13671
Here is a situation where an accommodation is in order, and according to the article that is what was happening – she arranged with her coworkers to have them serve alcohol when requested by a passenger, and apparently the flight crew was cool with that. The suspension came “after another attendant filed ‘an Islamophobic complaint’ that referenced Stanley’s head scarf.”
This is how it’s supposed to work; people with religious objections to a task don’t have to perform the task as long as the task is still accomplished by someone. In the Kim Davis case, if she wasn’t willing to put her name on a gay marriage license she should have empowered someone else to issue those licenses. If the license is valid only with her signature, then she would have to resign. Patrons of a commercial or governmental entity who are entitled to a product or service should not be kept from that product of service due to a worker’s religious objections.September 7, 2015 at 3:30 pm #13673Deane JohnsonParticipant
So Edsel, you’re OK with a patchwork of exceptions as to why people don’t have to perform the duties of the job they accepted?
I’m not OK with this. If people accept a position to do a certain job, they should be required to do that job or resign and go to different job that doesn’t conflict with their religious views.
I have no problem with people having their own religious views, but don’t splash them on others.
BTW Edsel, have you ever been an employer?September 7, 2015 at 4:34 pm #13674
In this case, how much of an impediment to the business was the Muslim and her objections to serving alcohol? Hoe much of a flight attendants duties involve serving alcohol? I would say it is minimal, and it was easy for coworkers to fill the gap.
If the job were, say, bartending and the bartender were a Muslim and refused to serve alcohol, that essentially voids the entire job description, and the employer would be in her rights to dismiss the Muslim for an inability to perform the duties of the job.
Yes Deane, it really is case by case. If the religious objection doesn’t involve a significant part of the job and accommodations are not too onerous, then I’m all for making the religious accommodation.
I think the religious right wing would agree with me. 🙂September 7, 2015 at 4:41 pm #13675
Hey, if the crew could make it work, I’m good with that.
Recently, I’ve been listening to Pentatonix, and one member has very deep religious convictions not shared by the others. This creates conflict over some pop music lyrics.
They agree to mutual respect, modify lyrics or more often use smart arrangements to avoid them and “remix” a tune that way, and it all works.
Sure, the ones who don’t hold those convictions could argue about being held back, but then again, they all have a division of talent too.
That kind of scenario makes sense to me. Everyone is making choices and has options.
I’ve been on crews where people had issues like this. If the work could get done and there is no unfair division of labor, or no sense of one person exploiting others through religion, it seems to make the best sense to do it.
As an employer, I would want this of my people, and as one currently, I expect that culture of mutual respect of my people. It’s the human thing to do. Just FYI, I rarely allow blame and personal attacks of those same people. Truth is, we are all there to get something done and we all have information and we all make choices.
When those go bad, it’s best to get better information and make better choices. This is first and foremost. And I do that so people do not suffer the inhibition over a bad choice and that inhibition leads to ego issues which leads to an inability to make the better choices that are good for everyone, including them.
Another option here is to do the work to help make your peers better. There are fewer bad choices, less cause for blame, and a more positive, person building culture.
Deane, it does not always have to go the way you imply.
In this, I do agree with edselehr. There are options and no one gets denied their particular choices. It’s workable and reasonable.
I read this one as the people having no options kind of thing, and that’s very clearly not OK, and that reading isn’t a very good one.September 7, 2015 at 7:56 pm #13681
I agree that this crap needs to be nipped in the bud. When you are employed by someone else, you check your religion at the door.
If you can’t do certain parts of your job as a result of your stupid and insane beliefs, then find a job that meets your needs. An employer should not have to work around your religious beleifs, and neither should the customer.September 8, 2015 at 7:30 am #13691
If a Christian says, “I can’t work Sunday mornings, that’s when I go to church, but I can work any other shift” would that be a reason to fire the employee? Or if a Jewish worker asked to have a Jewish holiday off? I don’t think so.
Reasonable religious accommodations have always been part of what America does, and that should not change if the religion is Islam.September 8, 2015 at 8:03 am #13692duxruleParticipant
Huckabee and Cruz apparently plan to “meet” with Kim Davis; are they setting up meetings with this woman who’s expressing her “religious freedom?” Or is it just “Christian expressions” that matter?September 8, 2015 at 11:13 am #13695
And it appears this dialog is playing out with Davis.September 8, 2015 at 12:46 pm #13698
So what if all the employees are christian and all of them want Sunday off? Then what?
Asking for a holiday off is fine, but becoming an ongoing impediment to the business is not.September 8, 2015 at 1:57 pm #13699
“So what if all the employees are christian and all of them want Sunday off? Then what?”
Then there are some issues to resolve. The Constitution does say things about guaranteeing individual religious liberty (to an extent) but says nothing about guaranteeing businesses the right to be able to force employees to work on their Sabbath.
Vit, the interesting thing about the Constitution and constitutional rights is that they are so broadly stated. The Framers didn’t want to hem future generations into *their* interpretaion of individual rights, gun rights, or individual liberty. They knew that the document would be re-interpreted each generation to apply these rights appropriately in their time. The Constitution doesn’t tell us how religious liberty should be protected, just that it should be protected.
The Kim Davis case is just another test of the principles of the Constitution, and it is playing out as it should – in a fascinating, important, thoughtful and sometimes funny way.September 8, 2015 at 2:41 pm #13700Deane JohnsonParticipant
Edsel, you are usually the voice of reason. On this issue, I hate to say it, but you’re out to lunch.
If you allow all of these individual decisions on how the job is to be done, who’s going to approve each one, document the approval, and inform the other employees of the approval? You can’t run a company, or a government agency, where you have individuals making individual decisions to suit their whims. Companies and not a democracy.
I asked before and you didn’t answer, so I’ll ask again in case you missed it. Have you ever run a company?September 8, 2015 at 3:39 pm #13701
No I haven’t run a company, but I don’t see why that should matter. I am going to assume that you haven’t worked in public education, but this doesn’t mean you are unqualified to comment on issues in that realm.
It’s not easy or convenient to accommodate individual rights – but that’s exactly why many of these protections are enshrined in the Constitution. The powerful (due to wealth, or might, or the power of the majority) can easily take advantage of individuals, and the Framers knew this well. In fact, the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the document unless specific protections of individual rights were placed in the Constitution. They knew that powerful entities have the advantage by default, and it is government’s job to level the playing field a bit to prevent tyranny – and not just tyranny in government.
I am not saying that religious rights always trump employers’ rights. It sounds like you (and Vit) think that employers rights should always trump workers’ religious rights. What I believe is that there should be a balance. In America today, the rights of corporations and businesses seem to be eclipsing the rights of individuals, and I don’t think that’s what the framers of the Constitution intended.September 8, 2015 at 3:44 pm #13702
I don’t beleive that employers rights always trump workers religious rights, but if your religion states you can’t serve alcohol, then by definition the job description of “flight attendant” is not a position you are qualified for.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.