RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Muslim flight attendant sues after she’s suspended for refusing to serve alcohol

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/09/04/m...mpaign=090415CT

I wonder if conservatives look at this religious freedom differently than the one with the gays getting married?

So, what you're saying is that the Muslim flight attendant should be put in jail like that county clerk

So what your saying is Muslims should be jailed for suing while Christians should be able to sue and be above the law.

Again I wonder what the true conservative principle is? It's looking like a sense of entitlement thus far.

"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."


That means not being forced to accept something against your beliefs that you know to be wrong. Such as a twisting of the definition of marriage that has been clear for the entire existence of human civilization.
You can have gay benefits in a secularist framework (not intruding on religious beliefs or freedoms) by calling it civil union, but don't twist the definition of marriage to be something other than what it truly is, and has been for 6,000 years.

Kim Davis a County Clerk in Kentucky has every right to oppose that, and gay Nazis are just looking like the spiteful intolerant jerks they are by imprisoning her, and trying to make her compromise her beliefs. It is just making her a martyr, expanding her support nationwide.

There are similarities and differences between the two cases.

Kim Davis is employed by the state of Kentucky, and therefore has greater leeway under the Constitutional/First Amendment protections of law.
Charee Stanley is an employee of ExpressJet Airlines, and is subject to the job requirements of her private employer.

I'd also argue that Islam is inherently in opposition to the U.S. Constitution, and that it should therefore not be protected by the Constitution, any more than Stalinism, Nazism or other insurrectionist insurgent movements should be protected. Although the unfortunate reality is, they probably would be given the same and equal protection under U.S. law. And under the current liberal/secular dominance of the courts, a muslim's protected freedoms would probably be given more consideration.
If the airline flies outside the United States, I'm not sure the same U.S. First Amendment Islamic/religious freedoms would apply outside the United States.

To be Constitutionally protected, the person should be committed to the United States and to preserve, protect and defend its Constitution in the first place. The fact that CAIR (an Islamic front group) is pushing the case, makes clear the insurrectionist nature of the suit.

People who refuse to do the job they are being paid to do should be fired! Get another job if you don't like parts of your job and stop hiding behind Jesus or Muhammad just so you don't have to do your job!

Whoa there WB... The lawyers for the homosexuals actually didn't want her to go to jail, they just wanted her to be fined at worst. It was the judge (who doesn't agree with the law either) that decided a fine wouldn't change her mind and decided on the jail time as a punishment instead. They were even willing to let it go if she'd allow her deputies to issue the marriage licenses instead but she said no. Honestly, she's a civil servant. She won't do the job, she should have stepped down. It was her arrogance, thick headedness, and self righteousness in the face of her own hypocracy that put her ass in jail.

Well, actually, they only didn't want her to go to jail so long as they could force her to compromise her beliefs, but beyond that they were perfectly happy to send her to jail, to intimidate her into submission.

But now that she stood firm to her convictions and wouldn't back down, and was a rallying flag for people of religious faith that was drawing increasing support...

JAILED COURT CLERK WHO FOUGHT GAY MARRIAGE IS ORDERED RELEASED




...when the secularists intimidating her were looking like the powermongering assholes they truly are, and they were losing support, not Kim Davis, they backed down.
Maybe you've seen coverage that I haven't seen, Doog. But all I've seen demonstrates they were perfectly willing to let Ms. Davis rot in jail for weeks, months, or even years, until she conformed to their pro-gay agenda.

It should also be pointed out that Kentucky only recently made this change to accept and codify gay marriage. Kim Davis has been in her Clerk position for decades, so she was/is rightly upholding what she knows to have been the law for her entire career, and not standing for the corruption of it with the very recent passing of a new law, arguably not with the consent of the governed.

Again and again we see this formula playing out in states across the country: There is no "=" (as the bumper sticker implies), under the new law, people of religious faith and gays are not "equal". As gays gain rights of gay marriage, they gain it at the expense of people of religious faith. And people of religious faith are forced as photographers and as bakers, and (by attempt) as county clerks to cater their weddings, or be fined and/or imprisoned out of business.

And there is no hypocrisy on Kim Davis' part. The smear merchants (in classic liberal form) have dug up every skeleton in her closet to try and discredit her. But her divorces and so forth date back to a time before she became a Christian.

Senator Rand Paul (also of Kentucky) suggested that we take marriage out of the realm of state recognition, where it is only something recognized only by churches, which would eliminate the ability of the state to force those of religious faith to accept "gay marriage", something they know to be clearly and scripturally against their religious beliefs.

From the state map with the above linked article I just posted, gay marriage in Kentucky has 40% support statewide, and is labelled on the "low" end of the spectrum among states nationwide regarding support of gay marriage.

Which again supports what I said above, that while gay marriage recently gained legal status in Kentucky, it was not with consent of the governed.


(A chronology of gay rights laws in Kentucky: )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Kentucky

I vehemently disagree with forcing private businesses to accept and cater to homosexual unions. But government is a different animal. They serve all citizens. Private sectors should be able to deny their services to anyone. Their business will suffer or prosper accordingly. But whether Mrs. Davis likes it or not she doesn't work for Costco. She could have compromised without compromising her stance( I won't issue the marriage licenses personally but I won't stop or punish my deputies from doing so) Or she could have stepped down and stopped feeding off the teet of the public. Homosexuals pay taxes and obey the same laws we do. Why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights and protections as straight citizens? We don't live in a theocracy. I don't want the course of my life dictated by atheists, Buddhists, Christians,Jews, scientologists, etc etc etc. Two dudes signing a legal document and putting a ring on their finger doesn't nullify my marriage at all. If you believe gay marriage is against God's laws, then it's not binding to him. Do you think He gives a shit that some dinky court said its ok? Do you think he has to accept it? Does it harm you or your fellow citizens in some way? So why do you care? It's not your life and its not your business.

And to go back on topic this dumb bitch had to know that serving alcohol was going to be part of her job. It's like taking a job at Denny's but refusing to serve bacon. The judge should say "tough titty shit you cunt" and drop the case. Religious freedom should only keep you from losing or not getting a job, not a crutch for special treatment.

She took an oath to uphold the law. She should step down if she feels the law conflicts with her beliefs and feels the need to impose those beliefs on others. Btw I think she's clearly a fat unprincipled pig but as was pointed out it was a conservative judge that held her in contempt of court. Likewise he let her out conditionally. Keep that in mind when you use the word "they" WB.

I'll go further and say she made an oath to uphold mans laws, not God's.

Glad we can agree on that part.



I concede that to some degree. But I believe this is a U.S.S.C. ruling that is a caving in to Political Correctness, and therefore the USSC pro-gay ruling federalizing gay marriage is just as much a partisan act as Kim Davis refusing to authorize those same gay marriage certifications.

I would argue that we are a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, whose founders intended Biblical principles to be part of our schools and education, and founders who believed that the turning away from Christian principles would be the point that our democratic republic would fall in the ashbin of history, along with every previous attempt at democracy.

Where God is mentioned 5 times in our Declaration of Independence.
Where our Constitution is signed "In the Year of Our Lord", and is a contract between a government and its people, patterned after the contract between God and Man in the Old and New Testaments.

And it is out of conviction for her religious freedom suppressed by an unjust Supreme Court ruling that Kim Davis refuses to endorse with her signature or with the stamp of the office she represents.

How is that different from the countless other public officials who refuse to report illegal immigrants, or turn them over to federal authorities for deportation. They are not removed from office, why is only Kim Davis required to do so or be removed?
Likewise sanctuary cities.
Likewise other court clerks nationwide who have refused to authorize licenses for firearms.



I see a judge and state system that offered her freedom from prosecution if she compromised her beliefs. The judge (or state) could also comprominse, could create a second wing specifically for gay marriage licenses. They could simply have them obtained by mail from another county clerk's office (I've done this for my auto registration, and for my city, state and county professional licenses). If I mail it at least two weeks or so in advance, what difference does it make which state clerk offices issue the license? West Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale courthouse, same difference, same distance. Every county has one. And as I said, nationwide, there are many public officials who get away with principled stands, or even posturing for their stated convictions.
Why is only Kim Davis not allowed to make such a stand, against a law she considers immoral and illegal?




Again, what two gays or lesbians do is fine by me, so long as they don't put the gun of state authority to my head and force me, against my own beliefs, to say it is right and just, and the same as Christian marriage.

I've listed the Old and New Testament verses in these topics a number of times in the past. The incompatibility of gay union with heterosexual marriage is unmistakeably clear, from the Judao-Christian perspective (and I've never gotten the impression it is any more acceptable among Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims I've met over several decades), and it is only by re-writing Bible scripture that "gay marriage" can be alleged with a straight face.

As I've said for 10 years, if gays would be fine with civil union, OUT of the religious context of marriage, I would be fine with it.
But when gays use it as a beach-head and a weapon to further undermine and deprive Christians of rights, then yeah, I have a huge problem with it.

In my adult years since 1981, I don't see that prior to gay marriage, that gays had any inability to live together, any inability to have many if not most employers provide insurance benefits to them and their partners or adopted children, any inability to assign their possessions in a will to their partner like everyone else, any inability that barred them from military service, or any inability to seek their employment of choice (quite the contrary, I cited statistics that gay white men are actually the single highest wage-earning demographic).
I firmly believe the sole purpose of gay marriage is to deprive Christians of THEIR rights in a zero-sum game. One side gains rights, the other side loses theirs, and that is precisely gays' intent (at least at the activist/leadership level).

It comes down to telling business owners that they cannot respectfully decline photography or wedding cakes to a gay ceremony, not without being fined out of business or imprisoned.
It means as a next step forcing Biblical/conservative churches to consent to providing gay marriage ceremonies, or be deprived of their tax-exempt status. It means that Christians quoting scripture saying homosexuality is immoral (on radio, on television, or in a church or outside religious ceremony) becomes a hate crime punishable by fines or imprisonment. (i.e., again weaponizing government as the enforcement/imtimidation arm against all political dissent.)

That is precisely the reason gays have pushed for open acceptance in the military since Bill Clinton authorized it in 1993. To leverage using a federal acceptance of gays in the military as a precedent to force acceptance across all public and private jurisdictions. Which gays finally succeeded in doing in June of this year, forcing all 50 states to recognize gay marriage from another state.

Whether you like it or not, this is not a battle limited to the public sector, and if gays are raged against and pushed back against by conservative dissenter, gays have only themselves and their own intolerance toward all those who don't share their beliefs.

Seeing Kim Davis and Huckabee on stage today made me cringe, in their victory lap with "Eye of the Tiger" blasting. A more sober public statement would have served their cause better. But however imperfect the messengers, perhaps they see what's coming a bit clearer than most. This is a beach-head, a first step, toward further suppression of all non-gay dissent. In an endless series of repressive "progressive" new laws.


Gay Nazis, indeed.

I've only heard Fox News report that Kim Davis is actually a Democrat!

"They" includes Republican cowards or self-serving career bureaucrats who cave in to progressive/PC types on things like social issues, on increasing the federal debt, on the Patriot Act, on NDAA 2112 and NDAA 2013, and winning the Senate in Nov 2014 on the promise to de-fund Obamacare, then immediately caving and funding it for another year!

Republicans who don't behave like Republicans are not true Republican conservatives. And they tarnish the Republican label. (As Pat Buchanan foretold in his 2004 book Where the Right Went Wrong, this cost Republicans several elections big time in 2006 and 2008, and the brand is still not fully repaired.)

So essentially you feel entitled to special rights and to be above the law and those republicans who feel the law applies equally are "cowards" or are "self-serving". Davis swore an oath. If she feels her beliefs keep her from honoring that oath than she should step down. She is entitled to her beliefs but not to be paid 80 thousand a year to break the law and impose her beliefs on others.

Answering Doog's above questions about the Supreme Court's ruling now being the law of the land that Kim Davis has to uphold, I just saw Alisyn Camerota on CNN interview Mike Huckabee for about 10 minutes. Alisyn Camerota asked precisely that question, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling is now the law of the land, so Kim Davis should, as county clerk, uphold that.
Huckabee responded that Dred Scott was the ruling of the Supreme court roughly 100 years ago (that essentially, blacks were not human) and asked should we now enforce that Supreme Court ruling as well. The point being, the Supreme Court was wrong on Dred Scott, and they are wrong on this ruling as well.

These are the "special rights" I specifically listed that I feel entitled to:

[i.e., preservation of our Constitutional freedoms treaded on by an increasingly oppressive central government, fiscal responsibility in not increasing our now $19 trillion debt, and Republicans actually honoring the promises of what they specifically campaigned to do.]

"Special rights", M E M, is a 2% minority of gays in the U.S. who feel they have the right to trample on religious freedom of the 78% in the U.S. who identify (Gallup poll) as Christian, and the over 90% who identify nationally as having religious faith.
As I said, Kim Davis is not being arrogant, she has a strong conviction that she is right, and that the June 2015 Supreme Court gay marriage ruling is wrong, and she is resisting an unjust law by preserving the Kentucky law she has upheld as clerk for 25 years. The state of Kentucky voted for defense of marriage as 1 man 1 woman (voting against gay marriage) by over 70%. Kim Davis is therefore upholding the will of the people of Kentucky, against an unjust federal Supreme Court intrusion, a ruling without precedent.

And I'll point out again that Kim Davis is an elected Democrat.

This part from yesterday, Huckabee speaking just before Kim Davis' release.


I hope the Camerota interview of Huckabee is posted. If it is, I'll post that as well. His comments to Camerota also answer the comparison of Kim Davis' situation with the muslim flight attendant. Huckabee answers that religious freedom of both could easily be accommodated, if there was a will to do so.

On MSNBC's Morning Joe, no less, Huckabee explains his legal stance in supporting Kim Davis. Basically because the US Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage has usurped the Constitution and Kentucky law.

"You would have hated Lincoln..."
"Jefferson warned..."
"...cannot over-rule the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..." [a line from the Declaration of Independence]
"The interpretation of 5 unelected lawyers..." [referring to the 5 of 9 justices of the U.S.S.C. who ruled in favor of gay marriage, two of whom have personally conducted gay marriages and should have recused themselves from the gay marriage ruling!]
"Tell me the specific law..."

Over and over, Huckabee cites the founders and their original intent, and actions by presidents such as Jefferson and Lincoln that are consistent with actions by Kim Davis in her resistance of an unjust law.
As Huckabee simultaneously asks for the specific law in the Constitution or elsewhere that compels Kentucky to recognize gay marriage. He cites the precedent to support his own position, while citing the lack of precedent for the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, that he and Kim Davis have every right and precedent to resist.

But isn't that the same kind of thing that Obama gets (correctly) criticized for? Deciding he doesn't like a law and doesn't have to obey it, rather than trying to change the law?

Furthermore, one of the tenets of civil disobedience is the idea that your're sufficiently committed to your principles to go to jail and stay in jail. It isn't supposed to be a "get out of jail free" card for any time you don't like a law.

Now, in this case, I don't think jail was warranted as much as removal from office was. Davis (or the Muslim flight attendant) doesn't want to do a job she shouldn't have the job. Case closed.

I don't think I should have to point out this ironic train of thought but I obviously do.

What you're saying is that, just like the 1857 Supreme Court was wrong in considering a group of people don't deserve equal rights, the 2015 Supreme Court is wrong in considering a group of people deserve equal rights.

The difference to me is that Obama is breaking the law and issuing executive orders without any precedent for his actions ( I believe, with considerable evidence, that Obama is a cultural Marxist radical whose intent is to cripple and destroy the Unites States, at least as we know it. His three guiding principles are 1) Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, which he himself taught to classrooms of ACORN "community organizers", i.e., marxist street agitators, 2) Liberation Theology of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that Europeans "stole" the wealth of peoples of color, and the only way to compensate for that is to redistribute wealth from first-world nations back to third-world people of color, and 3) Cultural Marxism, taking over the pillars of Western culture such as news media, movies and television, law, and especially schools and colleges, to indoctrinate a generation in the virtues of marxism so that after a few decades the new generation willingly reject capitalism and accept a new Marxist/socialist order. Obama is acting as an enemy of the nation and its Constitution, in pursuit of socialism and wealth redistribution.

Whereas Kim Davis is acting to preserve existing law, that she has been preserving as county clerk for over 20 years.

And Davis has offered compromise, herself and through her attorney, that she would allow gay marriage licenses without her personal signature or through the signature of the office she is known to have authority over. She has offered an alternative, the judge citing her and others in the state just haven't been willing to honor it from their end.

It frankly bugs me that people of Christian faith are expected to just leave office when their beliefs are in conflict with the laws they are in position to enforce, whereas secularists, gays, multiculturalists, even muslims, are expected to be accommodated, and are permitted to advance intrusions of unprecedented law on the Christian majority, whose Christianity was the basis for the nation's founding documents, and secularist/anti-Christian activists are enabled to snuff out our Christian roots and culture, in a twisted pro-secular double standard.

Again, if that mentality were in effect when Dred Scott was enacted by the Supreme Court, the attitude of hey, that's the law, we have to respect it, blacks would still be property and not human beings, and the nation would be very different. There are a number of cases where the Supreme Court has made a ruling and other branches have not honored the ruling.
It should have happened with Roe Vs Wade in 1973. Over 40 years later, that arbitrary ruling is still dividing the nation.

If Kim Davis were a private sector employee, she probably would have been fired a long time ago. As a state employee, Davis has job protections that those in the private sector don't have, and she has used those protections to stay in her position and rally opposition to an unjust law. The longer she stays there, the greater the resistance grows to an unjust law. For once I'm glad a public employee is difficult to fire.

As I said in a post above "equal rights" is not taking away Christian rights of free speech and freedom of religion with the same brush that allows gays to marry.

When you force Christians to bake cakes for gay weddings, or Christian photographers to provide photography for gay weddings, or be imprisoned of fined out of business, that is NOT "equal".

Similarly, people of religious faith who dissent should not be forced out of office. That simply guarantees they will have no representation in government, and that laws intruding on religious freedom will only accelerate.
As I cited above, others have refused to deport illegal immigrants and refused to issue gun licenses, and they have not been removed from office, and they have not been arrested and jailed. Only Kim Davis, in a clear attempt to intimidate her into submission. The others have suffered no penalty or intimidation for violation of federal law.

Which is basically what a hypothetical President Huckabee seems to be planning, to wit, ignoring laws or court decisions he doesn't agree with.

Well, again, I see Obama's actions as destruction of the nation, whereas Huckabee advocates preservation of religious freedom, and what we have always been as a nation, in accordance with the original intent of the founders.

All of which is passing in significance anyway...

KENTUCKY CLERK [NOW] WON'T INTERFERE WITH GAY MARRIAGE LICENSES

Do you have an opinion that doesn't sound like you're quoting from the Glenn Beck bible?

We know your feeling about the big evil faggots being given equal rights against the beliefs of Christians. You've beat it to death.

How do you feel about the actual topic of this thread? Should people not have to do the job they were hired to do if it conflicts with their beliefs? Should they be able to keep their job? If a Muslim gets a job at Denny's should they have the right to refuse a customers request for bacon? If a Scientologist is a pharmacist should they be able to refuse to fill an order that includes anti depressants? If a Jehovahs Witness gets a job with the Red Cross should they refuse to work a blood drive? How far should everyone else bend over to accommodate somebody else's personal beliefs when it's obvious before the hiring process begins that there may be functions of their job that cause a conflict to their conscience?

What you posted is a complete non-sequitur to what I've posted.

I think Huckabee answered it pretty well, that a muslim flight attendant and a Christian county clerk who doesn't want to issue marriage certificates in her name could both be accommodated, if there were a political will to do so.

My problem is that there seems to be another standard with how Christians who respectfully disagree are treated. Where with muslims, or whatever, there is a liberal/PC stance that we have to be sensitive to their beliefs, whereas Christians are treated as bigots with no right to their beliefs who can be dismissively shouted down. Even more so, the fact that this nation was founded on Christan principles, and yet those seem to be the only set of beliefs that can't be tolerated.

The situation is that Kim Davis has been county clerk for 25 years, and the law that she has upheld for 25 years has now been turned upside down. (As I pointed out, AGAINST the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Kentuckians, who voted 73% to oppose gay marriage.) So it's not like Kim Davis suddenly got a job there and is trying to change the rules.

I've also pointed out abundantly that there are politicians in other positions who have refused to deport illegals and refused to turn them over to federal authorities for deportation, and that these people, despite defying federal laws, are still able to keep their positions, and continue to politically posture in defiance from their positions. Oddly, in this case, only the Christian taking a stand for her beliefs is put in jail for her beliefs, and only she is forced to leave for her refusal conform to a law she opposes.

I frankly haven't watched Glenn Beck since he left Fox News, so I wouldn't even know what his stance is on the Kentucky gay marriage issue.

A muslim getting hired at Denny's would be someone who just walked in and wants to change the system.
A scientologist wouldn't become a pharmacist in the first place, because they believe in healing through faith, not with medicine. (That's like creating an example of a muslim becoming a pig farmer.)
I frankly don't know enough about Jehovah's Witnesses to understand your punch line of one refusing to work on a blood drive.

I think reasonable attempts to accommodate one's religious faith are tolerable. When you get into people trying to harass people of faith, or into creating nuisance lawsuits to crush beliefs of those they disagree with, a line is crossed that ceases to be reasonable.

She's the elected public official who chose to hold and impose her beliefs over the law that she swore to uphold. If it was really about principle she would have stepped down instead of going back to collect her 80 thousand a year. Interesting that when it involves sacrifice on her part it becomes something she can do.

Asked and answered, M E M:

I didn't ask a question WB. She was wrong to impose her beliefs on her clerks by ordering them to break the law and also the people in her county. You feeling that "somebody else did it to" doesn't make her actions any more right or legal.

Says the "a republican did it first" guy.

And if it was a democrat either you or WB would be trotting it out. Your point would be?

And WB I know you really feel like Davis is a victim here but if you look at the big picture she isn't. Government licenses are not religious or sacred documents. That part is really up to what the couple makes of it. Also I don't know how her faith interprets the bible but in mine it's not her job to do the judging but God's.

The record will reflect that you just tried to defend your propensity for saying "a Republican did it too" by saying, in effect, "republicans do it too."

lol, so you're essentially doubling down on WB's "somebody else did it too" with accusations that "mem did it too".

everybody did it first. it was a photo finish. I verified it through audio recordings.

lol

You do know that Kim Davis is a Democrat... don't you?

He's hoping we don't.