Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol

(CNN)—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.

If her faith forbids the serving of alcohol, she should not have to do it.

When Express Jet hires flight attendants, doesn’t somebody explain to them what the job involves? Don’t they have to sign a contract agreeing to perform the tasks specified in the company’s rule book?

It’s part of the job. She should do the job that she was hired to do, or resign and go get a job that she can do.

My thoughts are, she must have been aware when she accepted the job that it includes sometimes serving alcohol, and she could have found another job instead.

This situation reminds me of the city clerk in Kentucky. If her conscience tells her not to issue marriage license to gay people, she is obligated to resign because she swore to uphold all duties of the office she accepted.

So I guess we all agree that the county clerk in Kentucky was not being punished for her religious convictions, but for failure to do her job…I’m glad we’re consistent in thought!:slight_smile:

I agree with you; but do you feel the same way about the Kentucky woman who refuses to issue same-sex civil marriage licenses?

Yes, she can resign from her current job and get another which does not require that she serve alcohol.

Does consistency demand that one have the same opinion on both cases? In other words, would it be inconsistent to say that the Muslim woman should resign, but that accomodations for anti-SS marriage beliefs should be made for the Kentucky woman and that the Kentucky woman should not have to resign? Should the two cases be treated the same, or are they essentially different? IMHO, the issues involved in the two cases are the same.

I agree with you that the two cases involve the same principle.

About that county clerk, was she wrong for refusing the license? I’m trying to get this straight in my mind where is humanity standing today. For example, if my job description today involves killing cows, but tomorrow the law changes and says that I also have to kill human beings together with the cows. Should I comply then with the law or find myself another job? In the flight attendant case, I already know that serving alcohol is part of the job description but for the county clerk, the law change on her. Should she then perform the new part of the job which is issuing licenses to homosexuals or stand for what is right since no one else seems to want to do it?

Of course, flight attendants have been serving alcohol virtually since the Wright Brothers (slight exaggeration there). It is inconceivable that this individual went through flight attendant training without such duties having been made clear. On the other hand, the county clerk undoubtedly assumed her position before something like “gay marriage” was even in the cards, or certainly was law in her state.

That’s true the one case is different than the other.
It’s our duty to stand up for what is right, and many of us are fighting against same sex marriage, but it’s important to do so according to the law.

Otherwise anarchy rules: (a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.)
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Both should be accommodated.

I’m tired of watching Americans forcing other Americans to behave and think contrary to their belief systems.

That’s not who Americans are supposed to be.

I can understand the “it’s your job” argument because I’ve been on that side of the argument.

However, I have little compassion for it these days given how Christian bakers and florists are pressured into providing services that they don’t want to provide.

Either people have freedom of conscience and speech or they don’t.

If we don’t, then we should at least be willing to admit that the Constitution is dead and buried and doesn’t apply to anyone anymore.

However, that’s not the America I want to live in or love.

People who worked for the German State in the 1930’s were told, it’s your job and they enforced unjust laws because they were afraid of the State.

Think about how things could have been different if more people had stood up and said, “I’m not putting up with this BS”.

Sorry, but the “it’s your job” argument only gets you so far with me these days.

People don’t just check their values at the door. This is really a recent expectation - and I don’t like the direction that it leads.

As a classical liberal, I accept and tolerate people who have different ideas and values than I do - even when they conflict with mine. That’s the expectation of living in a pluralistic society. I don’t expect people to conform to my standards, every single time.

There’s room in my America for Christians who don’t want to bake cakes for gay couples or provide them flowers or give them marriage licenses or actually perform the ceremony. There’s also room for Muslims who don’t want to serve pork or alcohol. If I don’t like it as a customer, then I have other choices. I can choose to ask for another server or go on another airline. There are options available.

I don’t want the state dictating that people have to behave or believe a certain way in order to have employment.

That’s a higher value to me than the principle of “it’s your job - you should do it.”

Well, yeah - it’s your job and you should do it, but there are exceptions to that. Do American soldiers kill Americans because the General tells them to? That’s their job isn’t it? And given the way things are going, it really seems that too many Americans want to walk happily towards that kind of society where there’s no critical thinking.

Well, I protest that mentality. I don’t agree with that kind of thinking.

Part of a flight attendant’s job is to serve alcohol. If you don’t like it, don’t take the job.

Next we will have vegetarians saying that they will refuse to serve burgers in McDonalds, because it offends them.

Stuff and nonsense.

Take a job that fits in with your beliefs - don’t try to change the job.

Actually there is a slight difference in the cases. As somebody mentioned earlier in a post the muslim knew when she took the job she would have to serve adult beverages. The clerk when she took her job did not know she was going to have to violate her religious principles. There lies the difference in these two cases.:thumbsup:

There are very few jobs where duties do NOT change over time. Technological and societal changes can provide moral conflicts where none existed before. At that point the employee has the freedom (yes I am using that word on purpose) to continue to perform the job or resign based on conscience. If the employer wants to create an exception that’s fine, but if not the employer must play the deck he or she has been dealt



And although all jobs might change over time. The people voted for the clerk. Presumably they knew her beliefs and convictions. Just like we, as a people, are stuck with Obama, the people that voted for the clerk should be stuck with her.

Sure. My job used to entail only 6900v circuits. Now I must also work on lower voltages. I was not asked to violate my religious principles. I’m sure if the lady was asked to make coffee for fellow workers she would not have minded it, may not have like it, but done it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit