This was brought up in another thread and I was wanted to post this in it's own thread.

 

There is a difference between a government job and a private one, that is the first thing that you can't truly compare it to Kim Davis.

 

I don't see this being a religious discrimination case, she had a job and duties to do, it does not matter if she changed religions or not.

 

I am going to wait until more comes out. But, did the airline offer to give her another position within the airline? Not only after she changed religions, but also after this controversy? I am hearing that the airline did try to get her to change positions and she refused. Her co-workers shouldn't have to take up some of her responsibilities. But what I have heard is that she did not want to stop being a flight attendant.

 

I do have issues with the complaint including that she was writing in another language into a book. Did this happen? Or was it added to the story?

 

 

Muslim flight attendent claims discrimination - CNN.com

She wouldn't be able to work as a flight attendant on many Arabic airlines, such as Emirates, as they serve alcohol.

From what I've read, she should resign or seek a position either at her own airline or another that doesn't have the job duty of serving alcohol.

Will Mike Huckabee come to her aid as well and hold a religious freedom rally for her?

There was a SCOTUS case earlier this summer about a young woman who wasn't hired by an Abercrombie store because she wore a hijab. The Court ruled that Abercrombie was in the wrong because they could have accommodated her religious practices "without undue hardship" in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (I suppose the case hinged on whether Abercrombie "knew" she needed accommodation or not, but that's beside the point.)

 

At any rate, I'm fine with that law and the way it has been interpreted. Being able to fire or not hire someone because of their religious beliefs is a dangerous game. But, when religious practices cannot be accommodated without "undue hardship" to the business, then it's a different story.

 

The case here seems to put the definition of "undue hardship" to the test. On one hand, she argues that her not serving alcohol hasn't been a problem because another attendant can bring it to the passenger. On the other hand, what of smaller flights where there is only one attendant? Or what of larger flights where each attendant is busy and then passengers would have to wait indefinitely while the attendants sort it out? I think ExpressJet's actions are reasonable here, barring whether I have a different definition of "undue hardship" than the courts.

 

By the way, this case has almost nothing in common with the Kim Davis debacle.