Jail Time vs. Suspension

[libertybele]

...and here we have it.  Kim Davis who is a Christian refused to issue marriage licenses because of her faith and was thrown in jail without bail.  A Muslim flight attendant is simply  suspended for refusing to serve alcohol because of her faith.  Now tell me again, how there isn't a war on Christianity?  Tell me again that there isn't a double standard for liberals and the anti-Christians.

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.

"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," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html

[docstew]

There is a MAJOR difference in these two stories. One is employed as a public servant, the other as an employee of a corporation. The corporation is allowed to make their own work policies as long as they don't violate law. The gov't doesn't have that option.

Personally, I think Kim Davis should resign as County Clerk. That would solve the problem of her name being on marriage licenses, which from my reading, is what she bases her objection on.

[thundley4]

There is a MAJOR difference in these two stories. One is employed as a public servant, the other as an employee of a corporation. The corporation is allowed to make their own work policies as long as they don't violate law. The gov't doesn't have that option.

Personally, I think Kim Davis should resign as County Clerk. That would solve the problem of her name being on marriage licenses, which from my reading, is what she bases her objection on.

OTOH, she is being persecuted/prosecuted for a lesser offense than many sanctuary city mayors and police have committed.  Several presidents, including Obama have violated federal laws by not enforcing drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

[libertybele]

There is a MAJOR difference in these two stories. One is employed as a public servant, the other as an employee of a corporation. The corporation is allowed to make their own work policies as long as they don't violate law. The gov't doesn't have that option.

Personally, I think Kim Davis should resign as County Clerk. That would solve the problem of her name being on marriage licenses, which from my reading, is what she bases her objection on.

It doesn't matter who they are employed under.  The issue is that both are exercising their freedom of religion under the First Amendment.  No judge should be able to make anyone "perform" a task that violates their 1st amendment rights.

As stated by the lawyer defending the Muslim ""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,"...this should apply to both cases.

It seems that in both situations they have been employed for a period of time before they were asked to perform a task against their religion.  In the case of Davis the lawless rule against same sex marriage was applied after she was employed and distributing alcohol was a task needed after the attendant became Muslim.

[thundley4]

It doesn't matter who they are employed under.  The issue is that both are exercising their freedom of religion under the First Amendment.  No judge should be able to make anyone "perform" a task that violates their 1st amendment rights.

As stated by the lawyer defending the Muslim ""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,"...this should apply to both cases.

It seems that in both situations they have been employed for a period of time before they were asked to perform a task against their religion.  In the case of Davis the lawless rule against same sex marriage was applied after she was employed and distributing alcohol was a task needed after the attendant became Muslim.

The flight attendant converted after being on the job for awhile. She had been serving alcohol, but now refuses to do so.

[libertybele]

OTOH, she is being persecuted/prosecuted for a lesser offense than many sanctuary city mayors and police have committed.  Several presidents, including Obama have violated federal laws by not enforcing drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Agreed.  Davis however, is exercising her 1st amendment right, so how can she be thrown in jail without bail?  Technically if this charge continues to hold, then someone can be thrown in jail for attending church, praying in public or the workplace, etc.  The first amendment also includes freedom of speech which the Obama administration came very close to succeeding in infringing upon.

[thundley4]

Agreed.  Davis however, is exercising her 1st amendment right, so how can she be thrown in jail without bail?  Technically if this charge continues to hold, then someone can be thrown in jail for attending church, praying in public or the workplace, etc.  The first amendment also includes freedom of speech which the Obama administration came very close to succeeding in infringing upon.

She is in jail for contempt of court. She could have resigned and avoided jail and still stood by her principles.

[mrclose]

She is in jail for contempt of court. She could have resigned and avoided jail and still stood by her principles.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Martin Luther King Jr.

[thundley4]

Kudos to her for standing by her faith.  My main complaint about the whole matter is that she is being jailed for a lesser cause than there is against Obama and most congressmen.

[delilahmused]

There is a MAJOR difference in these two stories. One is employed as a public servant, the other as an employee of a corporation. The corporation is allowed to make their own work policies as long as they don't violate law. The gov't doesn't have that option.

Personally, I think Kim Davis should resign as County Clerk. That would solve the problem of her name being on marriage licenses, which from my reading, is what she bases her objection on.

I've been on the side of "she broke the law" but this article gives me pause. Just read it this morning when someone posted the link on Twitter. Kim Davis Broke No Law.

Cindie

[obumazombie]

Huey Lewis wanted a new drug.
I want a new religion.
One that lets me get paid for refusing to do anything.

[thundley4]

Huey Lewis wanted a new drug.
I want a new religion.
One that lets me get paid for refusing to do anything.

Welcome to Islam.

[delilahmused]

I don't think I really understand the SCOTUS decision because this ruling gives them unlimited power. If they can strike down laws made by individual states then we might as well pack it in and make them our overlords. What's to prevent them from twisting any amendment into meaning whatever fits their POV?

Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. But I do have a problem with a decision that ignores the duly elected legislators & direct will of the people who voted against gay marriage in their state. Making sure the government wasn't usurping the will of the people used to be important. We're a REPRESENTATIVE republic. That used to mean powers not given to the feds by the 10th Amendment belong to the states. There was a time when SCOTUS remembered this. All you have to do is look at how extreme this situation has gotten: small businesses forced to close because they won't bake a cake, take photographs or shamed out of business because they won't make imaginary pizzas for imaginary gay weddings.

We've gone way past mob rule democracy, (which I thought the Constitution was supposed to prevent) to extremely vocal special interest group rule and the majority is just going along with it. Next thing you know companies will be mandated to provide birth control to gay couples.

Cindie

[libertybele]

I don't think I really understand the SCOTUS decision because this ruling gives them unlimited power. If they can strike down laws made by individual states then we might as well pack it in and make them our overlords. What's to prevent them from twisting any amendment into meaning whatever fits their POV?

Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. But I do have a problem with a decision that ignores the duly elected legislators & direct will of the people who voted against gay marriage in their state. Making sure the government wasn't usurping the will of the people used to be important. We're a REPRESENTATIVE republic. That used to mean powers not given to the feds by the 10th Amendment belong to the states. There was a time when SCOTUS remembered this. All you have to do is look at how extreme this situation has gotten: small businesses forced to close because they won't bake a cake, take photographs or shamed out of business because they won't make imaginary pizzas for imaginary gay weddings.

We've gone way past mob rule democracy, (which I thought the Constitution was supposed to prevent) to extremely vocal special interest group rule and the majority is just going along with it. Next thing you know companies will be mandated to provide birth control to gay couples.

Cindie

Hi 5.  The SCOTUS cannot make laws. nor can they amend laws.  Their job is to interpret the law according to the Constitution; the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution.  The cannot amend the Constitution.  Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage defined, so when the Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!  They really had no business interpreting a law that had nothing to do with the Constitution.  Further you are correct in addition they struck down laws made by individual states by mandating that ALL states recognize gay marriage.  Basically they changed the laws of the states regarding marriage when marriage is not referenced in the Constitution.

[mrclose]

Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law.

In the early days of our government, Supreme Court opinions were so insignificant that Congress didn't bother preserving them. Opinions were left to individuals to keep track of, and were not congressionally-funded into official records until 1874, almost a century after our independence. Before Congress stepped in, Court records were printed and kept under copyright by private citizens and reporters, who sold them for profit.

[delilahmused]

And the sad part is, most of these decisions rely on the opinion of one person. No one should have that much power.

Cindie

[mrclose]

My take on what this is all about!

God named these perversions, (Gays and the like) and the ones who committed them as sodomites and that is what they are.

 A Christian will never convince a liberal/atheist that sodomites should not be afforded legal protection under the law!

 They, the liberal atheists prefer to follow man and deny the very existence of a Creator.

 From the moment this nation took God out of the classroom and replaced him with all the isms, (Socialism, Marxism, Communism) we began our decent into spiritual darkness.
 
I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey.
 You’ve convinced me .. you’re right.

[libertybele]

My take on what this is all about!

God named these perversions, (Gays and the like) and the ones who committed them as sodomites and that is what they are.

 A Christian will never convince a liberal/atheist that sodomites should not be afforded legal protection under the law!

 They, the liberal atheists prefer to follow man and deny the very existence of a Creator.

 From the moment this nation took God out of the classroom and replaced him with all the isms, (Socialism, Marxism, Communism) we began our decent into spiritual darkness.
 
I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey.
 You’ve convinced me .. you’re right.

Hi 5! 

[mrclose]

Hi 5!

Thank You.

I cry almost every night.

I don't understand why Christians continue to debate these people?

We can forget the arguments that deal with the legalities.

Liberals and atheists only argue on the basis of man's law.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) this is a losing battle.

The government and all who are indebted to the government which includes Judges will win the argument.

As Jesus said to Pilate:

"My kingdom is not of this world.

If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

This is NOT a Christian world any longer!

Lift up your heads, because your deliverance is drawing near." ... Though we may be losers for Christ, we shall not, we cannot be losers by him, in the end. ... though heaven and earth shall pass away, the words of Jesus shall not pass away.

We are fighting these things on their own terms, in their world.

Jesus himself did not argue or debate the merits when Satan claimed that he could give all the nations of the world to him (Jesus) if he would only subject himself to the world

4: 8-10

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.”

I only wish that every Christian would understand .. We are in the world but .. we are no part of the world!