Who is Charee Stanley?

[sherryinutah]

Charee Stanley is a Muslim flight attendant and she's suing an airline after she was suspended from her job for refusing to serve alcohol. Charee Stanley was an employee at ExpressJet for three years. After converting to Islam she found out that her religion forbids her from serving alcohol to others, as well as drinking it.

She's now on unpaid leave and may eventually lose her job.  What do you think about this?

I believe she should choose a different line of work where her job duties are in sync with her religious beliefs.  Some of these people need to get real.

 

[braggin]

I agree with you. All the people who can't do a certain portion of their job due to religious or other beliefs should not be in those jobs to begin with. Or they should be fired from the job. It is up to you to go after jobs that are consistent with your beliefs.

[bremer51]

Every job has requirements.  If you can't fulfill those requirements, its not the job for you and you should look elsewhere for employment.

[Nancy5]

Have to agree with everyone.  If your job has certain requirements and you can't or won't do them then you shove either quit to be terminated.  It's funny in her case, she had the job before she converted, knowing full well what the requirements are, but now since converting won't do them.  Maybe she should of thought about that before converting and left on her own.  Everyone wants to sue everyone, getting so sick of this.

[JediJohnnie]

Much like the Kim Davis situation, she shouldn't be forced to compromise her beliefs. It should be a simple enough solution to have her leave the alcohol serving to other flight attendants, while she compensates on another aspect of the job.   

[plennis]

Apparently from reports I have heard, she would not serve alcohol.  But she was not doing any extra duty elsewhere.  The whole thing came to a head when other attendants complained about her not pulling her own weight on the job.

[debidoo]

I agree completely.  Now the people who refused to bake a "gay" cake should have that right its their business.  Although to me their rights are being taken away to run their business as they see fit. But the lady who works for the government being put in jail for not issuing "gay" marriage license should find a new job and this stewardess should do the same.  They have to abide by the rules and guidelines of their employer they don't have the right to make their own rules.  It is ridiculous in my opinion.

[tgreen20]

Well she should of changed career's....people are just so stupid.......It's like being a vegan but want to have a problem because you are now a waitress (a career that person picked) and don't want to serve meat....

The world is crazy, stay in doors....lol

[BlackSheepNY]

Charee Stanley is a Muslim flight attendant and she's suing an airline after she was suspended from her job for refusing to serve alcohol. Charee Stanley was an employee at ExpressJet for three years. After converting to Islam she found out that her religion forbids her from serving alcohol to others, as well as drinking it.

She's now on unpaid leave and may eventually lose her job.  What do you think about this?

I believe she should choose a different line of work where her job duties are in sync with her religious beliefs.  Some of these people need to get real.

 

Agreed.  I think some of these people take these jobs already knowing they wouldn't do certain things REQUIRED of the job, then scream "discrimination" and sue.  These are the types of law suits that every judge should throw right out the window.

[bowrunner]

She has a job that requires her to serve liquor.  She knew that when she took the job so if she no longer approves of serving liquor then she needs to get a different job.  It's not as though the airline suddenly threw this at her after she converted.  She's been serving liquor for nearly 3 years.  What an idiot.

[lguzman1]

i agree with you. I also have some religious believes and I just don't work where I can't do those thing because of my believes.

[ktheodos]

Sounds similar to the kim davis story

[tgreen20]

Sooo true, I'm not going to apply for a job knowing I can't do a part of my job....

[gaylasue]

I agree!!

[lvstephanie]

I agree completely.  Now the people who refused to bake a "gay" cake should have that right its their business.  Although to me their rights are being taken away to run their business as they see fit. But the lady who works for the government being put in jail for not issuing "gay" marriage license should find a new job and this stewardess should do the same.  They have to abide by the rules and guidelines of their employer they don't have the right to make their own rules.  It is ridiculous in my opinion.

I agree completely with this sentiment. The real issue is whose freedom is being infringed upon. The government creating a law that forces a business to do something that is against the owner's moral convictions is different than an employee not wanting to do some requirement of their employment. When the government makes a law that forces all businesses to comply with, the government is not allowing that company the freedom to conduct business as they wish (government ultimately can use physical force in order to make the companies comply). However the company doesn't have the ability to "force" the employee to do any work except for the ability not to pay the employee for not fulfilling their job duties. An employee not wishing to do a certain function of their job always has the freedom to work for that company and compromise on their beliefs, or to work elsewhere (perhaps even a direct competitor) that allows them to maintain those beliefs.

The Kim Davis case is slightly different only in that the job requirement changed while she was employed. However since this change wasn't made overnight and caught Kim by surprise, she should have made the decision whether to continue working as a clerk and issue any legal marriage licenses, or change jobs so that it wouldn't go against her beliefs. The other major difference was that in the case of Kim, she was going against state laws which is why they were able to imprison her for not complying; Charee, however, won't be imprisoned for not doing her job, but rather she might not be paid by the airline for not completing the duties of her job (as was the agreement that was made at the time of employment).