Wednesday, September 09, 2015


Talking Points Memo reports:
Huck Won't Say If Religious Freedom Extends To Muslim Flight Attendant

After defending Kentucky clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Wednesday would not say whether a Muslim flight attendant should be able to deny alcohol to passengers on a flight.

CNN's Alisyn Camerota asked Huckabee about Charee Stanley, a flight attendant for ExpressJet who was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. She said it violated her religious beliefs.

"Historically we have made accommodations for people with religious convictions," Huckabee said when asked if he Stanley has the right to refuse to serve alcohol.

"You've seen it in Michigan where they spent $25,000 providing foot baths for Muslims students," he said, adding that the U.S. gave prayer mats to prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

When asked again if he supports Stanley's refusal to serve alcohol, Huckabee said, "I think people try to make accommodations wherever they can."

"Sometimes maybe it can't be done, but in this case there was no attempt to make an accommodation to Kim Davis," he said....
Well, we know how the right feels about any such accommodations for Muslims -- we certainly know what conservatives generally think about this flight attendant. Here's Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit:
Isn’t serving alcohol about 50% of her workload?

Does she refuse to serve bacon, too?

Charee Stanley converted to the Religion of Peace two years ago.
See also the response at Free Republic in 2007 when Muslim cabdrivers at the Minneapolis airport who were refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol were ordered to accept those passengers:
If the cabbies don’t like it, let them go to work for Sanitation. Perhaps they’d prefer picking up the pork scraps from Chinese restaurants.

Works for me.


What about customers who say no (take me for a) ride to Muzzie taxi drivers? Is that still allowed in the United States of America?


Good news. Now if we could only vote jihad into extinction.
Conservatives were incensed two years ago when Marks & Spencer in Britain announced a policy allowing Muslim cashiers not to ring up alcohol or pork. Earlier this year, Allen West was furious when a cashier he thought was Muslim refused to ring up his alcohol purchase. (It turned out that the clerk was underage and was thus not legally allowed to sell alcohol.) Hell, Pamela Geller has expressed outrage when cabdrivers believed to be Muslim have refused service to gay couples. (Yes, some on the right will stick up for gay people when their antagonists are believed to be Muslim. See also this Free Republic thread from 2006, in which Freepers stick up for a transsexual -- no, really -- who was refused service by a Muslim cabbie.)

I happen to agree that you should probably avoid a service job if you're not willing to perform some of the likely tasks. I think cabdrivers shouldn't refuse passengers on religious grounds (although, as The Washington Post's Euguene Volokh notes, the law requires employers to accommodate religious objections to job tasks if a reasonably workaround can be found).

Christianists, however, generally believe that only their religion should be accommodated. (Oh, maybe Judaism as well.) Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski challenged Huckabee on this earlier today:
“Jesus was much more explicit about divorce,” Scarborough said. “And you could much more easily make an argument that a judge would refuse to grant divorces because Jesus was much more explicit about divorce equaling adultery. So what would you think if a judge in Arkansas said ‘I’m not going to divorce these people, because Jesus Christ said that divorce is an abomination and that it is adultery’?”

...Huckabee attempted to dodge the question....
But the right mostly believes in an "our rights good, their rights evil" standard.


Victor said...

"Christian POV (well, actually, MOST religions):"
Our God is the real God.
All others are false Gods!

Therefore, their customs and religious requirements are bogus and need not be acknowledge, and only our customs and religious requirements are true - and must be acknowledged and followed!

Look, if there's some things your religion tells you that you shouldn't and can't do, then find a job that doesn't require you to do those things.

Reasonable accommodations are one thing, but the Bible and Koran - and probably all other religious "How-to" books - have thousands of things that are verboten.

Outside of alcohol and pork, can I, as a devout Muslim or Jew, decline to serve someone wearing clothing comprised of different fibers and skins?
Can I decline to serve a male who doesn't have a beard - or a woman whose head isn't covered?
Can I keep my job at Red Lobster as a wait-staff person if my religion prohibits me from coming close to shellfish and bottom-feeding fish - oh, and alcohol?
Uhm... How?

There are a lot of Bronze Age rules.
Do we have to accommodate all of them for the believers?
They can pull thousands of prohibitions out of their asses.

You want the job?
Do it.
You can't do it?
Find another job?

This isn't that tough.

Never Ben Better said...

Hypocracy from that holy fool? No!!! Really?????

Why, next you'll be telling me there's gambling going on in this cafe!