Muslim woman REFUSES to do her job because of her religious beliefs, ISN’T thrown into PRISON

Muslim woman REFUSES to do her job because of her religious beliefs, ISN’T thrown into PRISON.

Hypocrisy? Muslim Airline Attendant Refuses to Serve Alcohol Because of her religious beliefs, Doesn’t Go to Jail.


 

muslim fa

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Leave a Comment

Comment via Facebook

Comment via Disqus

  • SaveTheWorld

    Islam IS the problem

    • Hoss

      True. Why do we insist that Icis is a few radical muslims. They all want to kill us

      • http://mik661.tumblr.com/ Michael H. Dawson

        Isis.

        • MAKE $98/HOUR BY GOOGLE JOBS

          my mate’s mother makes $98 consistently on the PC………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT…..bmq…..

          ➤➤➤➤ https://googlehomejobsnetworkhubonline/earn/$98/hour…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛

          • Nunnyah Biz

            Another of the usurper’s trollbaby recruitment ads!

            Flag it………………..and I mean flag it good!

        • Mary E Heuvel

          Icis looks better. islamic corruption of Iraq and syria.

      • Mikki Ford Cromer

        Yes and all rednecks have incestuous relationships with their sisters. Offensive as hell wasn’t that? Now you know how someone reading your post might feel.

        • Nunnyah Biz

          I’m a redneck and I’m not offended! My skin is a little thicker than yours, obviously!

          • Mikki Ford Cromer

            I guess so. I’m an American and I take offense at any type of hate speech no matter who it is aimed at. Extremism is wrong no matter who is coming from or aiming at.

    • Mikki Ford Cromer

      Way to overreact. ISIS is the problem. Islam is a religion. One I would never practice but that’s like saying Guns Kill People. Be more responsible in your blanket assumptions. Some idiot out there just might listen to you.

  • Combat_Vet

    Fire the ‘Beoutch’

  • riffraft

    Islam is a barbaric religion and it’s time for it to be wiped out! And I would have no issue helping that cause!

    • http://mik661.tumblr.com/ Michael H. Dawson

      Crusades and inquisition. Salem witch trials. Hitler and Germany was Christian.

      • suqsid4

        And you’re an idiot.

      • jimbo124816

        The Crusades were formed to rid Europe of the Muslim invaders, who had kept the Europeans in bondage for over 300 years. They had decided that they had enough. Hitler and Germany were as far from Christian as you can get. Salem was the result of paranoia that swept through a town by people who didn’t have a clue what they were doing.

      • Mary E Heuvel

        No they were NOT christian, they were more catholic, apostate catholic, took cues from Martin Luther. Luther was a great reformer, but when HE decided to singlehandedly convert all Jews, AND FAILED, HE alone proclaimed their unworthiness. Read your HISTORY, guys!!

  • Jenny Curtis Goins

    Most airlines serve alcohol – she shouldve chosen a different profession. The gay judge refusing to marry straight people & this woman refusing to do a part of her job that was obvious before she took the job are merely seeking attention. Stop giving them the attention & maybe people will learn to either do their jobs or find a new line of work like most people do.
    We should handle this like the temper tantrum that it is & ignore it. They’ll be forced to handle it like adults: quit cryin & get a new job!

    • David East

      The dumbass airline shouldn’t have hired her. Now they are stuck with the woman ’cause the courts will be saying they can’t fire her, that would be discriminating against her.

      • jimbo124816

        As I understood by the lawyer’s statement, the flight attendant converted to Islam after she was hired. It’s like buying a house next to an airport and complaining about the noise, and going to court to stop the planes from flying. Or buying a house next to a pig farm, complaining about the smell, and telling the farmer to get rid of his business.

  • Shaniqua

    so she drank and served alcohol before becoming a muslim. Suddenly, she cannot serve alcohol because the muslim says so. She wears a head scarf which is not a part of her uniform for the job. And she now wants to sue her employers for not abiding by her new “religious” committments. As a stewardess, perhaps her employer has the right to rid themselves of her as well, because what then will she do if the muslim tells her to cause a terrorist act as they feel necessary? Follow the muslim request or follow the law or rules of her position in which she already is fighting against.

  • reticle

    Private industry; not the same issue at all. You know this.

    I’d also like to point out that young ms Davis isn’t in ‘prison’; she’s in lockup till she agrees to stop violating the judge’s order. She will be released immediately she begins complying with the law.

    • Pam

      What most people don’t know, are the difference between prison and local jails. After state prisoners are sentenced ,if not sent to a penitentiary in a timely manner , they will file lawsuits to get out of local jails. In local lockups they don’t have a tenth of the opportunities, services and freedoms that are offered them in the Penitentiary. Plus Mrs Davis is in solitary confinement. That means she is in a room just big enough to hold a twin size bed, toilet and maybe a surface to eat from. These cells are used for punishment by depriving the inmate of anything but the bare necessities. No shower , no TV. I am sure she is allowed more things than a regular incarcerated person would be allowed. Plus the Fed’s have their own set of rules that are agreed to by the local jailer and has to be followed for Federal prisoners.

      • reticle

        The purpose of jailing someone for contempt is to encourage them to comply with lawfully issued court orders. Soon as she backs down or quits, she’s free. She holds the key to her cell. She’s not being punished at all.

        • Pam

          Depriving someone of their freedom is incarceration. She broke the law, how can someone be jailed if not. We also jail rapist, murders, and all manners of people who do not follow the law. The only difference is she committed a civil act , disobeying a Judge who held her in contempt by defying his order. She is being punished just like all people who are in jail for not following civil orders. Served and jailed my share of people on those type warrants. She also serves at his pleasure so there are no set guide line. She is being made an example of as a political prisoner, I stand with Kim Davis.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            So you jailed people for refusing to obey pseudo laws, that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL???

            Shame on you! You, obviously have no Honor, Integrity, nor Moral Values! You are a TYRANT and do not deserve to live in our Country!…………………………………..BE GONE!!!

          • Pam

            She was arrested by a Federal Marshall I would imagine. The Fed’s do their own paperwork, the state has no power to touch them even if they have local charges until the Fed’s finish with them. Most in county and warrants from other counties that are issued for a catch all phrase like Contempt of Court , as an example, say someone is arrested for bad checks, goes before the judge, the judge then orders that person to go to each business and pay the face value of the check plus fees in a specified amount of time. He fails to do as ordered , so the judge orders a bench warrant issued for contempt of court. That is of course in criminal court. Civil contempt is actually a rare warrant to see, but not unheard of.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            You judges have the power to nullify, just like juries do……………………………….So do it!!!

          • reticle

            If you had in fact served a lot of contempt warrants you’d know what they’re for — to encourage compliance. When the person complies or when the problem is rectified, the person is generally let out. As was the case in young ms Davis’s situation. This is very different than a criminal sanction — she’s not been accused of a crime afaik.

          • Pam

            I did in fact serve lots of them in the 20 years of my career in Ky, I am very familiar with how the court system works. I stated that it was a civil warrant . It still deprives someone of their freedom. What is your point?

          • reticle

            Well you said she was being ‘punished’ — she was not. People in jail for punishment — say, six months for possessing weed — can’t just promise to give up weed and get out of jail. At any time, she could have agreed to cease her illegal discrimination and been out in short order. It’s not like anyone really wanted to spend the money and time to lock her up just for being a nitwit.

          • Pam

            Yeah they do it all the time , in exchange for completing a drug rehab over seen by drug court. The Supremes usurped the Constitution, they had no power to make law. Religious freedom is the one thing that was specified in the Constitution and was the foundation of our country. Not participating in a process forbidden by her religion is her right. The Supremes took that right away. All they had to do is arrange a process that would satisfy both parties and avoid this madness. After all this should not be about who is the winner, it should be about preserving everyone’s rights. Christians just want the right to follow their faith they could really care less about you sexual preference as long as it involves consenting adults. I am not changing my view point as well as you are not. We are both wasting our time with this thread.

          • reticle

            I’m not concerning myself with the marriage issue right now. My point is merely this — while, yes, a judge can throw you in jail for contempt if you make them mad enough — a week isn’t an uncommon punishment — this was not that. She was put in jail in order to encourage her to comply with the law; she was released when the judge was convinced the law would be complied with. She now says she’s not going to comply, so I imagine she’ll go back soon. She’s definitely going to make bank on this act; she’ll have a book ghostwritten, I’m sure, and will get a slot on some Sunday politics show. Don’t worry yourself too hard on her account.

          • Pam

            I am not concerned with any of it. I have no idea what Church she is affiliated with, but I doubt it is for any personal gain. Just judging by her appearance I can guess the principles of her faith and they are very bedrock. If you are a true Christian you realize that God has a plan and a part for all to play. That will include persecution of the faithful. It is not like these things have not happened in societies in history , when morality goes by the wayside so does the empire. Why should America be any different?

          • reticle

            No one’s talking about immorality either; we’re talking about a minor gubmint official using her minor gubmint power to violate taxpayers’ constitutional rights.

            And get a sweet deal on Fox.

          • Pam

            That is ridiculous.

          • reticle

            Your approval is neither necessary nor sought. I’m dead spot on.

          • Pam

            Obviously haven’t had a lot of contact with the holy roller types as they are called. Anyway if she does it will negate her claim and just make it another person seeking their 15 minutes of fame.

          • reticle

            I have; they are invariably venal and dishonest. She’s loving the attention, and she’s loving the chance to pick on Teh Gayz For Jeebus. She’s just Sarah Palin, only uglier and, if possible, a little dumber.

          • Pam

            This is no longer an exchange, and I have no interest in character assassination. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions , and pay the price of that decision.

          • reticle

            As long as these America haters pay the price for violating the Constitution, I’m good with that.

        • Nunnyah Biz

          She has obeyed the Law!
          She has been jailed for refusing to obey an ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IMMORAL, PERVERTED “OPINION”!

          scotus CANNOT make law!

          • reticle

            She was jailed for violating a lawful court order, and only until the judge was satisfied her office will no longer discriminate. That’s what ‘contempt’ means. Relax. And unstick your caps key.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            scotus CANNOT make law, therefore there was nothing to be held in contempt for! It’s just that simple!!!

          • reticle

            I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect. There are many fine books you could read, and I’m sure your local community college has a course, but for now I’m just gonna leave it there.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            Why read other people’s “interpretations”, when the TRUTH is right there in the Constitution!

            Read It, Learn It, Live It!

          • reticle

            I’m fairly familiar with the Constitution.

            Kentucky’s law violated the Constitution. That problem was fixed; young ms Davis refused to stop violating the Constitution.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            If you’re just going to run around in circles, this discussion is over!

          • reticle

            If by ‘run around in circles’ you mean ‘point out simple legal facts’, then, yeah, I guess you got it right.

      • Nunnyah Biz

        I hope you are not naive enough to believe that jailers treat their prisoners according to law………………they do NOT, especially in the Mason-Dixon belt!
        And she IS being illegally punished for her Righteous beliefs!

        • Pam

          I worked in the system in Ky for 20 years. They are treated better than you think. State jails that hold federal inmates sign contracts with guidelines specifying how their inmates are treated and they are followed. Inmates have more rights than we do and they will sue you in a heartbeat.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            I thought criminals lost all of their rights when imprisoned!

          • Pam

            They have cable color tv, education opportunities, state guidelines for diet, free medical , basketball courts , library and access to a law library if needed, and if you have a religion , a service of your choice.That is just for local jails, prison is 100% better.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            No wonder no thug is afraid of prison anymore!

    • Nunnyah Biz

      She is complying with the Law, God’s Law! Which is what our Constitution is based upon! That’s why Moses and the 10 Commandments are carved into the stone of the scotus building! That’s why the phrase “In God We Trust” is firmly ingrained in American History, and Law!

      She is a True christian and American Patriot, and deserves our support!

      • reticle

        There is no such thing as ‘God’s law’ in the United States, in a legal sense. And if you think on it a little while I’m sure you’ll twig to why this is a good thing.

        • Nunnyah Biz

          Better check out the carvings on the scotus building! God’s Law is well represented in those carvings!!!

          • reticle

            They are, however, irrelevant as far as US jurisprudence. That’s served us well for 200+ years.

    • jimbo124816

      Ms Davis has been released, because there is no real law that says she must issue the marriage Certificate. She was illegally put in prison, and I hope her lawyers file suit against the judge that sentenced her.

      • reticle

        She violated a lawful court order and was jailed for contempt. Happens all the time; she’s not special. She has no grounds to sue. I kinda hope she does anyway.

        • jimbo124816

          If a judge sends a woman to jail for disobeying a law that has not been passed by Congress, he has himself violated her civil rights.

          • reticle

            There are more laws that haven’t been passed by Congress than laws that have. Google ‘case law’; have fun.

  • reticle

    .

    • EVERYONE is born an atheist

      Of course it isn’t the same issue, but the fear-mongers that run this blog need to rile up their readers somehow.

  • Kim Danvers

    Elexis Ortiz why is it that you and so many others say Christians hate? We do not hate these people you refer to. Just like you don’t hate killers, I assume, neither do we…we hate the sin…murder, gay lifestyle (NOT GAY PEOPLE), etc. And you will have your wish one day. We will all be gone and you will no longer have to deal with us. I would appreciate it if you would not attack my religion…I’m not attacking yours. There are so many people calling Christians intolerant…what are those people being when they are lashing out at us…intolerant??? I’m so confused. And where are the lines going to be drawn? There is already talk of doing away with the term pedophile and replacing it with “cross-generational relationship”. Will the world allow for brother and sister, sister and sister, cousins, etc to marry next??? There is no end when there is no morality. Oh, and Christians are bashed every day for being Christians. I guess you know those “poor Muslims” are not only chopping odd the heads of Christians…they HATE gays. They will chop their heads off for being gay. Believe what you want, but stop talking about what you have so little knowledge of.

  • David Akers

    does she work for the government? You don’t say where she works so this piece is biases from the start..try finding one who works in government who refused to do her job….apples to apples dude.

    • Nunnyah Biz

      She’s an airline stewardess, it’s right there in the article.

  • Mikki Ford Cromer

    This is shoddy journalism at it’s finest. It implies that this lady is being treated differently than the “Whatever her name is” who is refusing to give out marriage licenses to gay couples. In that it is dead on correct. But for a very good reason. The zealot in wherever she from who is refusing to do her job is an elected official and as such CANNOT be fired. The ONLY recourse they have is to take her in front of a judge to compel her to follow the law that she agreed to follow when she was elected. She decided that she would let her religion come before her oath of office. That is her right.. But that right comes with a consequence, in this country if you refuse the lawful order of a judge than you are in contempt of court and can be jailed until you agree to comply with the judges order. Now to this ignoramus, she knowingly took a job with a company that she knew would require her to serve alcohol. She refused to fulfill her job responsibilities and such can and should be fired. I suspect like some have speculated that this is a ploy to bring about some monetary gain on her part. It’s disgusting. Both are at best infuriating busybodies and at worst giving any religion a bad name.

    • suqsid4

      Shut your busy pie-hole.

    • Scott M

      Actually, she was a flight attendant first, and then converted to Islam.

      Also, she is not in jail or prison because she didn’t refuse a judge’s order, but she has been effectively fired from her job because another employee complained she was getting special treatment.

      • Mikki Ford Cromer

        You’re right, I had seen that and put a jot in the win column for the government on the second one. As long as we don’t have to hear about her anymore.

    • Nunnyah Biz

      This muslim’s trivial complaint is nothing compared to what Kim Davis did!

      Kim Davis took her Oath BEFORE scotus betrayed and defied God and the 1st Amendment of our God Given Constitution!
      She is a True Christian and American Patriot for doing the RIGHT THING in the face of evil and tyranny!

      She has my support!

      • Mikki Ford Cromer

        If we are invoking the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights than lets not just take the part of it that supports your argument lets look at the WHOLE thing. I quote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” Kim Davis is establishing that her religious beliefs are the only correct view. That breaks the first part of the amendment. As a recognized government official she represents the government when she speaks from her office. She breaks the second part when she denies any other views but her own. There is a little thing there called a semi-colon which means, in this instance, that the first part of the sentence carries on throughout the rest of it. I.E. Congress shall make no law respecting ….abridging the freedom of speech. the rest of the amendment isn’t germane to this discussion. Congress isn’t the one that is abridging Kim Davis’ freedom of speech. Nor is SCOTUS(I hate text speech. It’s lazy) Now if you want to argue that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law not write law. I’m your girl. I don’t know , to be honest that they have the right to make LGBT marriages legal or not. That’s another argument and that’s another day. But on this one the facts don’t back up your findings. Not all Christians believe as Kim Davis and apparently you do. That’s your right. As an American that supports our constitution I applaud your freedom to do so. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say they don’t have a right to force their views on you and turn around and say that you have a right to force yours on the rest of us. You have a right to practice that but you can’t make me or anyone else practice it against their will. Sorry if you disagree but the first amendment gives me the right to freedom of speech.

      • Mikki Ford Cromer

        If you are going to quote the First Amendment you have to use the whole thing. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. She broke the first part because she is a government official deciding that her religious views are the only views that hold merit. Acting in capacity of her office she was deciding “religion” for ALL of us. All Christians don’t believe that homosexuality is against God’s laws. She was never denied the right to exercise her religion away from her governmental capacity but by denying LGBT couples the right to a marriage license she was denying them their right to exercise their religious beliefs of if they had any. Strike two. The part that you tried to argue doesn’t apply because of what it actually says is “Congress shall make no law ……abridging the freedom of speech. (That darn semi-colon) What she did, as a government official, is deny others the right to their free speech and expression. The rest of the first amendment isn’t germane to this discussion. As to SCOTUS (I hate text speech, it’s lazy) you do have an argument for another day and another time as to whether they have a right to say if LGBT marriages are legal. They were formed to INTERPRET the law/constitution not make laws. That’s Congress’ job. But I digress. You cannot deny others the rights they have as citizens of the US because she believes that her way is the one true way. It’s hypocritical and wrong. Sorry if you disagree but I’m exercising my right free speech. She may very well, in your eyes be a “true christian” but the whole idea behind the Amendment that you are manipulating is to prevent precisely what she is doing. This country was formed by christian ideals I will concede that but it was formed in such a way that no ONE religion would dictate the rule of law. That is why we emancipated ourselves from England in the first place.

        • Nunnyah Biz

          You’re wrong right off the bat!

          Ms Davis did not force her religious views upon anyone, the homos tried to FORCE THEIR VIEWS down her throat first! She merely responded appropriately!

          All Christians, that accept the homo/lesbo behavior, are NOT Christian! They have defied God and will answer to Him at the proper time!

          In the eyes of God, homo/lesbos have no religious beliefs, so strike two is rendered moot.

          The rest of your comment is also rendered moot because Marriage was created by God, and Man CANNOT change it in any way, shape, nor form! That’s just a given! If you don’t like it, take it up with God, He’s the ONLY one that can change HIS LAW!!!

          • Mikki Ford Cromer

            You’re right. I’m wrong for presenting logic into the fanatical religious equation. If you don’t realize the hypocrisy in your statement than it’s useless for me to even try to discuss it with you. I’m glad I don’t practice your religion. I embrace that you believe as you believe but I’m glad that you are numbered in the exception not the rule. I can only hope that you learn to use the brain that was invented by God and truly read the Bible.

  • Jacqueline Baker

    First and foremost–as I am reading so many comments “citing” religion–Islam is NOT a religion, it is a LIFESTYLE. A lifestyle that REQUIRES believers to LIE-to-convert, enslave, and kill everyone who does not follow the q’ran. That being said, I must also agree with this Judge–as long as she is not marrying ANYone,not just singling out the heterosexual couples and refusing to marry them. However, since she is refusing to DO THE JOB SHE WAS ELECTED TO,she needs tobe forced to resign. Secondly, since this topic was also introduced to this line of comments….Kim Davis (?) the county clerk who is now in jail for not issuing same-sex marriage licenses…something you need to know about her, she “calls” herself a Christian, however, she and her church DENY the Holy Trinity–the Three-in-one-Godhead. You cannot BE a Christian and deny this, it is central to the Bible’s teachings. Again, if she is refusing to do the job for which she was hired, she needs to be fired. And Thirdly, God DID command the Israelites to kill, and had they been completely obedient, we (the world) wouldn’t now be in the mess we are in! (and that command had nothing to do with conversion and everything to do with what God knew would happen. We were warned.

    • metheoldsarge

      Islam is a hate filled violent cult.

  • Nunnyah Biz

    She won’t serve alcohol because of her muslim beliefs……………………….hmm!

    But she has no problem with the “muslim belief” that it’s OK for her husband to beat the snot out of her before he cuts off her clitty and then brutally rapes her???

    Are those the “beliefs” that she is defending?!

  • jimbo124816

    Both of these women can not be too bright.
    The lawyer and the flight attendant, willingly joined or stayed in a religion and defend it, when the religion says that they can be raped by other men, can be beat by their husband, can be divorced by her husband just by him saying “I divorce you” three times leaving her with absolutely no possessions, can be beat to death by their husband by having all his friends come over to throw rocks at her, can be killed if she happens to show her ankle to someone. If they succeed in changing a country’s law system to Sharia, they will not be permitted to show their face, drive a car, vote, and will be considered to be the property of their husband.
    I can almost understand how a man could adhere to this devilish religion, because he is treated like a king, but when a woman adheres to this way of life, there has to be something wrong with her, mentally.

    • metheoldsarge

      Can anyone imagine Hillary or Michelle adhering to it? If Sharia Law takes over they will have to do just that.

  • metheoldsarge

    It is comparing apples to oranges. One is a elected public official. The other just serves passengers on a plane. Hardly the same thing.

  • Mikki Ford Cromer

    @nunnyahbiz:disqus If you are going to quote the First Amendment you have to use the whole thing. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. She broke the first part because she is a government official deciding that her religious views are the only views that hold merit. Acting in capacity of her office she was deciding “religion” for ALL of us. All Christians don’t believe that homosexuality is against God’s laws. She was never denied the right to exercise her religion away from her governmental capacity but by denying LGBT couples the right to a marriage license she was denying them their right to exercise their religious beliefs of if they had any. Strike two. The part that you tried to argue doesn’t apply because of what it actually says is “Congress shall make no law ……abridging the freedom of speech. (That darn semi-colon) What she did, as a government official, is deny others the right to their free speech and expression. The rest of the first amendment isn’t germane to this discussion. As to SCOTUS (I hate text speech, it’s lazy) you do have an argument for another day and another time as to whether they have a right to say if LGBT marriages are legal. They were formed to INTERPRET the law/constitution not make laws. That’s Congress’ job. But I digress. You cannot deny others the rights they have as citizens of the US because she believes that her way is the one true way. It’s hypocritical and wrong. Sorry if you disagree but I’m exercising my right free speech. She may very well, in your eyes be a “true christian” but the whole idea behind the Amendment that you are manipulating is to prevent precisely what she is doing. This country was formed by christian ideals I will concede that but it was formed in such a way that no ONE religion would dictate the rule of law. That is why we emancipated ourselves from England in the first place

  • ADR

    If I were on a flight knowing a Muslim was part of the crew, pardon me if I am skeptical of my safety. With all the worlds threats, do we not have enough Patriotic Americans who qualify for jobs at our airways?

  • Prazene S

    I believe that as a citizen of America, with freedom of religion, one must not be forced to do things that are against their religion while at work. I believe that when choosing a job, the boss, and the one applying, should make it clear that they have certain religious beliefs that may withstand them from certain obligations. If the boss is not okay with this, the worker should search for a new place to work. I do not believe, as a citizen of the United States, with freedom of religion, that one should be forced to go against their religion because of a job. When the Muslim woman refuses to serve alcohol on the plane to a flyer, I believe that is not something to be fired, or yelled at for. The situation could have run much more smoothly by having the flight attendant ask another one to serve the drink. There is also the fact that as a flight attendant, you are aware that part of your job includes serving alcohol to those who want it. If the woman’s religious beliefs would hold her from being able to do part of her job, she should’ve spoken to the boss about it and made arrangements to run more smoothly. I don’t think that this woman should be thrown into prison for following her beliefs, especially when she lives in the “religiously free” country.