The newspaper article on the case was very interesting. The woman was represented by the National Right to Work [for less], a rabidly anti-union bunch. Get a load of the loaded language the RTW types use, describing the union local president as a "union boss" and implying that workers who belong to unions are somehow being forced or coerced into joining. For anybody who doesn't get that white christian nationalism and vicious anti-worker policies are joined at the hip and have been for a long time, here's modern exhibit A.
So she sent multiple messages harassing a union leader for attending a women’s March and was fired for that? I assume companies have policies against harassment that allows this to be a fireable offense. I struggle to see how this was in anyway an infringement on her religious freedom. She’s welcome to believe abortion is wrong if she wants, but she shouldn’t be allowed to harass those who disagree with her.
The Alliance for Defending Freedom, is more about Christian privilege than actual freedom. People who constantly talk about religious liberty are rarely talking about anyone's liberty but their own. There is no job worth submitting to this class to keep. I will respect your right to believe what you wish, just as long as you don't try to force it on me. I will NEVER have any respect your supernatural beliefs.
[sigh ... pardon me. Just back from mowing the lawn and I'm all of a muck sweat!]
How many different ways is this screwed up? Between Southwest Airlines poking their noses where they should in no ways be welcome and Judge Starr pulling the ADF out of his tailbone as a cure where there is neither disease nor wrongdoing is fucked up beyond all recognition. While I'm not certain that the three lawyers would consider referring to the Freedom From Religion Foundation or American Atheists for support in contesting this case, I would LOVE to see either or both of them at least investigate and perhaps offer their own take on this ridiculous mess.
Regardless, I can see 100 different ways this could get MORE tangled, and followup is clearly indicated.
It seems to me that perhaps Starr is the one who should be attending classes on religious freedom...
Following the landmark ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, Starr signed an opinion letter claiming that despite the Supreme Court establishing what he referred to as a “new constitutional right,” civil servants, including clerks, judges, and justices of the peace, could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Starr supported a Texas House bill that advocates explained would provide “religious based groups a license to discriminate, allowing them to refuse to place foster children with gay couples or families with different religious backgrounds.”
Starr defended a bill (“Hope for Orphans and Minors Expansion Act,” or HOME Act) which would prohibit the state from addressing groups who deny adoption services to same-sex couples based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Advocates argued that the bill could even permit these groups to impose harmful disciplinary actions on children under the guise of religion, such as conversion therapy, without the state being able to intervene.
So, this implies that being anti-abortion is actually a religious view, and this case sets a precedent to evidence that. We need more of these sorts of cases where they (the courts) formally declare anti-abortion views to be based in religious views. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state, and while the Christian right has been more emboldened to say plainly that they don’t believe that, and the zealots in the SCOTUS are willing to throw away precedent and cite British witch hunter laws to justify rolling back rights, we still need them to say it aloud, and on record. And a judge forcing people to attend a specific religion’s terrorist training course as a corrective measure, for allegedly breaching religious discrimination law, is another precedent being set, and it supports the one stating that anti-abortion views are based in religion.
It should be easy enough to contest the training course as being favorable to a single religion above all others, given the people who created it. That in itself is religious discrimination. And, if they are still forced to attend, they should record the entire thing and share it publicly.
The point has been made here more than once that a certain type of Christian ceaseless yearns for the days when they could punish those seen as insufficiently faithful.
I get the feeling this there's more going on here than we know at this time. This decision seems highly suspect, and while there is no evidence that any money or favors have changed hands, it seems like the sort of decision that would result from such. At best this judge is asking a group of people who are somewhere between lobbyists and dubious litigators to 'teach' something said group has a vested interest in perceiving a specific way.
No reputable workplace would allow any employee to express their opinion in the way Charlene Carter did; if I were to write something of that nature at any of my former jobs I would fully expect to be fired on the spot. Such behavior is unprofessional, promotes poor morale, and generally is not conducive to a healthy workplace environment. Ms. Charter might want to be careful with that settlement, since this suit might make it hard for her to find gainful employment anywhere else for a while.
Good luck to Southwest Airlines, and wow is that something I never expected to actually type out in my lifetime. :p
I find it suspect that a judge mandated a specific group provide this training. The fact that it was ADF is just shit on top of manure.
The newspaper article on the case was very interesting. The woman was represented by the National Right to Work [for less], a rabidly anti-union bunch. Get a load of the loaded language the RTW types use, describing the union local president as a "union boss" and implying that workers who belong to unions are somehow being forced or coerced into joining. For anybody who doesn't get that white christian nationalism and vicious anti-worker policies are joined at the hip and have been for a long time, here's modern exhibit A.
So she sent multiple messages harassing a union leader for attending a women’s March and was fired for that? I assume companies have policies against harassment that allows this to be a fireable offense. I struggle to see how this was in anyway an infringement on her religious freedom. She’s welcome to believe abortion is wrong if she wants, but she shouldn’t be allowed to harass those who disagree with her.
The Alliance for Defending Freedom, is more about Christian privilege than actual freedom. People who constantly talk about religious liberty are rarely talking about anyone's liberty but their own. There is no job worth submitting to this class to keep. I will respect your right to believe what you wish, just as long as you don't try to force it on me. I will NEVER have any respect your supernatural beliefs.
I can’t believe what I’m reading
[sigh ... pardon me. Just back from mowing the lawn and I'm all of a muck sweat!]
How many different ways is this screwed up? Between Southwest Airlines poking their noses where they should in no ways be welcome and Judge Starr pulling the ADF out of his tailbone as a cure where there is neither disease nor wrongdoing is fucked up beyond all recognition. While I'm not certain that the three lawyers would consider referring to the Freedom From Religion Foundation or American Atheists for support in contesting this case, I would LOVE to see either or both of them at least investigate and perhaps offer their own take on this ridiculous mess.
Regardless, I can see 100 different ways this could get MORE tangled, and followup is clearly indicated.
It seems to me that perhaps Starr is the one who should be attending classes on religious freedom...
Following the landmark ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, Starr signed an opinion letter claiming that despite the Supreme Court establishing what he referred to as a “new constitutional right,” civil servants, including clerks, judges, and justices of the peace, could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Starr supported a Texas House bill that advocates explained would provide “religious based groups a license to discriminate, allowing them to refuse to place foster children with gay couples or families with different religious backgrounds.”
Starr defended a bill (“Hope for Orphans and Minors Expansion Act,” or HOME Act) which would prohibit the state from addressing groups who deny adoption services to same-sex couples based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Advocates argued that the bill could even permit these groups to impose harmful disciplinary actions on children under the guise of religion, such as conversion therapy, without the state being able to intervene.
Source: https://www.afj.org/document/brantley-starr-background-report/
So, this implies that being anti-abortion is actually a religious view, and this case sets a precedent to evidence that. We need more of these sorts of cases where they (the courts) formally declare anti-abortion views to be based in religious views. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state, and while the Christian right has been more emboldened to say plainly that they don’t believe that, and the zealots in the SCOTUS are willing to throw away precedent and cite British witch hunter laws to justify rolling back rights, we still need them to say it aloud, and on record. And a judge forcing people to attend a specific religion’s terrorist training course as a corrective measure, for allegedly breaching religious discrimination law, is another precedent being set, and it supports the one stating that anti-abortion views are based in religion.
It should be easy enough to contest the training course as being favorable to a single religion above all others, given the people who created it. That in itself is religious discrimination. And, if they are still forced to attend, they should record the entire thing and share it publicly.
Christian Nazi say what?
“It’s hard to see how Southwest could have violated the notice requirement more.”
Really? Your imagination is that impoverished? They could've said "No, we aren't going to do it!"
By hook or by crook I'm the 1st in this book. :) And this judge seems just a little partisan? (That is typical Kiwi understatement by the way.)
The point has been made here more than once that a certain type of Christian ceaseless yearns for the days when they could punish those seen as insufficiently faithful.
Exhibit A
it has now been officially called. It looks like Ohio Issue 1 is about to fail.
I get the feeling this there's more going on here than we know at this time. This decision seems highly suspect, and while there is no evidence that any money or favors have changed hands, it seems like the sort of decision that would result from such. At best this judge is asking a group of people who are somewhere between lobbyists and dubious litigators to 'teach' something said group has a vested interest in perceiving a specific way.
No reputable workplace would allow any employee to express their opinion in the way Charlene Carter did; if I were to write something of that nature at any of my former jobs I would fully expect to be fired on the spot. Such behavior is unprofessional, promotes poor morale, and generally is not conducive to a healthy workplace environment. Ms. Charter might want to be careful with that settlement, since this suit might make it hard for her to find gainful employment anywhere else for a while.
Good luck to Southwest Airlines, and wow is that something I never expected to actually type out in my lifetime. :p
let them fight.
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1688912706374664199
Religious freedom training? I suggest the FFRF.