Flying through the religious liberty skies. Southwest will appeal the judge's ruling requiring religious
liberty training. This is written by Daniel Weisner on August eight, twenty twenty
three for Reuters, and in this article we go over how a judge is
ordering Southwest Airlines employees three attorneys, to be more specific, to attend religious
liberty training. Now, this religious liberty training, ironically, is being carried
out by a Christian group about Christian quote unquote ethics. At first glance,
I see a judge using authority to prop up Christian values, which is a
blatant constitutional violation. But before I get into that, I'd like to hear
with Rob. Excuse me what Aaron and Helen and Rob have to say.
Aaron, Yeah, I did a little I'd read the Wikipedia article on this
group that they're supposedly have to go and get this liberty, this religious liberty
training, and this is not a good group. I would not want to
get any kind of training from these folks. The Southern Poverty Law Center designates
them as an anti LGBT hate group. They have become one of the most
influential groups in forming the previous administration's attack on LGBTQ rights. They've they have
many anti lgbt legal positions. They oppose same sex marriage. They want to
decriminalize uh, same sexual activity. Uh, or they want to criminalize it.
They want they do they want to decriminalize it. Yes, it opposes
decriminalizing it. It opposes anti discrimination laws, and they're they take an active
role in writing anti transgender bills for state legislatures. I just I can't believe
this. This judge is being so blatantly, I don't know, anti liberty
by forcing this training on on this on these lawyers. Granted, the lawyers
aren't following the judges instructions. They're kind of, you know, throw a
little fit. They don't agree with the ruling that they got, and so
they're kind of dragging their feet. I get it, But that doesn't mean
you have to go send them to a group that essentially brainwashes people. Uh.
And this whole religious liberty argument, uh, when it comes up,
and it seems to be the it's it's about people's religious liberty to treat other
people like crap and to be bigoted and and to not be kind and to
not accept people for who they are. And it's just makes me want to
You're just too woke. It's just sorry, you're just too woke. Yeah,
Rob, taking away all I'm gonna, I'm gonna. Yeah. Well,
so I actually opened up and I read the God helped me legal memorandum,
opinion and order granting sanctions that have The judge from Texas wrote, by
the way, I was surprised it wasn't for Florida, but it was Texas.
So I guess you know We're not the only shitty place. Rob Okay.
So part of what the judge wrote was, this is a quote.
Take these modified historical and movie anecdotes. After God told Adam you must not
eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, imagine Adam telling God,
I did not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden while
there is an apple court his feet, and then he gives a second example,
or where Gandolf bellows you shall not pass. I do not pass while
strolling past Gandoff. And then the judge says, either you know either of
those things is a historical anecdote. So does he think the Bible is a
historical anecdote or the Lord of the Ring's tale is a historic he's thinking one
of those is a historical anecdote. So you know, I can't take anything
this guy so seriously. I mean, that is like ridiculous to put this
in an official court order from you know, a position of authority in the
United States's it. So when I was reading over this article, like,
I am all for people getting like ethics training, you know, how to
get along with their fellow employees, because like we we've we've all had jobs
and we've all had to do a certain amount of personal and trading how to
get along with co workers, all that type of stuff. Like I have
no problem with that, but the fact that this was a religious moral ethic
course, which really really bothers me because is that, like, listen,
I got y'all know that I'm an atheist activist. Everybody knows that. But
if I was Pagan or Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or anything else that or
atheist or whatever you are that doesn't want to conform to this type of training,
it and you don't have an option to opt out of it. It
was it was required under what Southwest wanted to do with this religious group,
which is disgusting because if you are have the option when like, if you're
like follow different religious faith to be like, you know what, I don't
want to do this and give it. It was required about with the upper
executives, but that could have trickled down because we know how these things work.
So that was that caused me a little bit of pause. And I
understand and we have talked over and over again on the show of people who
are either atheists or people that don't follow a certain religious ideology wanting to opt
out a certain training, certain trainings are say, is like going to morning
prayer when they don't hold the same belief and then finding that their jobs might
be in jeopardy. And this is just some reminder that these things keep happening,
and it just really bothers me because we should when you're under an equal
opportunity of employer, maybe you should extend that also to people that might have
different religions in you or have no religion, you know, just saying anyway,
Jimmy, please go, please talk to me. Yeah. I find
it ironic that the judge in this case, in his ruling sites previous case
law in which defendants were required to attend ethics training and continuing education courses.
But then by using that as the precedent, forces these these Southwest Airlines employees
to attend Christian courses. These are not the same. Christianity and ethics are
not the same. And if the judge actually knew anything about this religion,
about the Good Book, uh, you know, he might not be so
ignorant to the ethical dilemmas of Christianity. Uh. And in conclusion, I
mean, I think that imposing religion in this case, using the court system
to do it, is quite alarming, and so it should be taken seriously.
It's a dangerous precedent even for christian but for everyone who could face what
I'll call, you know, reverse religious discrimination, right, so attempted in
doctoration as a penalty for an act that conflicts with somebody else's religious values.
You know this this could backfire, uh, you know, making something like
this the precedent, and and I just I find it shocking, disgusting,
uh, and it is unconstitutional in my opinion. So I hope to see
uh the appeal go through and for this to be overturned. Aaron, what
do you think about all that? Yeah, you know, there's a reason
we keep religion out of government. And out of law. You know,
when you come together as a society, you have to you have to kind
of agree on some common framework on how we're all going to live together.
And if you choose religion, well, depending on what your religious beliefs are,
that could be pretty oppressive to other groups of people. And we've seen
historically that religious groups tend to be oppressive, They tend to inflict serious harm
on groups of people that they don't like. So that's why we as skeptics
and as atheists don't We don't want religion in our government. We want it
out. And so we have to come to an agreement on what what are
we going to base our our community, o our country on. And we've
decided that we're going to base it on laws that every everybody is going to
be subject to the same laws. They're going to be governed the same way.
Rich or poor. Uh, it doesn't it doesn't matter. We're all
subject to laws. And these laws help us get along and help and help
create liberty, help create equality, give people equal chances and equal opportunities.
And by introducing, by the slow creep of religion into our law and into
our our government, it slowly is eroding a way that our actual liberties and
our actual freedoms, and so is like, I share this, this concern
that you expressed, Jimmy, that this this little this judge is doing something
that is unacceptable to send people to get this uh AT liberty, this religious
liberty training. You know, it might be a good thing. I don't
think it is, but you certainly shouldn't be giving it from an obviously biased
group as this uh as this, as this ADF group is. And I'm
just I share your concern. I'm really worried. This seems to be happening
more and more where people are using religious arguments to support the law, and
that's just that's not what we need. That's not what we want. We
want we want Christian liberty. It's not even religious liberty, right, they're
not teaching Christian liberty. Religion. Yeah, it's it's it's liberty for the
majority. It's liberty for people that you know are Christian, and it's not
liberty for any else. That's not Christian freedom. For me, that's for
the yes, yes, you know, and I know I keep saying that's
when we you know, over and over again. But that's what's happening,
you know, and they plot, they cry religious freedom. It's only religious
freedom for them to screw everybody else and wait, rob go ahead. Yeah,
so everyone's agreeing on all this, but I want to I want to
change it a little bit, change it up, just a little bit.
So you know, I have tried to stay away from the legal system because
my little interfacing with lawyers is not They're not as brilliant as people think they
are. Like I had a real estate attorney and my wife and I had
to rewrite everything she ever wrote before she sent it out because the first thing
she sent back out us in trouble because she was an idiot. So I'm
looking at at what the judge actually said, and I want to come down
a little bit on the Southwest people too. The court ordered Southwest to inform
Southwest flight attendants that they may not discriminated against Southwest flight attendants for religious practices
and beliefs. All right, we might agree with that, or maybe you
do, but it says may not. That's the key words. So what
Southwest wenton did is they wrote, we to their employees, Southwest does not
discriminate against our employees or like they change, may not too, does not.
It's like like that means nothing. It changed the whole gist of the
instruction that they were ordered to do. I mean, what the hell is
wrong with lawyers. That's bizarre because lawyers are people. They're falliable, robble,
fallible, fallible, both they're both. They're they're fallible and fallible at
the same time. It's them for a legal tantrum. I think they're just
sort of legal tantrum. They didn't agree with the rule, and so they're
just gonna change that may not that does that. We do not do this
no matter what the jury's in. And and look looking at the attorneys that
Trump hires, like, you know, not a brain amongst them, and
so you know what kind of stuff. Well, I think they still mess
Yea, he knows all the best people, Rob, I know the best
people. I do want to point out something that struck me when I was
reading this article, because if there's sexism, I'm gonna sniff it out.
And the US District Judge Brandley Starr, who had talked about the lawyers in
this case, has undermined his earlier ruling in a religious bias case against student
flight attendant Charlene Carter. Sara has said that instead of notifying employees of their
rights against religious discrimination as he had ordered, Southwest ad the lawyer's pande memo
warning workers not to violate the company policy that led to fire Carter. Carter
says she was fired for criticizing her union's decision to participate to participate in the
twenty seventeen Woman's March, a nationwide protest falling the inaugurguration of Donald Trump,
because Plan Parent was a sponsor. Carter has said she's a Christian who opposes
abortion, So this isn't We're not just talking about just Christianity. This is
a woman that worked at the company, wanted to participate in this march,
and as a Christian that wants people to have equal access to abortion. So
bias munch and and I keep we keep seeing this though, were the law
is supposed to be impartial, where the best evidence is presented and then they
make laws about it. Now it's like, well, you know, your
sky daddy is telling me that you know this is the moral you know reality
we have to live in. So we're gonna go with the sky daddy.
And it's just it just so so much that was the thing that really chucked
out for me as a feminist and a person that a humanist and people being
having a cooxis to healthcare and things. So hell and so did you really
did you read enough about it to hear the part about sending aboarded fetus pictures
to multiple people? Did you? Did you catch up? Did you catch
that? Yes? I did? Don't? Yeah, and and and that's
the thing, And this is the thing I think those of us who are
talking out against these things, is that if you're playing on people's emotions,
you're not going to help them engage with things logically and separate their emotions your
and I will say your emotions are valid, but it's always is what you
do with your feelings. And you can think that you know, boar de
fetuses are gross and also think that, oh, this is just you know,
I'm something that's trying to get into into my brain brain and manipulate me
emotionally, and also separate that people can make decisions for themselves. He can
do both. It's fine. Anyway, I went, I did a feminist
rant. I did my quota. So Jimmy, please give me more opinions
on the women's rights. Are human rights. Okay, no issue there.
But the what I would have liked to see is a line drawn between the
case of Southwest Airlines firing Miss Carter Carter, Miss Carter, and then the
judge issuing his ruling the way that he did, because I think what's happening
is that the judge is just retaliating against Southwest Airlines for penalizing a Christian and
in doing so, I think he's using the legal system, using the Constitution,
to infuse his own religious ideology, and that is a major deal.
Uh, and that is something that can't fly. So I would I would
almost take the Southwest Airlines, you know, I would want to take that
it's in its own category and kind of analyze that independently and say, well,
yeah, she should have the right, you know, to to act
in accordance with her values and not be terminated with him. I think that
the point that we're missing though there is that Well, maybe for Southwest Airlines
there was some policy that was violated. I didn't look into this, you
know, too deeply, but from what I gathered is that she violated some
company policy and was terminated for it. Now, whether that was a you
know, religious discrimination case, that should be examined, but a judge should
not be infusing his own religious values to penalize that company for that. And
so that's what I think is happening. Uh and again dangerous precedent. I
read the Aaron. I read a news article the original case, and it
wasn't that she was had different views. She wasn't being fired for having her
views. People have their views, she was sharing them on Facebook. The
problem she was she was harassing people. Southwest claimed that she was harassing people
about it. She wouldn't let it go and she was, like I said,
setting pictures that people didn't want to see and all this stuff. And
uh, she did some stuff with her with her union. I'm not sure
exactly what I was. I wasn't able to find out, but it was
she crossed the line, is what Southwest contended, and a jury didn't agree.
So I mean take that, take that with what it is. I'm
too familiar with it. But the jury didn't agree, and she won in
Southwest, and I think another group are appealing the decision. And uh,
yeah, Rob, yeah, well she crossed the line. Yeah, multiple
pictures as ever called multiple years of harassing people. It should have been an
harassment case, never mind religious freedom. It's like, you know, sending
pictures of dead bodies, whether or not the fetuses or older humans. It's
like just not appropriate to people. You don't do that, even if you,
for some reason believe it's going to change minds to come around your way
of thinking regarding an issue that's come to you because of your religion. So
you know, she crossed the line. I don't know, Southwest, you
know it's wrong for firing her for harassment, but I don't know. But
the judge clearly crossed the line. Is everyone here is agreeing, and you
know, we'll see what happens if this is taken up by a higher court.
It's all all I can say about it. I think the frustration comes
to is that also as well, is that this Southwest is a very big
corporation, and this is where a lot of the focus is going. But
we here again and again of religious ideologies and predices. Like I know,
I know, I'm kind of beating a dead horse with this, but it's
infiltrating a lot of American businesses. And when you're a big corporation, like
it's not like a private company like you own your local like pest control,
you know, business and you have like a you have a Jesus fish in
your truck, and people can be like, okay, well there a Christian
company. I don't want to, you know, align my values there,
so you have an option to not participate in it. But Southwest is a
huge corporations with thousands and thousands of employees, and if they're going to force
them to do religious liberty training, okay, not cool man. And also
with Carter do I have bigsed feelings about it, But I don't think the
judge should have ruled and hand it's opinion the way that he did, because
I get it, you shouldn't harass your fellow co workers, and I don't
care what side defense you're on, don't do that. But the other side
of it is just like, well, if you're being biased, we're talking
about a different thing at this point. And I think that's the problem that
we're talking about. Because I can talk about her ethically, I can talk
about like, hey, you know it, don't do that, because if
she did, it looks really really bad. But on the flip side of
it, why you why are you deciding to rule on this in the way
that you are, and that's and that's the thing we're criticizing. Because we
can talk about the wants of the case, we can talk about our own
ethics and perceptions of it, but what we're really looking at is that this
is an example of religion infiltrating what it is supposed to be a public sphere.
So yeah, I'm just saying that it's kind of it's a problems.
It's a problem. So anyway, Jimmy, do you want to give your
final thoughts on this. I think we've said it all. I think that
was a very good wrap up. So I think I'm gonna roll with that.
You know, I ammiate everybody's comments on this topic. Yeah, Aaron,
you got anything you want to say? Rob, Nope, nope,
nope. I think we've come. We've beat the dead Southwest. We have
beat this horse. So if you want us to cee us be more dead
horses, click above you and subscribe and watch the videos.