Southwest Airlines religious discrimination

This civil contempt order from anther Trump judge that should not have power was going around Twitter yesterday, ordering three Southwest attorneys to undergo mandatory religious Liberty training from lupine liberty hate group Alliance Defending Freedom. Southwest was tagged for fees, which likely makes sense given the language of the order, and had a new message dictated for them to send out to employees. But the mandatory training part of the order is indefensible.



But I was interested in the underlying facts that led to the judgment that Southwest had violated one employee’s religious liberty by terminating her for religious beliefs. And that was covered in greater depth today by Judd Legum

https://open.substack.com/pub/popul...s-to?r=2cipm&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post




How did this happen? Starr's ruling is related to a case filed by Charlene Carter, a Southwest flight attendant, against the company. According to Southwest, Carter was terminated on March 14, 2017 for "a two-year grossly offensive and terrible campaign to personally torment Audrey Stone, the then-President of Transportation Workers Union, Local 556." The company says that "Carter sent dozens upon dozens of messages to Stone’s Facebook Messenger account." The messages "ranged from the insults and name-calling to overtly grotesque imagery designed to inflict severe emotional distress." Some of the messages included "images and videos of aborted fetuses along with an image of women wearing headdresses that looked like anatomically correct vaginas." While Stone initially ignored Carter's communications, it eventually became too much, and she reported the harassment to her supervisor.






Carter does not deny sending these messages but claims, among other things, that her termination constituted illegal discrimination "for her religious beliefs and practices." Carter said she had a right to share her "religious views" with Stone "while off-duty and without any impact on the workplace." Carter says she is a "Christian who believes that abortion is the taking of a human life contrary to the teachings of the Bible and the will of God" and "sincere religious beliefs require her to share with others that abortion is the taking of a human life."

Southwest says Carter's termination "had nothing to do with her religious beliefs." Further, the company argued, "the right to share any material related to abortion without restriction, no matter how graphic or offensive – is not mandated by her stated religious belief." Southwest noted that the "managers who Carter deposed in this case expressly testified that they share her pro-life convictions and have no animus against Christians." Rather, Carter's managers terminated her employment because Carter chose to engage in "a systemic campaign of torment and harassment upon Stone."

So I will avoid the legal issues right now over whether an employer has any right to intervene when one employee states that their religion requires them to undergo a coordinated campaign of harassment over years against another employee while outside the office. I’m quite certain that this seemingly neutral sounding formulation would never protect believers of other religions to the same extent. Think I read that she also received a substantial damage award.

But I also thought about this passage from a coincidentally issued substack on how society can survive this time of polarization, specifically these passages (the whole thing is worth a read)

This requires every citizen and political faction to accept some ground rules:

(1) A constitutional framework of fair and equal rights for all, protected by the rule of law; (2) A basic commitment to value pluralism in life, mainly, “You have your views and I have mine, and even if I don’t agree with these views, I respect your right to hold them”; and (3) A pragmatic willingness among citizens and representatives to put aside their own values or interests at times to do things in concert with others and advance common goals.


Embrace more non-political aspects to life. People mostly get along just fine outside of the world of partisan politics and the media scaffoldings that support it—think about the workplace, neighborhood or school gatherings, sports teams, book clubs, the military, or various interfaith groups. These non-political organizations work well precisely because they encourage cooperation between people with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. In general, everyone agrees to do things together—or work towards a common goal—rather than always pressing their own interests and personal identities.


Keep politics out of most relationships and institutions. When people violate pluralistic norms in the workplace or at school or in some other organization, things start to fall apart. This is increasingly the case today as formerly non-political institutions have now been overtaken by people pressing the same dumb culture wars and partisan politics that drive people mad and create conflicts elsewhere.

Don’t be this person. We all need to do a better job of keeping our politics separate from the rest of life—and people in positions of authority within institutions need to better enforce pluralistic norms and rules to help keep it that way.


https://open.substack.com/pub/theli...lism?r=2cipm&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

I agree completely with the bolded sentiments. But can they survive a legal religious liberty structure like that referenced in these times of articulated Dominionist thought?

 

Yeah there's likely other facts. Although if I'm speculating, and that's all it is, Stone is also the head of the Union and Carter is a member, so there's probably at least some moral obligation to keep the lines of communication open. It may be more explicit than that. She may have to keep the the line of communication open for official Union communications.

 

Also feels related to this lawsuit that's been going around legal circles. Although not in the lawsuit, some of the anonymous commenters internet commenters, so take it with a grain of salt, stated that he personally went around to all the women at the firm after Dobbs was announced and congratulated them

 

Plainly he does. Plainly it's punishment. And mandatory sensitivity training may be banal and feel wasteful, but I'm quite confident it will not be as hateful as anything from the Alliance Defending Freedom.

To overuse a metaphor I've overused in the past and will again in regard to the comparison between the religious right and politics and black churches, which became a center of political organizing for historical reasons, there's a big difference between arguing to the effect of, pace Moses "in the name of the Divine, set my people free" vs. "in the name of the Divine, I must oppress you and your people". ADF is a lupine liberty organization dedicated to the latter.

 

Two separate pieces are being quoted. I did not think either had more than 4 paragraphs although you could view it differently. I cut some things out

 

I did not realize the judge is Ken Starr’s nephew. Obviously he should not automatically be stained with the sins of his uncle, who left a shameful legacy, but the nephew appears to have some of the same Greek tragedy character flaws