U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr ordered three Southwest Airlines lawyers to take 8 hours of "instruction" from Alliance Defending Freedom as part of a contempt finding in an employment case.
This case was all about a truly rabid anti-abortion woman who objected to SW Airlines Union folks paying for some officials to go to the Women's March in DC because the March was sponsored in part (not in full) by Planned Parenthood, and she then flooded the Union president with pictures of aborted fetuses and made many disparaging remarks on a Facebook page accessible to SW employees. She was ultimately fired for the harassments and violating policies about political content in posts where she can be seen as representing the company (and refusing to pay union dues, which under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) governing the airlines as well, she couldn't get out of). A jury awarded her over 5 mill on a retaliation claim.
Then she asked for sanctions because of the wording a communication the airline then sent out to its employees. I don't know about the "may" part--the National Right To Work Legal Defense folk's description just says that they asked for sanctions because the message said "does not discriminate" and the jury had found discrimination. Note that the discrimination happened in 2017 and the communication was in December of 22 and is in the present tense. Can't this be interpreted as "SW has learned its lesson?"
ADF may not have been directly involved in this suit, but its greasy fingerprints are all over the logic of the case.
I guess one might take comfort in the fact that the attorneys being sanctioned were all at one point 8th graders and I'm sure have memories of how one handles oneself in a class taught by someone they consider an asshole.
Please also see my comment on Chris's reply regarding the nature of the statement issued by SW.
Probably got on Twitter immediately afterward and (under a pseudonym, I presume) unironically complained about "judicial activism."
Nothing like the state punishing someone for (allegedly) violating someone's religious freedoms by... Forcing biased, partisan religion upon them. Long past time to start holding these unprincipled hacks accountable by any and all means possible - within the bounds of the law, of course!
The really infuriating thing is that swa did deserve the sanctions imo based on the too clever by half wording in that notice. And yet the Judge can’t help himself and gives away the game; it’s not about the discrimination and the law, It’s about defeating your ideological enemies.
I'm not sure *I* could say "did deserve," but that's just because I'm not an employment lawyer and don't know how much such language is fudged, if at all. But, yes, it definitely appears to be of the "too clever by half" variety. And, precisely, as to the rest.
I've just read a fuller description of the order; the judge did go off on "may." He apparently also said that "airline may not discriminate against flight attendants for religious beliefs “including — but not limited” to abortion."
From this it follows that being anti-abortion is a religious belief. And therefore, anti-abortion statutes are based on religious beliefs. Which we all knew, but now we have a court inadvertently confirming it. It is permissible to pass religious based laws without regard to the Establishment Clause.
It also means that you can be as vituperative as one wants in expressing one's religious beliefs against abortion. From this, one concludes that if pro-choice employees of Holly Lobby wish, they can send pictures of women dying of pre-eclampsia or sepsis to the owners, along with tirades on websites for Holly Lobby employees about the problems women face both from lack of contraception and inability to get an abortion (or, under the "life begins at fertilization" formulation, to use in vitrio fertilization for the infertile who WANT children). All without fear of retaliation or firing.
Good to know the current status of Separation of Church and State in Texas. Now for some sort of nationwide injunction??
Most religions and for that matter a vast majority of non-religious folks belief murder is wrong. The problem is the definition of murder. It generally requires that the victim be human: few people object to swatting mosquitos. Some people do not consider people or another tribe or nation to be human: hence, wars. Some people do not consider those on death row to be human in the sense of making their killing wrong even under the 10 commandments. Some do not think a supposed witch, or a woman caught in adultery, are human for purposes of the commandment. Some people don't believe a non-viable fetus rises to that level.
The problem arises when one religious group imposes its beliefs about "human" for purposes of defining murder on those who do not share that religious belief.
You are wrong.....the judge ordered FIRST AMENDMENT TRAINING so the lawyer understood the law....they lost the case because they did not understand the law...
and what understanding should the lawyers have? That an employee can harass another employee without consequences if the first has a religious belief they want to propound? If I were a Catholic, could I send email after email to an Evangelical fellow employee telling them they will go to hell because they don't believe in transubstantiation? If I have a religious belief that semi-automatic weapons are instruments of the Devil, could I harass a 2nd Amendment devotee with pictures of dead children?
Could the judge require a radical Muslim group give the lawyers their training?
The First Amendment has LOTS of exceptions. Look them up. Harassment is an act, not mere speech. Just as plotting something, whether it be killing an ex-wife or trying to intimidate witnesses is or break laws. Can't plot without speech.
Read other articles besides an article from a leftist...the judge ordered First Amendment training for religious liberty because they broke law which many institutions do....everyday in news there are Christians suing and they always win because people don't understand First Amendment.....for example...the left demanded prayer be taken out of school....prayer is not religious but they used that as an excuse..( people pray in yoga classes ...people meditate...praying does not mean u belong to a church) ...the bible...the most popular book in world and used upon our founding was out in public schools by Congress....we had it for a long time ...some schools still do......but leftists demanded to take it out...so what are they doing g now.....putyong gender ideology in schools....THEIR false religion....and now they vcomplain that parents want it out....the parents are winni g this battle...
Same with gay weddings...etc....it's not Christians persecuting it's the left.....the FBI called Catholics who go to church domestic terrorists and sent infiltrators into churches.....the left are facist
I've taken both constitutional law and constitutional history. Have you? I've not only read the constitution multiple times, but also the case law interpreting it. Can you say the same.
You didn't address any of my questions. Just spouted. In fact, silent prayer IS allowed in schools. I wouldn't really even mind public prayer if they alternated between Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Ba'hai, and any other, including the Satanic Temple. It is the establishment of a PARTICULAR religion that is prohibited by the First. The Government (federal or state via the 14th Amendment) can't do anything to "establish"--ie prefer--one religion over another.
What exactly is "gender ideology?" The idea that some people don't feel comfortable with their chromosomal sex? That is a FACT, not an ideology. Students are free to reject it. I challenge you to find ONE teacher who marks "wrong" the idea that most people are attracted, if at all, to those of their own sex. I am pretty sure they WOULD mark wrong an answer that says "nobody in the world is attracted to anyone other than their own sex." Because simple observation makes that wrong.
Perhaps a better word would be "sexuality." Can you see how THAT is different from chromosomes? Some people are nymphomaniacs. Some people are not interested in sex. Some people are attracted to others of the same sex; others are attracted to both sexes; others aren't attracted at all.
Lol...then why do Christians have their own law firms to fight democrats....look up how many court cases....it's in news daily....coaches fired for praying....employees told they can't wear cross jewelry....cake baking cases...etc.....colleges have lost many lawsuits for free speech violations against Christians...democrat leftist news doesnot cover these stories....kids even in elementary have had to sue for Christian speech ...look up the boy who wore a two genders t shirt to school....the point im making is democrats and their lawyers need First Amendment and Second Amendment training and more...who is trying to steal evetyones rights....who was pushing masks and lockdowns and forced vaccines....not republicsns
Hee Hee. I THOUGHT you'd bring up the Bremerton Coach case. Have you actually read it? It was based on a completely false description of the facts, asserting that the coach just stood quietly on the sidelines praying.
Anyone who lives near Bremerton knows that wasn't the case. He had the whole team out on the 50 yard line huddled in "prayer." One dissent actually provided PICTURES of it.
As to Mastercake. It was remanded to the lower courts and seems to have vanished utterly. The holding of Creative 303 is "The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees." The problem is that this has been established law for donkey's years. Ever heard of a case where a maker of creative rosaries was forced to also offer hijabs or yarmulkes? There is no actual evidence that anyone tried to force her to do websites that contradicted her values. She was free to stipulate that any website she designed would be filled to the brim with biblical references to "true" marriage.
The one thing that the case did NOT decide--explicitly, per FN 5 of the opinion--was whether she could actually prohibit a same sex couple from using such a filled to the brim design if they for whatever reason chose to do it. If someone wanted her design, they are free to use it. She just can't stop them from using that design just because they are gay. That part of the anti-discrimination statute was not dealt with in the case.
Why is there no evidence? Because she actually never designed a wedding website.
The source of my view: the case itself. Way too many news reports, left and right, misunderstand what the court actually says because they have not read the freakin' case.
Give me cites to the "many cases" that colleges have lost. I don't just read "leftist democratic news." I read the actual cases before I decide what grounds the courts use.
The whole idea that Christians are being "persecuted" is utter bull. Churches still have their tax-free status even when they violate the rules about political activity. That sound like persecution to you?
As to the two genders t-shirt. He lost the case. It has only just been appealed. I wonder what would happen to a kid in, say, Florida, who wore a T shirts saying "I support trans rights." Or, for that matter, if a teacher did.
8 hours of religious training from these jokers? Great I'm buying a copy of the Koran and reading aloud from it all day. They better not stifle any freedoms of religion...
Reminds me of when I was in the USAF, and an obviously Christian dentist asked me about the origins of my last name, which means “black duke” or “dark lord” in Turkish, and he said, “You know, the lord is present in the dark places.” I replied, “Allahu akbar!” and that seemed to shut him up.
Luckily, this happened at the end of my appointment.
I have trainings every 2 months at my job about how men and women aren't real and gender doesn't exist and if I express the slightest disagreement with any of it I will be fired. What the hell are you communists smoking?
Did his Uncle Ken help him get his appointment? Requiring a day of religious training from the wing nut evangelicals doesn’t embody the spirit of religious freedom in the least.
Sorry, all, about “Ruthie” comment-bombing on the Lord’s day. I responded to the first one that came in, but I’m not going to go through and respond to all of them. Suffice it to say, she’s wrong. I never wrote “religious training” in the whole article. I wrote “religious-liberty training,” because I was that is what the judge wrote. Also, the judge never once called it “First Amendment training.”
On the other hand, getting first-hand instruction on what attorneys will be up against in future cases could be very illuminating. I wonder how the ADF will enjoy having their opponents forced into their sanctum? They might not appreciate that.
Yes and these smart attorneys could educate them about how they’re violating the separation of church and state by pushing anti-abortion laws as religious doctrine. Or how anti-abortion laws violate the anti-slavery amendment as they are making women slaves to fetuses that sometimes aren’t even viable. Attorneys should come to the “training” prepared with graphic images of women suffering because they were unable to obtain an abortion. Hope they win on appeal but I don’t see SCOTUS being friendly even if they do
> Yes and these smart attorneys could educate them about how they’re violating the separation of church and state by pushing anti-abortion laws as religious doctrine.
Well general anti-murder laws are also based on religious doctrine. I suppose those have to go as well.
Those lawyers should go ahead and show up for those eight hours of religious FREEDOM classes from ADF. And hold them to it that they are FREEDOM classes and not Chisto-fascist classes. Ask questions of the trainers that are hostile and uncomfortable. Make them acknowledge and admit that Christianity is just one faith and deserves no more protection than any other faith. Make them acknowledge and admit that no faith at all is part of religious FREEDOM. And if ADF tries a hegemonic approach, blast them for it. Record it. Then appeal it. Say you went into in good faith and what they did was the opposite of valid DEI training. Responded to properly this could backfire spectacularly on the Judge and ADF.
Somebody should file a FOIA request for all communications between the Court and ADF and see what happens. Probably won't be successful, but. Or the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena that information as part of its "oversight." F-cking Senate Democrats never do anything.
Not directly relevant to this case, but I wanted to add that an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom (Christopher Schandevel) represented the state of Iowa in the most recent abortion case argued before the Iowa Supreme Court. This was the litigation where our governor was trying to lift the permanent injunction on a near-total ban enacted in 2018. The Iowa Supreme Court split 3-3, which left the lower court ruling in place and the law permanently enjoined.
I thought it was odd for the ADF attorney to be representing the state, because our new Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird made a big deal in January about bringing this abortion litigation back in house. (Our previous Democratic AG had refused to defend the near-total abortion ban.) I suspect the ADF attorney argued the case because Brenna Bird hired a very inexperienced Federalist Society type as Iowa's solicitor general.
Is a "direct award" to a specific entity legal? When assigned "traffic school"or "anger management" for example, lists of acceptable vendor options are usually provided to chose from. I would hope they appeal this directive.
Well leftists do these kinds of direct awards all the time, generally in the form of "anti-discrimination training" or "LGBTQPXYZ+ sensitivity training".
This case was all about a truly rabid anti-abortion woman who objected to SW Airlines Union folks paying for some officials to go to the Women's March in DC because the March was sponsored in part (not in full) by Planned Parenthood, and she then flooded the Union president with pictures of aborted fetuses and made many disparaging remarks on a Facebook page accessible to SW employees. She was ultimately fired for the harassments and violating policies about political content in posts where she can be seen as representing the company (and refusing to pay union dues, which under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) governing the airlines as well, she couldn't get out of). A jury awarded her over 5 mill on a retaliation claim.
Then she asked for sanctions because of the wording a communication the airline then sent out to its employees. I don't know about the "may" part--the National Right To Work Legal Defense folk's description just says that they asked for sanctions because the message said "does not discriminate" and the jury had found discrimination. Note that the discrimination happened in 2017 and the communication was in December of 22 and is in the present tense. Can't this be interpreted as "SW has learned its lesson?"
ADF may not have been directly involved in this suit, but its greasy fingerprints are all over the logic of the case.
I guess one might take comfort in the fact that the attorneys being sanctioned were all at one point 8th graders and I'm sure have memories of how one handles oneself in a class taught by someone they consider an asshole.
Please also see my comment on Chris's reply regarding the nature of the statement issued by SW.
So a judge ordered United States citizens to receive religious instruction? Because that’s the bottom line here.😾
Nope. Constitutional training in the free exercise of religion. Apparently something that the SW lawyers were sorely lacking.
Nope. You are a trolling lawyer!?!
No this writer is lying the judge ordeted FIRST AMENDMENT TRAINING SO THEY PRPETLY UNDERSTAND LAW IN REGARDS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Yo Ruthie, that is EXACTLY what the 1st A. is. Stick to your own guns! Oh, sorry that’s the 2nd A.!
Probably got on Twitter immediately afterward and (under a pseudonym, I presume) unironically complained about "judicial activism."
Nothing like the state punishing someone for (allegedly) violating someone's religious freedoms by... Forcing biased, partisan religion upon them. Long past time to start holding these unprincipled hacks accountable by any and all means possible - within the bounds of the law, of course!
The really infuriating thing is that swa did deserve the sanctions imo based on the too clever by half wording in that notice. And yet the Judge can’t help himself and gives away the game; it’s not about the discrimination and the law, It’s about defeating your ideological enemies.
I'm not sure *I* could say "did deserve," but that's just because I'm not an employment lawyer and don't know how much such language is fudged, if at all. But, yes, it definitely appears to be of the "too clever by half" variety. And, precisely, as to the rest.
I've just read a fuller description of the order; the judge did go off on "may." He apparently also said that "airline may not discriminate against flight attendants for religious beliefs “including — but not limited” to abortion."
From this it follows that being anti-abortion is a religious belief. And therefore, anti-abortion statutes are based on religious beliefs. Which we all knew, but now we have a court inadvertently confirming it. It is permissible to pass religious based laws without regard to the Establishment Clause.
It also means that you can be as vituperative as one wants in expressing one's religious beliefs against abortion. From this, one concludes that if pro-choice employees of Holly Lobby wish, they can send pictures of women dying of pre-eclampsia or sepsis to the owners, along with tirades on websites for Holly Lobby employees about the problems women face both from lack of contraception and inability to get an abortion (or, under the "life begins at fertilization" formulation, to use in vitrio fertilization for the infertile who WANT children). All without fear of retaliation or firing.
Good to know the current status of Separation of Church and State in Texas. Now for some sort of nationwide injunction??
> From this it follows that being anti-abortion is a religious belief.
Well so is being anti-murder generally.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:13&version=NIV
Most religions and for that matter a vast majority of non-religious folks belief murder is wrong. The problem is the definition of murder. It generally requires that the victim be human: few people object to swatting mosquitos. Some people do not consider people or another tribe or nation to be human: hence, wars. Some people do not consider those on death row to be human in the sense of making their killing wrong even under the 10 commandments. Some do not think a supposed witch, or a woman caught in adultery, are human for purposes of the commandment. Some people don't believe a non-viable fetus rises to that level.
The problem arises when one religious group imposes its beliefs about "human" for purposes of defining murder on those who do not share that religious belief.
You are wrong.....the judge ordered FIRST AMENDMENT TRAINING so the lawyer understood the law....they lost the case because they did not understand the law...
and what understanding should the lawyers have? That an employee can harass another employee without consequences if the first has a religious belief they want to propound? If I were a Catholic, could I send email after email to an Evangelical fellow employee telling them they will go to hell because they don't believe in transubstantiation? If I have a religious belief that semi-automatic weapons are instruments of the Devil, could I harass a 2nd Amendment devotee with pictures of dead children?
Could the judge require a radical Muslim group give the lawyers their training?
The First Amendment has LOTS of exceptions. Look them up. Harassment is an act, not mere speech. Just as plotting something, whether it be killing an ex-wife or trying to intimidate witnesses is or break laws. Can't plot without speech.
Read other articles besides an article from a leftist...the judge ordered First Amendment training for religious liberty because they broke law which many institutions do....everyday in news there are Christians suing and they always win because people don't understand First Amendment.....for example...the left demanded prayer be taken out of school....prayer is not religious but they used that as an excuse..( people pray in yoga classes ...people meditate...praying does not mean u belong to a church) ...the bible...the most popular book in world and used upon our founding was out in public schools by Congress....we had it for a long time ...some schools still do......but leftists demanded to take it out...so what are they doing g now.....putyong gender ideology in schools....THEIR false religion....and now they vcomplain that parents want it out....the parents are winni g this battle...
Same with gay weddings...etc....it's not Christians persecuting it's the left.....the FBI called Catholics who go to church domestic terrorists and sent infiltrators into churches.....the left are facist
I've taken both constitutional law and constitutional history. Have you? I've not only read the constitution multiple times, but also the case law interpreting it. Can you say the same.
You didn't address any of my questions. Just spouted. In fact, silent prayer IS allowed in schools. I wouldn't really even mind public prayer if they alternated between Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Ba'hai, and any other, including the Satanic Temple. It is the establishment of a PARTICULAR religion that is prohibited by the First. The Government (federal or state via the 14th Amendment) can't do anything to "establish"--ie prefer--one religion over another.
What exactly is "gender ideology?" The idea that some people don't feel comfortable with their chromosomal sex? That is a FACT, not an ideology. Students are free to reject it. I challenge you to find ONE teacher who marks "wrong" the idea that most people are attracted, if at all, to those of their own sex. I am pretty sure they WOULD mark wrong an answer that says "nobody in the world is attracted to anyone other than their own sex." Because simple observation makes that wrong.
Perhaps a better word would be "sexuality." Can you see how THAT is different from chromosomes? Some people are nymphomaniacs. Some people are not interested in sex. Some people are attracted to others of the same sex; others are attracted to both sexes; others aren't attracted at all.
Lol...then why do Christians have their own law firms to fight democrats....look up how many court cases....it's in news daily....coaches fired for praying....employees told they can't wear cross jewelry....cake baking cases...etc.....colleges have lost many lawsuits for free speech violations against Christians...democrat leftist news doesnot cover these stories....kids even in elementary have had to sue for Christian speech ...look up the boy who wore a two genders t shirt to school....the point im making is democrats and their lawyers need First Amendment and Second Amendment training and more...who is trying to steal evetyones rights....who was pushing masks and lockdowns and forced vaccines....not republicsns
Hee Hee. I THOUGHT you'd bring up the Bremerton Coach case. Have you actually read it? It was based on a completely false description of the facts, asserting that the coach just stood quietly on the sidelines praying.
Anyone who lives near Bremerton knows that wasn't the case. He had the whole team out on the 50 yard line huddled in "prayer." One dissent actually provided PICTURES of it.
As to Mastercake. It was remanded to the lower courts and seems to have vanished utterly. The holding of Creative 303 is "The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees." The problem is that this has been established law for donkey's years. Ever heard of a case where a maker of creative rosaries was forced to also offer hijabs or yarmulkes? There is no actual evidence that anyone tried to force her to do websites that contradicted her values. She was free to stipulate that any website she designed would be filled to the brim with biblical references to "true" marriage.
The one thing that the case did NOT decide--explicitly, per FN 5 of the opinion--was whether she could actually prohibit a same sex couple from using such a filled to the brim design if they for whatever reason chose to do it. If someone wanted her design, they are free to use it. She just can't stop them from using that design just because they are gay. That part of the anti-discrimination statute was not dealt with in the case.
Why is there no evidence? Because she actually never designed a wedding website.
The source of my view: the case itself. Way too many news reports, left and right, misunderstand what the court actually says because they have not read the freakin' case.
Give me cites to the "many cases" that colleges have lost. I don't just read "leftist democratic news." I read the actual cases before I decide what grounds the courts use.
The whole idea that Christians are being "persecuted" is utter bull. Churches still have their tax-free status even when they violate the rules about political activity. That sound like persecution to you?
As to the two genders t-shirt. He lost the case. It has only just been appealed. I wonder what would happen to a kid in, say, Florida, who wore a T shirts saying "I support trans rights." Or, for that matter, if a teacher did.
They lost the case, because the judge was prejudiced !
No...read constitution it's something no democrat or leftist seems to know about...same thing with their gun control
actually it was the jury. What we don't know is what jury instructions were given. If those were not legitimate, the case is likely to win on appeal.
Apparently, the only "freedom" that the ADF really favours is the freedom for Christian theocrats to impose their views on everyone else.
Christofascists
Where are Christians imposing their views....I suggest you read an accurate news source about this case this suthor is lying
8 hours of religious training from these jokers? Great I'm buying a copy of the Koran and reading aloud from it all day. They better not stifle any freedoms of religion...
Reminds me of when I was in the USAF, and an obviously Christian dentist asked me about the origins of my last name, which means “black duke” or “dark lord” in Turkish, and he said, “You know, the lord is present in the dark places.” I replied, “Allahu akbar!” and that seemed to shut him up.
Luckily, this happened at the end of my appointment.
😂😂😂
Yet another judge who doesn’t belong on the bench. Justice in Texas is the Christo-fascist way or the Highway.
Straight out of the Cultural Revolution playbook--political re-education.
I have trainings every 2 months at my job about how men and women aren't real and gender doesn't exist and if I express the slightest disagreement with any of it I will be fired. What the hell are you communists smoking?
Someone's projecting.
Did his Uncle Ken help him get his appointment? Requiring a day of religious training from the wing nut evangelicals doesn’t embody the spirit of religious freedom in the least.
So you find religious-*liberty* training unacceptable.
But I suppose you think mandating diversity training or LGBTQPXYZ+ sensitivity training is fine.
Read my comment. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
Sorry, all, about “Ruthie” comment-bombing on the Lord’s day. I responded to the first one that came in, but I’m not going to go through and respond to all of them. Suffice it to say, she’s wrong. I never wrote “religious training” in the whole article. I wrote “religious-liberty training,” because I was that is what the judge wrote. Also, the judge never once called it “First Amendment training.”
> I never wrote “religious training” in the whole article. I wrote “religious-liberty training,” because I was that is what the judge wrote.
Well you certainly didn't seem interested in correcting any of your supporters who misread it.
On the other hand, getting first-hand instruction on what attorneys will be up against in future cases could be very illuminating. I wonder how the ADF will enjoy having their opponents forced into their sanctum? They might not appreciate that.
Yes and these smart attorneys could educate them about how they’re violating the separation of church and state by pushing anti-abortion laws as religious doctrine. Or how anti-abortion laws violate the anti-slavery amendment as they are making women slaves to fetuses that sometimes aren’t even viable. Attorneys should come to the “training” prepared with graphic images of women suffering because they were unable to obtain an abortion. Hope they win on appeal but I don’t see SCOTUS being friendly even if they do
Exactly right. Sending them to this particular place is intended to be punitive but they can turn that around and use it well.
> Yes and these smart attorneys could educate them about how they’re violating the separation of church and state by pushing anti-abortion laws as religious doctrine.
Well general anti-murder laws are also based on religious doctrine. I suppose those have to go as well.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:13&version=NIV
> Or how anti-abortion laws violate the anti-slavery amendment as they are making women slaves to fetuses that sometimes aren’t even viable.
By that logic do child support laws also violate the anti-slavery amendment?
Those lawyers should go ahead and show up for those eight hours of religious FREEDOM classes from ADF. And hold them to it that they are FREEDOM classes and not Chisto-fascist classes. Ask questions of the trainers that are hostile and uncomfortable. Make them acknowledge and admit that Christianity is just one faith and deserves no more protection than any other faith. Make them acknowledge and admit that no faith at all is part of religious FREEDOM. And if ADF tries a hegemonic approach, blast them for it. Record it. Then appeal it. Say you went into in good faith and what they did was the opposite of valid DEI training. Responded to properly this could backfire spectacularly on the Judge and ADF.
Somebody should file a FOIA request for all communications between the Court and ADF and see what happens. Probably won't be successful, but. Or the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena that information as part of its "oversight." F-cking Senate Democrats never do anything.
Not directly relevant to this case, but I wanted to add that an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom (Christopher Schandevel) represented the state of Iowa in the most recent abortion case argued before the Iowa Supreme Court. This was the litigation where our governor was trying to lift the permanent injunction on a near-total ban enacted in 2018. The Iowa Supreme Court split 3-3, which left the lower court ruling in place and the law permanently enjoined.
I thought it was odd for the ADF attorney to be representing the state, because our new Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird made a big deal in January about bringing this abortion litigation back in house. (Our previous Democratic AG had refused to defend the near-total abortion ban.) I suspect the ADF attorney argued the case because Brenna Bird hired a very inexperienced Federalist Society type as Iowa's solicitor general.
Is a "direct award" to a specific entity legal? When assigned "traffic school"or "anger management" for example, lists of acceptable vendor options are usually provided to chose from. I would hope they appeal this directive.
> Is a "direct award" to a specific entity legal?
Well leftists do these kinds of direct awards all the time, generally in the form of "anti-discrimination training" or "LGBTQPXYZ+ sensitivity training".
This is part and parcel of an authoritarian takeover of the US government, I'm afraid.
Stop lying about Christians Trump and Republicans....people like you are why no one trusts media and democrat party is losing voters