Southwest Airlines: We didn't fire that flight attendant because of her Christianity (Livestream) 

Not to Christians.

Not according to Christians.

06/11/20245 @ 1038 There are toxic people who shield behind religions to behave toxically and self-entitled. **Religious fundamentalism** can sometimes serve as a cloak for toxic behavior. Let's explore why this happens: 1. ****Mental Parasites**: Fundamentalist ideologies, like mental parasites, discourage critical thinking and scientific evidence that challenges their scripture. They feed off the host mind and change behavior to benefit their own existence¹. 2. **Existential Fear**: Religion often provides comfort by addressing existential fears, such as mortality. Fear of death drives people to seek anxiety-reducing ideas, like an afterlife, which religious ideologies offer. 3. **Spread of Ideas**: Successful religious ideas spread through rituals, beliefs, and communication. Harmful variants persist when they manipulate cognitive processes, leading to biased thinking and toxic behavior. 4. **Christian Narcissism**: Some individuals exploit faith and vulnerability, causing emotional and spiritual harm. Trust within faith communities erodes due to toxic behavior⁴. 5. **Narcissistic Religious Abuse**: Tactics like spiritual perfectionism and fear of rejection contribute to religious abuse. Victims suffer emotional harm due to toxic religious dynamics⁵. In summary, while religion can be positive, rigid fundamentalism can shield toxic behavior. Recognizing this helps us foster healthier religious environments. 🌟¹⁴⁵ Source: Conversation with Copilot, 6/11/2024 (1) How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain - Psychology Today. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain. (2) When Faith Turns Toxic: Understanding the Christian Narcissist. www.carlacorelli.com/narcissistic-abuse-recovery/christian-narcissist/. (3) 15 Narcissistic Religious Abuse Tactics - Psych Central. psychcentral.com/pro/exhausted-woman/2015/05/15-narcissistic-religious-abuse-tactics. (4) Is religion good or bad for humanity? Epic analysis delivers an answer. www.newscientist.com/article/2197082-is-religion-good-or-bad-for-humanity-epic-analysis-delivers-an-answer/. (5) 10 Profiles of Toxic religion and the Antidote - Message Magazine. www.messagemagazine.com/editorial/toxic-religion/.

@@Jane-Doe.1126you mean terrorists

The way I see it non religious people have a license to harass religious nut jobs😂

The people are completely oblivious.

Alternatively, she quite possibly *wanted* to get fired so she could play the "poor persecuted little martyr" to virtue signal what good and pious Christian she is.

Toddlers, Trumpers & Trolls are the only ones who are mystified by common sense.

​@@George89999 It's a grift that works, righty christians love the persecution angle

She didn't believe she was harassing the union head. She believed she was just speaking truth. They all live in a fantasy world, so what else do you expect?

Agreed 💯

trump is merely a symptom and not the disease. Would any other republican have nominated anyone different? The disease is the far right extremist republican party being ran basically by christian fascists.

There's a reason people put the distinguishing adverb "Trump appointed" before mentioning these judges.

There isn't any other kind of fascism.

You people are absolutely insane! Go Trump 2024 !

Fake country, maybe a real country will liberate us from the theocrats

Yes!

If the airline can't talk about the case because of the privacy of a former employee how would they know it was because of other actions? The only public info would be from whatever the employee said. The only place where it's possible to get additional info is in discovery or in court or in documents filed that are public... when that eventually happens.

It's Southwest Airlines: there are no 3-4 day trips. They're all short hops; employees go home every night.

@@maryjackson1194- Still not fun for the people who have to deal with her, if she's as obnoxious as claimed.

Yep

@@pickledragonrebelThe one good thing that could happen if that cultist wins: Is that we could have people start citing this case in other cases.

​@@Kattlarv how is that good thing?

@@valivali8104 That would either force them to backtrack. (And: If done soon, it can be used against this case.) Or. It would cause such outrage that they'd be forced to change the rules.

@@Kattlarv but does any non-christian try same?

That's how Christians roll. Rules for thee, and not for me.

That is standard practice for Christians.

Kinda?

They'd be fired, probably threatened with deportation and other shit so they could have their quota of innocent people improperly prosecuted go up.

Well, I'm sure if the courts were loaded with Muslim judges that might indeed convince her.... As it is, these Christians are screaming outrage from a fortress of limitless privilege.

Yeah but this is a Christian theocracy, we don't care about OTHER religions! "Religious freedom" has always been code for "Christian domination".

@@katyungodly Well, that's because the founding fathers misspelled that part of the constitution. Should have been, "freedom from [someone else's] religion". That's what actually was meant by it, as many were fleeing europe to get away from having someone forcing their religion down their throats.

I'd love to see this interpretation in practice reach beyond conservative Christianity. Pass the popcorn.

Impossible. And don’t let a judge tell you they’re impartial. They’re either lying to you or lying to you _and_ themselves.

@@jackienatla217it is possible. Other countries manage having a politically neutral judiciary. In Australia being obviously partisan and/or obnoxiously religious virtually ensures you’ll never serve on the bench.

@@jackienatla217 100%

@@coasterblocks3420 America's system of financial patronage makes impartality impossible.

You do know that judges are elected and run on partisan ticket. So they run as either democrat or republican... It's built in and was made to be that way in order to disadvantage slaves and former slaves. The judicial system and the police as they exist today, were created by and for slave owners so that they could control and oppress black people. So the politicism is just part of it .

At its minimum, the aim is to make the staff accept any christian belief as an acceptable viewpoint. At its worse, it's to enforce said christian beliefs on the staff.

For one thing if I were them I would have went with pro abortion leaflets stickers and passed them out in the seminar. The people would have made a mad dash to get me out of there as fast as possible . This judge needs to be fired and disbarred .

They only support Christians. Doesn't matter what the Muslim person did, they'd be against them.

Huh. I never even thought of alcohol and religious views as a server before. I suppose an airline must always have at least one person able to handle alcohol in that case. Sigh, how annoying.

I'm curious if they could cite that case here

Perhaps what he should have said is, "if anyone cared to enforce the laws as they stand, their tax-exempt status could be at risk."

Imagine dealing with taxes like the mortals, dear goddess the priesthood class would... not have as much money they skim from followers. How horrific.

@@hayuseen6683 I'm fine with them bilking their easily manipulated followers, it's stealing from tax payers I have issues with.

And others don't want to seem intolerant, or just ignore it because they don't see it as part of a larger pattern?

How much bad behavior happens, is allowed just because the person professes to be trans? How much bad behavior happens, is allowed just because the person professes BLM, pro-Palestinian, anti-semitic?

The Bible stated that in the latter days (which many evangelicals believe we are in now) true believers will be persecuted. As such, they need persecution to justify that they are being Christian right.

@martinmckee5333 More like the feeling of persecution, rather than the real thing. Few would like to live in Egypt with Coptic Christians and have the experience.

@@raistlin3462 Perhaps, though I do think some would feel even more "justified" in that case.

Early Christians could be quite as obnoxious as modern ones.

@@jeannerogers7085 Obnoxious, yes. But at least they were for real, unlike cuckservative clowns we have today.

Weeeelllll... Hypothetically yes. But there's no punishment for judges who don't....

Also, if you're unlucky, someone could get rid of that separation in the future.

@@uNiels_Heart That’s why voting is so important.

How would we get married or divorced?

@@carissafisher7514marriage and divorce is a civil institution, not a religious one.

@@carissafisher7514😂😂😂

@@carissafisher7514Don’t need clergy to get married or divorced. Civil ceremonies

@@carissafisher7514 For lots of countries, you don't need clergymen for your wedding. Many areas don't even have wedding ceremony, they just agree and are married

On Jan 6 he was still on his phone (to the insurrectionists?) when everyone else had already gone into hiding and then he broke into a trot.

Meep meep!

No, for them it's the freedom to discriminate against non Christians

I wouldnt mind if christian hypocrites who complain about LGBT or whatever but act and dress like some hedonistic pagans themselves got a taste of islamic uniformity.

@jenngraham1812. Jenn, don't give them any more ideas.

If that were in the Bible, they would've done that already.

@@katyungodly I believe it’s not that explicitly mentioned in the quran, that it’s just saying women AND men need to dress modestly. But because men are more capable of beating their wives into submission than the other way round, men get to decide how the rules are to be interpreted.

What’s NAMBLA?

No comparison.

​@@kaylamartin519 you dont want to know what that is. It's disturbing.

@@kaylamartin519 In this context, I think it's a reference to the North American Man/Boy Love Association. I don't know why blud thought that was a good comparison, but, uh.... here we are. 🤷‍♂

Google it! 😎

Of course not! Because... reasons, something, something.

Part of my job is writing corporate policy. "May" means optional, "may not" doesn't even exist. If I want something to always or never happen, I'm required to use "shall" or "shall not", respectively.

May, Shall, Will, and Must are given a strict and _distinct_ meaning in various fields, including law, politics, and technology. People who are in those fields are familiar with this usage, but I don't think the average person should be expected to know these esoteric meanings.

@@jacobh9241 Agreed. But I think judges and lawyers, both being in the legal profession, would have a common understanding of the terms.

@@mikefochtman7164 As you mentioned, the term "may" is used to indicate permission or lack-thereof. So the statement "we may not discriminate" is logically equivalent to "we aren't allowed to discriminate". The term "shall" is like "may" but includes intentionality. So the statement "we shall not discriminate" is logically equivalent to "we intend to avoid discriminating" (which I _hope_ is true for Southwest). However, I could forgive a layperson for hearing "we may not discriminate" as a probability statement (as you said: "may or may not..."). Similarly, I imagine a layperson would hear "we shall not discriminate" as a passionate, albeit irrelevant reference to the Bible. As much fun as it is for an unqualified amateur like myself to debate legalese on the internet, the point of my comment was that legalese SUCKS for something as important as communicating rights to the people who deserve to know they have them.

Any time 'dare not' has been used? Implying fault if done, not caring about permission or intent. Random curiosity

Appointments to the supreme court *MUST BE TAKEN OUT OF THE PRESIDENT'S HANDS* and placed exclusively in the hands of your Congress with a minimum 75% vote of all members across both parties determining who shall be appointed.

Why even give it to congress? Something so important should be direct.

And in Australia being obnoxiously religious and/or obviously partisan will ensure you don’t get selected to the bench. Your legal background needs to be impeccable. The Australian judiciary has a habit of revolting against unwise appointments and forcing out bad apples, as happened in Queensland when then premier Campbell appointed an inexperienced magistrate who strayed into partisan politics as chief justice.

@@coasterblocks3420 Precisely. This is why Australia's legislative and judicial systems are *a million times superior* to those of America.

I never much care for admitting Australia does good things, but you guys got that right! :P

A lot of seemingly intelligent people are only intelligent in some fields and very stupid in others.

I’d heard of people getting fired because they were atheists or had left the JW religion and worked for a JW boss. I’m Christian and I think that’s disgusting to financially abuse others like that

That wouldn't be firing them for their religion, but for their actions.

I think you could look at history and see some pretty messed up things...

@@hayuseen6683 Whats your point? If you are going to make excuses for him don't bother.

Gotta disagree there, it's connected to family and community. Such things are not a choice. Where you live (and who is around) dictates which religion you're in more than the choices you make. Plenty of people are also coerced into it, and that negates any choice.

Agree 100%.

@@hayuseen6683It *should* be a choice, one people are free to make. What needs to be protected is the right of each person to make their own choice. No one gets to impose their choice on others. *Edit*: this is coming from my own POV as someone who, while growing up, was largely encouraged to ask questions and formulate my own ideas.

@@Ian_Jules Sure

He’s not consciously atheist though. He may even believe he’s a believer, but just too ignorant and disinterested to learn about what he’s supposed to believe in.

😂😂😂😂😂

Facebook's policy of *requiring* everyone to use their "real names" (which in practice usually means legal names) as their display-name is sufficient reason for almost everyone to *NOT* have any Facebook account at all, I'd say!

Jesus. Maybe the others aren’t as obnoxious

Sounds like her behaviour crossed a line in the way the others' did not. We all have beliefs and opinions - civility and good workplace habits makes us temper them.

Mammon is the god they worship above all others.

Freedom is explained though. The Constitution does it. There are limits.

It's always red and sheer or blackout black. The bias is entirely in the conservative or Christian direction (and not all judges are biased)

Guessing Texas law might have something to do with it in that case?

@@RickReasonnz Yeah, I don't remember why Delaware is important (something about the legal system is favorable to big businesses there?). However, I'm pretty sure Tesla had some big union suit moved from TX to DE as part of corporate "court shopping"--I assumed SW would probably do the same.