This week's edition of The 3 highlights two examples of "cancel culture," with a pro-life organization's ads banned from a social media site and two flight attendants fired because they dared share their beliefs on an issue that disagreed with the company line. Also, there is a case out of Texas in which the U.S. Supreme Court became involved, in which a convicted criminal's death was postponed because a requested religious accommodation was not granted.
Pro-life organization's ad banned by Google
The pro-life ministry of Live Action, which was founded by Lila Rose, has long been known for its devotion to protecting the lives of the unborn. One way, as highlighted by a Live Action News story, is to reverse the effect of the so-called "abortion pill." As the news article related:
On May 10, 2021, Live Action placed strategic ads on Google that informed women of the possibility of reversing the abortion pill process, which involves treatment with a safe pregnancy hormone called progesterone, which has been safely used for decades as standard treatment to prevent miscarriages. The APR treatment’s goal is to outcompete the progesterone-blocking effects of mifepristone, also known as the abortion pill. The treatment has reportedly saved the lives of over 2,500 children and has a 68% success rate.
However, Google made the decision recently to pull the ads. The story says:
On September 13, without warning, Google “disapproved” all of Live Action’s Abortion Pill Reversal ads. The ads had been approved by Google and running for over four months, spending over $170,000 and directing thousands to the abortion pill reversal hotline.
This was followed by a story described by Live Action as a "hit piece" on the Daily Beast website.
The article goes on to say:
As Live Action founder and president Lila Rose notes, Google continues to run advertisements for the abortion pill. She noted on Twitter, “Meanwhile, Google is permitting abortion facilities to advertise next-day abortions & abortion via mail. This is a blatant, political double standard: Google is ok with ads promoting life-ending drugs, but not life-saving treatments. Where’s the “choice?” for women, @Google?”
Flight attendants claim they were fired for opposing Equality Act
Corporate advocacy for unbiblical positions seems to be a growing concern. One such example involves two flight attendants for Alaska Airlines. Seems the airline placed a statement supporting the Equality Act, which opens the doors to all sorts of special treatment for LGBTQ individuals at the expense of people who embrace deeply held religious beliefs. The airline also asked for comments, and a CBN.com story says that these flight attendants responded:
Flight attendant Lacey Smith posted a question, asking, "As a company, do you think it's possible to regulate morality?"
In the same forum, First Liberty's second client, who remains anonymous, asked, "Does Alaska support: endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating women's rights and parental rights? …." She then copied and posted information about the Equality Act that she received from the Heritage Foundation.
First Liberty says both clients were subsequently investigated, questioned by airline officials, and fired from their jobs.
The article says that the law firm First Liberty has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, stating: "Alaska Airlines discriminated against them on the basis of religion, perpetuated a hostile work environment, failed to grant them a religious accommodation allowing them to express their opinions on the same basis as other protected classes, and retaliated against them."
U.S. Supreme Court to review religious accommodation for death penalty inmates
While quite a bit of attention among members of the Christian community has been focused on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing a case soon that considers the ban on abortion after 15 weeks enacted by the state of Mississippi, it has been pointed out that there is a "religious freedom" case that bears watching.
FoxNews.com reports on a death row inmate in Texas, John Henry Ramirez, who requested a touch from a member of the clergy prior to his execution. The article reports that the attorney for the convicted murderer...
...had argued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice was violating the death row inmate’s First Amendment rights to practice his religion by denying his request to have his pastor touch him and vocalize prayers when he was executed. He called the ban on vocal prayer a spiritual "gag order."In court documents, he had said, "It is hostile toward religion, denying religious exercise at the precise moment it is most needed: when someone is transitioning from this life to the next..."
In recent years, the Supreme Court has granted stays halting several executions in Texas and Alabama over the presence of clergy or spiritual advisers in the death chamber. The only execution stays the Supreme Court has granted in recent years have been related to issues of religious practice or discrimination.
The article says that:
Dana Moore, Ramirez’s spiritual adviser the last four years, said the request to let him touch Ramirez was about letting the inmate practice his Christian faith and treating him "with a certain amount of dignity."
Current Texas law allows a member of the clergy to be in the chamber, but physical contact and prayers are not allowed.