A huge percentage of content on Gab is based around religion. If that's where your religious community is (and most people can't see others in person for worship at the moment) then yes, it absolutely is a religious activity.
Being "a Christian" (whatever that means...) is a protected class - but where in the Bible did Moses or Jesus command people to use Gab, Parler - or even be "conservative"?
You can be fired for being a selfish ass (I'm referring to the donkey hybrid, as befits the biblical narrative) - and that's my interpretation of what happened. What matters now is if the law will allow her to use her religion as the basis for being an ass - or not.
Given that this statement is false — "Gab and Parler are religious social networks" — a judge would likely require a pattern of hostility to be shown, or for the firings to coincide with expression of protected religious beliefs that are not also considered hate speech. (If they're considered hate speech, they're no longer protected expression, regardless of whether they're claimed to be religion or not.)
Specifically:
“ Even if you work in a state that doesn’t protect employees from political discrimination, you might still have a legal claim if your employer’s actions were really based on a protected trait under Title VII or a similar state law. For example, if African American employees are fired for participating in a Black Lives Matter rally, but employees of other races are not fired for going to marches, rallies, or protests, that might qualify as illegal race discrimination. ”
You don’t have enough information to say either way, and the law and courts aren’t as cut-and-dry as you want to believe.
We’re making the same point. They have to show that there was discrimination against protected beliefs. The employer’s currently-stated position does not meet that bar. If the ex-employee has evidence that hasn’t been published by the employer, then they could win in court, if they can convince the court that their evidence is sound.
Say you refuse to hire or fire people from a predominantly black neighborhood — not because they're black, but based on the neighborhood — it's pretty accepted these days that that's discriminatory and not allowed.
But now liberals here are saying that refusing to hire or firing people from a predominantly Republican and/or Christian social network is different.
It's the same. That position is hypocritical regardless of whether you think it should be legal.
Selfish ass? You have made an allegation about this person's character which does not appear to have supporting evidence, either in the article posted or any other source.
> You have made an allegation about this person's character which does not appear to have supporting evidence, either in the article posted or any other source
Correct.
However, given the wider social context I’m making an inference from the facts that are established.
