The case of flight attendants Marli Brown and Lacey Smith is a cautionary tale for corporate America about what happens when ideological conformity takes precedence over religious liberty.

In February 2021, Alaska Airlines announced its support for the Equality Act on the company’s internal communications platform, Alaska’s World. The airline invited employees to comment, promoting the forum as a place where “our differences make us better when we support and respect each other, allowing each of us to be who we are.”

Companies have a legitimate interest in maintaining productive workplaces. They do not have the right to demand ideological uniformity on disputed questions.

Brown and Smith took the company at its word.

Both raised concerns about the proposed legislation rooted in their Christian faith. Brown warned that the Equality Act would “endanger the Church” and “eliminate conscience protections.” Smith asked: “As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?”

Alaska Airlines investigated and fired both women on the same day, citing violations of its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

In other words, the airline treated modest and widely held religious concerns about pending federal legislation as fireable harassment — in a forum the company itself created for open discussion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected that reasoning.

The court noted that Brown’s post “on its face reflected the expression of religious belief” and that both Alaska Airlines and the flight attendants’ union understood it that way.

Internal company emails revealed the attitude behind the terminations. One employee in Alaska Airlines’ legal department wrote, “Employees actually do not have the right to believe that LGBTQ rights are ‘immoral.’” A vice president replied, “I 100% agree.”

That exchange goes to the heart of the case.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of religion. The law defines religion broadly to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.”

Employers cannot escape that command by relabeling disfavored religious beliefs as harassment.

RELATED: MLB’s Pride police strike out against Christian players

Blaze Media Illustration

Yet some corporations increasingly treat religious objections to progressive social policies as inherently discriminatory. That turns civil rights law on its head. Protections meant to guard employees against religious discrimination become tools for punishing the religious convictions themselves.

The facts here are especially striking because Alaska Airlines created the very forum in which Brown and Smith spoke.

The company encouraged employees to share their views and promised a “safe space culture where employees feel empowered to have open and critical dialogue.” Alaska Airlines also acknowledged internally that the issue raised religious freedom concerns.

The company knew religious objections were likely. Then it fired the employees who expressed them.

Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, put the problem plainly: “Alaska created a forum for employee discussion on controversial issues, then fired Brown after she made religious objections of the kind Alaska anticipated.”

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Alaska Airlines' stated reasons for the firing pretextual and determine that the company “used the cover of its employee policies to fire Brown because of her religious beliefs.”

The union’s conduct adds another troubling layer.

The Association of Flight Attendants was supposed to represent Brown and Smith. Instead, union officials criticized and mocked their religious concerns.

The union president texted Alaska Airlines executives, “I wish fewer people would struggle so much with unifying their faith with inclusivity.” The court found that remark could reasonably be interpreted as disparaging religious belief.

Another union representative suggested that someone should “put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well.”

Those are not the words of neutral representatives. They reveal contempt for religious belief — precisely the kind of animus Title VII forbids.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision draws an important line.

Employers may protect employees from genuine harassment. But they must distinguish between expression intended to demean co-workers and an employee’s opposition to company policy or advocacy on a contested public issue.

RELATED: Trump 2.0 puts religious liberty back on offense

Joebelanger/Getty Images

Brown and Smith did not threaten or demean anyone. They raised concerns about legislation affecting religious liberty.

Companies have a legitimate interest in maintaining productive workplaces. They do not have the right to demand ideological uniformity on disputed questions of law, morality, and public policy.

When employers invite diverse views and then punish employees for expressing religious ones, they betray their own promises and risk violating federal law.

Religious freedom is not a privilege granted at an employer’s discretion. It is a fundamental civil right.

That protection is especially important in the workplace, where most Americans spend much of their waking lives.

Employers that genuinely value diversity and inclusion must make room for religious employees.

The Ninth Circuit has now held that Brown and Smith presented enough evidence for a jury to conclude that Alaska Airlines and the union discriminated against them because of their faith.

When this case goes to trial, we are confident that is exactly what the jury will find.