During the many years I taught the Constitution and American national government at the Air Force Academy, there were several subjects that I knew would be tricky to teach, given the overwhelming majority of cadets were, well, a good bit to the right of center, politically. That’s not their fault, of course. It is really the fault of my fellow more-liberal folks, who all too often don’t even consider a military career as an option. That’s a mistake on their part, but that rant by me must await a future column.

There were two subjects specifically that I always knew in advance would rile up their young minds and would cause them to get pretty upset with the material I presented. The first subject was flag burning. Boy, do they hate flag burners. But the Supreme Court has rightly ruled that flag burning is protected political speech – the most vital of all types of speech to protect.

I explained to them that they don’t get to defend the Constitution (and the rights therein created) only when they agree with the political message being communicated. The best reason not to burn a flag, I told them, is because anyone can if they want to. They grumbled but seemed to mostly get it.

But the second subject that vexed them was religion. Cadets tend to be a fairly religious group (though not as much as some might think). And so, when I taught a lesson on what religious freedom really meant, a good number of them were, well, offended by the idea that they had to honor other religions than their own.

A recent news story in the Gazette highlights the issue, as a local school board member decided to read aloud a Benjamin Franklin quote at the opening of a meeting, in which a bible is listed as something needed in a good house. Some people were upset by that, and some were not.

The problem, of course, is that folks who profess to follow a particular religion tend to think that their view of faith is the “correct” one and that others are, well, wrong. I’m guessing that some of the most passionate supporters of the bible quote would have been offended if that word had been replaced with, say “Quran,” or “Torah” or, heck, something satanic. People tend to want their own religion to “rule” and are not happy when their personal faith is faced with obstructions.

Which, of course, brings me to the case of the Safeway grocery worker.

In a recent Colorado Politics story, we learned that a federal judge has tossed the lawsuit brought by a woman who works for the grocery chain in Weld County. She argued that Safeway had engaged in a pattern of religious discrimination and had retaliated against her on the basis of her religion.

Now, I’m guessing that many of you, dear readers, are expecting me to identify the faith involved, but I’m not going to (I’m not being especially clever, in that her faith is identified in the CP story). Which faith it is doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not Safeway treated her unfairly. The court decided it had not.

This person’s faith required that she not celebrate certain holidays that others observe. In particular, Thanksgiving and Christmas were problems. Safeway, like most such companies, offered opportunities for customers to make charitable donations by purchasing coupons called “Turkey Bucks” and “Santa Bucks.” For the employee, this was a bridge too far. She could not, in her view of her faith, solicit such donations.

The company, the court ruled, tried multiple ways to keep the 20-year employee happy, for example by letting her ask customers to donate to the food bank, rather than use the words noted above. She refused. Safeway then offered to move her to a position that would not require her to ask for donations or “bucks,” but again, she refused.

As the holidays approached the next year, and after trying multiple ways to find an accommodation she would accept, Safeway told her that the only option they had left, if she didn’t want to participate in the promotions, was for her to take unpaid leave during November and December. When the same approach was tried the following year, she first tried to get her union to demand “back pay,” but they declined.

So, she sued.

In areas such as religion, as I understand the law, organizations are required to make “reasonable accommodations” for people, be it physical issues or things like religion. But there are limits. The plaintiff and Safeway had different views of where that line between reasonable and unreasonable accommodations lay, and the court ruled for Safeway.

If I was still teaching at the Academy, this case would be a great way to present the issue of religious accommodation. I don’t for a moment doubt the plaintiff’s sincerity, nor do I doubt that Safeway tried to find a way to keep a two-decade employee happy. But sometimes there just isn’t a middle ground that satisfies everyone.

When I taught the religious freedom lesson, I’d give an example of religious expression in two faiths I made up. In the first “faith,” a worker’s faith required him or her to offer a silent, 10-second prayer, in their car, before coming in for his or her job. In the second “faith,” the adherent was required to sacrifice a dozen Golden Retriever puppies (again, folks, this is made up) every morning. Which of the two, I asked the cadets, could/should be reasonably accommodated by an employer (spoiler: the first example is OK). Happily, in all my years at the Academy, no cadet ever thought killing the puppies was reasonable. Whew.

Religion is, and will always be, a contentious and challenging issue for lawmakers and judges. The Weld County case demonstrates both the complexities and the dangers of legal meddling in issues of faith. Unfortunately, all too often, the legal system is dragged into these issues due to outrage and feelings of victimhood.

The court got this one correct, in my view, but we know this isn’t the last we’ve seen of such cases.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.