Re: FYI An Interesting Case

[A.E. Brownstein]

Yes. That's why the decision challenging ATT's pledge was correct -- but 
that does not mean that companies are limited to prohibiting harassment and 
discrimination. There is some distance on the continuum of workplace rules 
between valuing other people's lifestyles and agreeing not to discriminate 
against them or to harass them.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 09:32 PM 4/7/2004 -0400, you wrote:
The ATT pledge did not require that people be able to work together. It 
required that they announce that they value each others' lifestyle-and it 
is hard to see why a company has an interest in its employees moral views. 
If this pledge were enforced evenhandedly, would it not require gays to 
value the lifestyle and values of religious opponents of a "gay 
lifestyle." I bet is it not so understood. The company's reaction about 
diversity suggests that the company does not understand the pledge to 
apply equally to all religious views-itself a possible violation of Title VII.
Marc Stern
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw