No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's religious beliefs prevent him from affirming the value of gay people. I call that homophobia.
-----Original Message----- From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:48 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case I think you're missing the point. The gentleman was not homophobic. He just had no interest in affirming values with which he disagreed. A related example: I am not anti-Muslim, because I do not believe in Allah, nor do I wish to affirm his existence or value. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:49 PM Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case To the extent, and only to the extent, that AT&T Broadband failed explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right. Surely AT&T is entitled to have a harmonious work environment for ALL of its employees, both gays and homophobes. And it should be given some latitude in achieving that objective. The devil is in the details, I suspect. I'll feel more confident about this case -- one way or the other -- after I get a chance to read it cover to cover. _______________________________________________ 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
