I think our genial moderator is probably right about the inadvisability
of stand-alone jokes, but for the record let me say that I found it well
within the realm of acceptable humor (and not simply constitutionally
protected against state interference).
My following question is genuine (i.e.,
At 11:26 AM 12/5/2003, Rick Duncan wrote:
Alert the media! Paul Finkelman and Rick Duncan are in
total agreement on this issue.
Hallelujah, The Millennium has indeed arrived! (Does this count as an
unacceptable free-standing joke?)
sandy
___
To post,
Greg Sisk writes:
Having seen numerous instances in which law school faculty candidates, with
outstanding credentials, but who indicated even slightly conservative
viewpoints were treated less favorably in hiring
I think that one must offer a more complex notion of conservative
viewpoints.
I presume that I am not
the only person to notice the irony (or is it a paradox?) in the
Administration's arguing that it must scrupulously adhere to a United Nations
Convention even if, by stipulation, it overrides the expressed (and otherwise
constitutional) wish of Congress that
Title: Message
MikeSchuttwrites:
1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if
not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind--
that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact.
If anything
is a theological proposition (that should not be taught by the state) it is
Is there any reason at
all to believe that Roman Law owed anything at all to the Ten
Commandments? I take it that Roman Law is the basic source of most
European civil law.
sandy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 16,
Title: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Quite frankly, I think that
that there is not a scintilla of language in the Declaration that bespeaks
"Chrstianity" as a religious doctrine involving a Savior., etc. (There's
nothing in the Declaration that would suggest
I strongly recommend an
article by Nadya Labi, "The Gentle People," in the current issue of Legal
Affairs. It argues that incest is rife within Amish communities and that,
basically, the community does next to nothing to control it, other than pressing
the victims to "forgive" the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Schick
Avi Shick raises the following questions:
I'm somewhat confused by your statement that even if the article is off
by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or
Title: RE: The Amish
Avi Shick
writes:
I guess one way to get at the question is
whether you think that the result in Yoder should have been different because of
theconduct described in the Legal Affairs article?
_
I have always found the
I agree that
this is an Establishment Clause violation. But it should be said that the
judge is profoundly wrong (I'd be tempted to use stronger language) in declaring
that a school curriculum must be "viewpoint neutral." As Robert Post,
among others, has pointed out, this makes literally
You will find
belowthe first sentence of a story that will appear in tomorrow's New York
Times. Rather amazingly, incidentally, the Governor's staff is claiming
that it was an ecumininal gathering because the benediction was given by a "Jew
for Jesus."
In any event,
isone being
Sanford Levinson wrote:
he signed represents Christianity in action. But isn't there
something truly offensive about turning a bill-signing into a
religious rally?
As the Times piece pointed out, some of us may be offended by turning
a religious event into a political rally
is whether this perception of offense on the part of some
-- or for that matter joy on the part of others -- makes it an
Establishment Clause violation.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford
Levinson
Sent: Monday, June
This reasonable Texan has the impression that only Christians are
treated as friends by the Governor of Texas and that public policy
will be made in a way that conforms with the tenets of those the
Governor deems Christians. But, then, like Homer Plessy, I'm
undoubtedly too quick to take offense,
-Original Message-
From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Rick Perry and separation of church and state
This reasonable Texan has the impression that only Christians are
treated
: Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:31:24 -0500
Mark raises an interesting point. Would it have been objectionable for
Clinton to go to a church, synagogue, or mosque to sign RFRA? Probably
Title: RE: Public university sponsorship of conference onExamining the Rea l Agenda of the Christian Right
I can't help but ask what the response would be to a
public university sponsoring a conference entitled "Why Darwin (Suitably
Modified) was Right and Intelligent Design Is Wrong"
With regard to Eugene's fascinating post, the following comes to mind: If we
are genuinely concerned that people are in effect prevented from changing jobs
from high-salary to low-salary ones, then why shouldn't we offer everyone, and
not only the religious, the opportunity to make 13th
Mark Scarberry writes:
As I said in a later post, the Establishment Clause has been understood to
prohibit government
endorsement of religious (or anti-religious) views.
But this understanding of the Establishment Clause simply can't be correct when
applied to state universities. As Robert
Theh following story appears in today's New York Times, about what some might
call the persecution by the US of a young Moslem woman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/nyregion/17suicide.html?pagewanted=4themc=th
My questions are as follows: 1. Does the FBI's scrutiny of her religious
Eugene writes:
I sympathize with Sandy's point, but why is it limited to
universities? Surely this is even more so as to K-12 public schools,
no?
This is, of course, correct. One simply cannot understand *any* system of
education, public or private, without realizing that there is
Title: Re: Government displays protesting against the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence
Please allow me to make the
obvious point that the Constitution does not "designate" a particular body to
give definitive interpretations of the Constitution.
sandy
From: [EMAIL
I'm curious what Rick (and others) would think of a chaplain OR a
military officer who said, just before a patrol went off to take up a
position, say, along the Baghdad airport highway, Any of you could be
killed today, and I hope that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your
Lord and Savior,
Rick asks:
By the way, am I too sensitive or do I perceive a certain animus toward
evangelicals in this discussion?
Not
surprisingly, perhaps, my initial posting was generated by an evangelical
memorial sermon, presumably an "official" activity on the Navy ship where it
occurred,that
Rick writes:
If I were on a road heading for
a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another
road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If Iwere
heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that
everything
Assume that Cohen v. California had gone the other way, with Justice
Harlan in dissent. For Eugene and others who defend the city in this
thread: Could I constitutionally stand in front of the courthouse with
a copy of the opinion plus a) a jacket saying Fuck the Draft or 2) a
highly enlarged
Shameless self-promotion: I wrote about some of these issues in
"The Confrontation of Religoius Faith and Civil Religion: Catholics
Becoming Justices," 39 DePaul L. Rev. 1047 (1990), reprinted in Levinson,
Wrestling With Diversity (2003). Roberts is Catholic, and the Church is
increasingly
Rick
writes:
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I
don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child
in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to
the democratic branches.
Am I
correct ininterpreting this
Title: Re: inJohn Roberts' America.
I share Jean Dudley's views,,
but isn't the legal problem that overruling Roe would be justified by the
compelling interest in protecting fetal life--I assume, especially after
Lawrence, that the Court would concede that a liberty interest is at
Title: Is Roberts a Strict Constructionist?
Marty quotes a passage from
Roberts's casenote accept the Blaisdell majority's description ofthe
Contracts Clause as one of the Constitution's "general clauses, which afford a
broad outline" and therefore require "construction . . . to fill in
for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Faith Of John Roberts
What is the name of the book? Barnes and Noble has nothing by Tanhanaha.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford
Levinson
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL
recuse himself or
resign rather than enforce an unjust law; it's likely that all of us
would have limits, were we judges, beyond which we too would recuse
ourselves or resign.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL
At one level I don't
understand what the problem is with the Santorum Amendment, which could easily
be interpreted as a mandate to teach students the difference between analysis
founded on genuine science (e.g., evolution) from analysis that is, from a
scientific perspective, simply and
Title: Message
Dan Gibbens
asks,
In this
context, who can argue with this W quote: I think that part of education
is to expose people to different schools of thought, Bush said. Youre asking
me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is
yes.
Does this
I
know that I should simply forbear from comment, but when Rick
writes:
We humans--whether evolved or
created--don't know much about what happened even yesterday. It is hubris to
pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 billion years
ago
I cannot help but wonder why in the
Title: RE: What causes more religious strife: Government bodiespostingtheTen Commandments, or courts ordering their removal?
There is an interesting poll at
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr050805-1topline.pdfid=2747
Most of it tests popular support for George
Can't both hypotheses be
true? I.e., some people are undoubtedly moving from "mainstream" churches
to more Evangelical ones (which are, of course, becoming the new mainstream)
because of what are perceived as defects. At the same time, precisely
because "to be religious" is increasingly
Title: Re: Increase in No Religion?
Frank Beckwith
writes:In any event, it seems to me
that it is not clear how the public good is served by the state using its
coercive power to force Catholic Charities to fund what it does not believe is
moral, and which is part of a well-established
Frank writes:
All that I am suggesting is that religious claims are of a wide variety, some
depending on revelation (as you correctly suggest) and others that depend on
arguments whose premises do not appeal to such notions. What I am saying is
that a religious claim should not be
I am reading an absolutely terrific manuscript by
Columbia historian Richard Bushman, a biography of Joseph Smith, which is
extremely illuminating on LDS theology. (Not the least interesting feature
of the manuscript is Bushman's threading the needle with regard to the
ontological status of
Let me put the question this way for Sandy and Mark: Do they really
believe it would violate the EC for a public school to assign, say, Behe's
Darwin's Black Box for a high school science class? Is this
really the same thing as wanting to teach "malevolent design" or "the Protocols
of the
I believe the only proper response of a biologist or
physicist is that the question of whether there is any "meaning" or "point" to
life, either in general or in particular, is the subject of a different
course. A physician qua physician simply has no professional competence to
say, "I'm
I don't think the Establishment Clause requires that
labelling; I think that respect for science requires it. Indeed, I think
it might violate the EC to force teachers who reject ID to present it as
"serious science" instead of theology masking as science.
I have no objection at all to
There are all sorts of
ways to provide comfort. But a nonbelieving physician would simply be
lying if he/she said "I'm sure you're son is in heaven." S/he could say,
"I have some sense of how you feel because my own child/parent/sibling died
recently," or "I can only dimly imagine the grief
Rick
writes:
Whether it is good science or bad science is forelected
officialsin charge of the schools--not federal courts--to decide.
This is actually quite a bizarre notion. It may be, as a
matter of constitutional law, that public school officials have the legal right
to make all
tomorrow's NYTimes will have a very interesting story on the
Discovery Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?ei=5094en=88f0b94e7eb26357hp=ex=1124596800partner=homepagepagewanted=print
Among other interesting quotes is the following:
"All ideas go through three
Rick writes:
The only possible crime (assuming all
parties are consenting adults)is adultery, and criminal adultery laws
probably don't survive Lawrence (or do they?).
I'm not sure why adultery laws wouldn't
survive Recall that Blackmun, in his Bowers dissent, took care to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick Duncan
Sent: Sun 8/21/2005 1:15 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious Polygamy
Does Sandy now agree with me that male on male anal sodomy is victim-causing
behavior?
I don't think it
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Francis Beckwith
writes:
. Motives, after all, are types of
beliefs that causally contribute to bringing about certain actions. But beliefs
are off limits, according to the Courts Jeffersonian tradition.
So, if you accept that tradition, religious motives can
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Frank writes:
. But I think that fact shows that in both EC
and FE contexts beliefs are protected absolutely (actions and practices,
of course, are a different matter), which means that they cannot be the basis
for restricting a citizens liberties. But, of
This story will be in tomorrow's Boston Globe. So the question is this:
Should school boards be able to require to treat UFOs as a real possibility in
those courses in which such information might conceivably be relevant (perhaps
physics)? Is the evidence for UFOs really weaker than for ID?
For what it is worth, I find
much to agree with in Rick's thoughtful posting below. The most
fundamental question is at what point a society becomes so "pluralistic" and
fragmented that it can no longer really be viewed as "our society," but, rather,
a congeries of increasingly isolated
As some of you know, I
have rather strong political views. Yet I have argued in my constitutional
law classes that it would be perfectly constitutional (and perhaps desirable to
boot) if a condition of my employment were that I could not wear campaign
buttons in my classes or otherwise make
. Now as law
professors,as teachers of our future leaders,will you actually teach
your students thatgovernment should agree with them,and side with
Mr. Weinstein and Yale Divinity, and enter the Protestant Chapel to silence the
chaplain's speechwith military policemen? Sandy? Paul?
Chip?
I'm not sure how important ownership is. The question
is what kind of forum is made available to chaplains on what reasonable
terms. Though I suppose it is an interesting side question if the military
at Camp Lejune, e.g., could prohibit members of the armed forces from attending
churches
Tom Berg writes in his very interesting post:
Moreover, although there are plenty of political issues on which official
Catholic teaching tends to lean more to the left than to the right -- for
example, active government involvement in poverty and welfare programs -- many
of these are not
Title: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression
Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for
yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of
Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor,
As a matter of fact, they were there. Perhaps this is why it was at lunch,
rather than dinner, because they had to leave for Argentina.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 11/5/2005 3:08 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject:
people?
From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:41 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over
Rick writes:
It seems to me that inviting
Title: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist
Imagine that a religion
commits itself to a phlogistonistic view of chemistry. Surely the chemistry
department can teach that it is false. Would anyone seriously believe that
the Establishment Clause would prevent that?
Perhaps ID isn't
Title: Message
For what it is worth, I often
say "Mazel Tov" to Christian friends precisely because the term, to my
knowledge, has no religious meaning at all. It is a way of saying
"congratulations." (I think that it literally means "Happy day." I
am unaware of any prayer in the Jewish
I'd be a bit irked if it ended in Jesus' name.
All of this being said, I do think this has turned into a discussion of manners rather than of law.
Sandy
- Sanford Levinson
(Sent from a Blackberry)
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw
Title: Re: Kansas Anti-ID Prof Apologies
I think this comes under the category would that my enemy write a book (or in this case an email)!
Sandy
- Sanford Levinson
(Sent from a Blackberry)
___
To post, send message
I much appreciate Jim
Henderson's thoughtful posting below. About 30 years ago, when I was in
law school, I remember very vividly giving a talk to the Menlo Park (or Redwood
City, I forget which) Lions Club against the California referendum to reinstate
the death penalty. The principal
iconic.
Sandy
- Sanford Levinson
(Sent from a Blackberry)
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
I must say that I think for most people professor rates as a higher
honorific than Dr. But the pattern *is* odd.
sandy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Monsma
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:10 PM
To:
I can see what Eugene is getting at, but it seems to me that one
question raised by John Lofton's comment is the meaning of an oath.
The oath, after all, is to be faithful to the Constitution, which some
of us argue functions, for better and distinctly for worse, as the
centerpiece of American
I think the issue of historical restoration and preservation is a tricky one,
precisely because of the potential for strategic mispresentation. I would feel
much better if the decision had been made by a professional board of architects
(who would no doubt be completely credible in claiming
I think that one can limit
the "practice of one's faith" to a refusal consciously to be photographed.
(This, obviously, arises in the drivers' license cases.) I am not
persuadedthat a serious art or news photographer must get the consent of
everyone he/she surreptitiously photographs,
From today's NYTimes (comments at conclusion)
March 10, 2006
Inquiry Finds Lax Federal Inspections
at Kosher Meat Plant
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
An internal report from the Agriculture Department has found that one of the
nation's leading kosher slaughterhouses violated animal cruelty
Title: Message
The following materials are an "appendix" of sorts to
an article in yesterday's Washington Post on textbooks in Saudi Arabia. It
notes, though, that they are also used in certain Saudi-financed schools in the
United States. So the question is this: Do any of
thematerials
I much appreciate the video. I think it
IS relevant inasmuch as it raises the whole issue of pre-approval
of valedictorians speeches. The video rightly suggests that such a
practice is itself dubious. I share Bob Nagels view that valedictorians
should be allowed to say anything and
So what will the Bushes do? Is she
going to be the second Republican senatorial candidate to be disowned? But the
Democratic candidate is scarcely so compatible to Republicans as Joe Lieberman.
Incidentally, given her apparent
belief that God casts the relevant vote in all elections,
magazines. The answer is yes, and I don't recall that Eugene disagreed.
Sandy
- Sanford Levinson
(Sent from a Blackberry)
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http
.
Sandy
- Sanford Levinson
(Sent from a Blackberry)
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note
On this one I tend to agree with Will (unless we want to get into a discussion
of Falwell v. Hustler, one of the shining lights of our contemporary
jurisprudence!).
sandy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will Linden
Sent: Wed 5/16/2007 8:57 PM
To: Law
I'm very sympathetic to the student in this case (assuming there are no
surprises in the facts as they come out), but I do think that the Rust v.
Sullivan chickens may be coming home to roost in this case. If the doctor had
no first amendment right to mention abortion, why in the world would
an employee. That makes the Est. Clause argument the
key. I wonder whether the plaintiff pled a violation of the Establishment
Clause?
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Sun 8/19/2007 12:35 PM
To: Law Religion issues
Doesn't the question boil down to whether the school can put ANY restraints on
the desire to take a couple of years off? If, argendo, it can, then I don't
understand why the Mormon gets special solicitude, given that it's not an
obligation, as distinguished from Sherbert. Whether the school's
Although I always hesitate to disagree with my (sadly) former cilleague Doug, I
confess I'm with Eugene (and, I think, Michael McConnell, on the basis of past
threads), on this one. I see no relevant difference between going to Mongolia
to spread the word about the Book of Mormon and a belief
So let me review the bidding: Someone who wants to engage in a year of
community service spreading the word about the Ku Klux Klan is entitled to
take the year off (to say no would be to engage in forbidden viewpoint
discrimination), but a student who invoked the 5th Commandment to take off a
Is it close-minded to say that one is simply mystified by the notion of
revealed religion, whether the reference is to the (purported) experience at
Sinai, the annunciation to Mary, or the dictation of the Koran to Mohammed?
I suppose I'm open-minded enough to say that although I see no reason
There is a fascinating story in today's NYTimes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/movies/13dhar.html?ref=artspagewanted
=print, about a documentary on an Alabama prison whose lifer inmates
engaged in a Buddhist meditation program. It was a voluntary program,
so I assume there are no First
Isn't there a fairly obvious contradiction between an ostensibly
principled refusal to discuss any theological doctrine associated with
Mormonism and Romney's ostentatious proclamation that he (and presumably
Mormonism) considers Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of
mankind? Is sit
I suppose the technical legal question could revolve around the
propriety of asking any potential juror who gives evidence of being
deeply religious (whatever exactly that means) if he/she is willing to
enforce laws (and put people in prison) even if he/she believes that the
law is not only
May I respectfully suggest that one difference between Lincoln and perhaps) all
of his successors is that he was a profoundly serious man who was not using
religion for crassly instrumental low-political purposes.
Sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:37 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Using religion for government purposes
May I respectfully suggest that one difference between Lincoln and perhaps) all
of his
I can't figure out exactly why religious groups deserve to be treated
differently from, say, the young Democrats or Republicans or the Sierra Club.
The Constitution says not that we have to treat religion differently, but,
rather, that we have to keep engaging in an endless conversation about
. It's all comers rule is egregiously unconstitutional as to
political groups as well as to religious groups.
Quoting Sanford Levinson slevin...@law.utexas.edu:
I can't figure out exactly why religious groups deserve to be treated
differently from, say, the young Democrats or Republicans
For what it’s worth, I agree that a parent-teachers conference policy must
extend to all schools and not only public schools. Am I correct that Rick
wouldn’t believe that businesses would have to accommodate adult children who
needed to attend a conference with their aged parents’ doctors
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels
who've corrupted it that I want to reform --Dick Gaughan (from the song,
Thomas Muir of Huntershill)
--- On Tue, 5/11/10, Sanford Levinson slevin
An extremely basuc question: who exactly will be appealing? Surely not the
Attorney General or, seemingly, the defendant governor. And, even more surely,
not the plaintiffs. I apologize for asking such a dumb question, but inquiring
minds want to know
Sandy
It's entirely question begging to say that the AG abdicated his
responsibility, which is, after all, thanks to Article VI of the US
Constitution, to be faithful to that Consatitution.
Sandy
- Original Message -
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
I'll bite: the argument against prohibition is prudential, ie, the social costs
are too high (as with drugs and, argably, guns), not because there is a
constititional right to drink or, even after Heller, possess a habdgun outside
one's home.
Sandy
From:
I basically agree with Art. As Dworkin argues, it is the very meaning of
taking rights seriously that one is willing to accept very real costs (which
go beyond simply the cost, however real, of feeling demeaned or insulted).
My point was simply that the very likely costs of allowing the burning
This just in from the Austin American-Statesman.
Bus driver who refused to take women to Planned Parenthood gets $21K in
settlementhttp://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2011/04/25/driver_who_refused_to_bring_wo.html
By Steven
I am curious whether there will be any public outrage about this, in the way
that I suspect there would be if, say, the city paid out $21,500 (in order
simply to avoid litigation that could undoubtedly be won) to an atheist who
made an equally dubious claim. (I confess I see no circumstances
assembling M-1 rifles, even if accurately assured
that fewer than 1 in 1000 ever fires a shot that hits a person?
Art
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Sanford Levinson
slevin...@law.utexas.edumailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu wrote:
I wonder why Mark believes that a reasonably high percentage of women who
OK. Should a UPS driver, who knows that (s)he is delivering a package
containing chemicals to be used in capital punishment, have a protected right
to refuse to make the delivery? Should UPS be expected to “settle” for (only)
$21,500 upon reminding its drivers that they are not being hired to
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
