Rick:
If you were confronted with hard scientific evidence that people who choose
same sex partners are biologically/chemically inclined to such partners,
and that it is no more a matter of "choice" then it is for a straight person
to choose an opposite sex partner, would you still conclude
Needless to says the subject of gay marriage has come up in my courses (the subject of sexual harassment of gay students and teachers and discrimination based on sexual orientation, generally, the employment of public school teachers, and the formation of gay-lesbian clubs where a school has
Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
--- Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's
religious beliefs prevent
him from affirming
the flame-wars . . .
- Original Message -
From: Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
Michael: You are so full of hatred. Just read what you
wrote.
Best
--- Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you
from affirming the value of Christians who believe
that
One could say, in response to Michael, that his beliefs prevent him from
affirming the value of homophobes. Of course, he thinks that judging
homosexuality as immoral is a mistaken point of view, a disorder one may
say. But I don't recall ever coming across the argument that establishes
the
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
I'm ambivalent about this case. On the one hand, I think that ATT should be able to enforce a "progressive" antidiscrimination policy if it so desires, without special accommodations for religious employees.The same conservatives who are againstrequiringor even allowing private companiesto
I think it's pretty clear that ATT is free to implement a
progressive antidiscrimination policy that encompasses the protection of
its gay and lesbian employees over the objections of its religious
employees, and that it need not accommodate them by exempting them from
that policy. See
]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case
What is between valuing other people's lifestyles and not
discriminat[ing] against them because they are gay?
Putting aside one's feelings about a person's sexual
I think it's pretty clear that ATT is free to implement a
progressive antidiscrimination policy that encompasses the
protection of
its gay and lesbian employees over the objections of its religious
employees, and that it need not accommodate them by exempting them from
that policy. See Peterson
Title VII already obliges an employer to protect employees from religious
discrimination, and more particularly religiously motivated harassment to
the same extent that it must protect employees from sexual harassment --
if the harassment is by a supervisor and causes a tangible employment
effect,
: 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
In a message dated 4/8/2004 8:13:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be clear, my understanding of the term homophobe is one who hates homosexuals. I don't think this gentleman qualifies.
And herein lies the rub for those who think that the language should mean something:
It is progressive to require people not to discriminate or
harass. It is not progressive to require people to swear loyalty oaths or
swear fealty to other people's values. The Colorado case appears to be
about the difference.
In the Pledge case, it is progressives who are
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FYI An Interesting Case
Importance: High
Rick Duncan has sent you an article from The Washington Times.
Rick Duncan's comments:
---
WORKER OPPOSED TO GAYS WINS
Doug,
I was hoping that progressive here would be a neutral phrase. Perhaps there is a
better label, I am just not sure what it is. I don't want to use the word liberal
because I like to reserve that term for philosophical purposes -- e.g. liberal v.
communitarian -- rather than succomb to
In a message dated 4/7/2004 3:54:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, it seems to me that having the state require an oath and having ATT require an oath are different sorts of things. The state has more guns than ATT does.
Of course, the State, at least since Barnette,
18 matches
Mail list logo
