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:
Again, he did not say that gay people were
of less value. Instead, as I gather, he was not willing to express
any support for their homosexual orientation/conduct/choice. Christians
are commanded to love all, no matter how they have sinned.
Are you saying that one must find worth in the g
There is a big difference between the value of a person and the values
of a person.
Alan
Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family & Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTE
I believe that Ed Darrell (I apologize if I misspelled your name) said in a
recent message that Judge Overton's opinion in McLean v. Arkansas was
well-crafted. For those who interested, I recently published a piece that
offered a critical assessment of this opinion:
"Science and Religion Twenty Y
Fair enough. I appreciate the clarification. By the way, I agree with
you that Van Dyke appears to be in over his head.
-Original Message-
From: Michael MASINTER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:00 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Co
The
district court's reasoning, which Virginia wisely disavowed, would preclude a
lot more than dietary allowances in state institutions. As noted in
the appellant's briefs in Madison, and as Judge Wilkinson
observed, "It would throw into question a wide variety
of religious accommodation
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
Well, the circuit split issue isn't quite as clear
as I had suggested. In its petition, Virginia expressly rejects
the EC theory on which it had won in the district court, and that the Sixth
Circuit invoked in Cutter (namely, that a government can accommodate
religious exercise only if it p
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,
I think it's pretty clear that AT&T 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 Peterso
Thanks. As I suspected, we define discrimination differently. I believe
that discrimination occurs when someone employs an illicit characteristic to
modify his or her behavior in any way, including being uncooperative.
- Original Message -
From: "A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
"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 orientation or
specific religious beliefs and cooperating fully with the individual to
achieve collective goals. I do that all
I think it's pretty clear that AT&T 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 P
Here's a link to Virginia's Petition in Bass v.
Madison: http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/bassvmadison.pet.pdf
The petition surprisingly focuses as much or more
on Commerce and Spending as it does on the Establishment Clause. I think
it's highly unlikely that the Court would grant
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Petron, David wrote:
> Marty's mention of the Madison case (in which my colleagues in the Religious
> Institutions Practice Group here at Sidley represent the respondent) prompts
> me to bring another recent cert. petition to the list's attention. Along
> with John Mauck and
Marty's mention of the Madison case (in which my
colleagues in the Religious Institutions Practice Group here at Sidley
represent
the respondent) prompts me to bring another recent cert. petition to the
list's
attention. Along with John Mauck and Richard Bell of Mauck & Baker
in
Chicago, we
I'm ambivalent about this case. On the one hand, I think that AT&T should be able to enforce a "progressive" antidiscrimination policy if it so desires, without special accommodations for religious employees. The same conservatives who are against requiring or even allowing private companies to
Please describe that continuum. What is between "valuing other people's
lifestyles" and not "discriminat[ing] against them" because they are gay?
- Original Message -
From: "A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thurs
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 discrimina
It appears that Virginia has petitioned from the
CTA4 decision in Madison v. Riter. http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story165342.html.
Does anyone have the cert. petition? If so,
please post it (or a link).
Presumably the petition is predicated on the
circuit split caused by Cutte
In a message dated 4/7/2004 1:02:59 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can one make the argument that teaching it is constitutional without
damning methodological naturalism as a priori? That is, if MN indeed
is what was found rather than what is assumed, can one claim that
t
21 matches
Mail list logo
