|
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 AT&T require an oath are different sorts of things. The state has more guns than AT&T does. Of course, the State, at least since Barnette, has always been required to give special regard to the conscientious dissenter in the pledge cases. So, absent evidence of more than a de minimus impact on the dissentiphobic employer, the decision seems about right.
Jim "Neologiphobic" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ 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
