Re: FYI An Interesting Case

[MSternAJC]

The ATT pledge did not require that people be able to work together. It required that they announce that they value each others' lifestyle-and it is hard to see why a company has an interest in its employees moral views. If this pledge were enforced evenhandedly, would it not require gays to value the lifestyle and values of religious opponents of a "gay lifestyle." I bet is it not so understood. The company's reaction about diversity suggests that the company does not understand the pledge to apply equally to all religious views-itself a possible violation of Title VII.
Marc Stern

_______________________________________________
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