Re: FYI An Interesting Case

Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:31:36 -0700

 
I think the term has evolved to mean hatred of homosexuality.  As for whether he loves them or not, I cannot say.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case

  1. Actually “homophobia” refers to FEAR, not hatred, of gay people.
  2. Are you suggesting that the employee in this case loves gay people?  What is your authority for such a claim? 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:47 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case

 

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 gay orientation/conduct/choice to not be considered a homophobe?

 

To be clear, my understanding of the term homophobe is one who hates homosexuals.  I don't think this gentleman qualifies.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:57 PM

Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case

 

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
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, because I do not believe in Allah, nor
do I
wish to affirm his existence or value.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


To the extent, and only to the extent, that AT&T Broadband failed
explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective
functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right.  Surely AT&T is
entitled to have a harmonious work environment for ALL of its employees,
both gays and homophobes.  And it should be given some latitude in
achieving that objective.  The devil is in the details, I suspect.  I'll
feel more confident about this case -- one way or the other -- after I
get a chance to read it cover to cover.


_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to