RE: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9
Hey Mark - I subscribe to the UCLA religion and law listserv (which I find pretty depressing, not just because a couple of the law professors have taken Leiter's side against me in the past). But this is really funny. Scroll down and look at messages number 4 5!! This is not what you want to have happen to you!! :) Hilarious! Especially cuz this Newsom guy is one of the ones that wrote something agreeing with Leiter. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 Send Religionlaw mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Religionlaw digest... Today's Topics: 1. Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 2. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 3. Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 4. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 5. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 6. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 7. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 8. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Amar D. Sarwal) 9. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Paul Finkelman) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:07:39 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I will be out of the office until April 14, 2004, and will not be checking email regularly while I am away. If you need assistance prior to my return, please contact: Kara Stein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (212) 891-6742. -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:54:50 -0400 From: Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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 ATT Broadband failed explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right. Surely ATT 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
Re: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9
No, definitely *not* what anyone would want happening to them! - Original Message - From: Lawrence VanDyke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 8:39 PM Subject: RE: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 Hey Mark - I subscribe to the UCLA religion and law listserv (which I find pretty depressing, not just because a couple of the law professors have taken Leiter's side against me in the past). But this is really funny. Scroll down and look at messages number 4 5!! This is not what you want to have happen to you!! :) Hilarious! Especially cuz this Newsom guy is one of the ones that wrote something agreeing with Leiter. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 Send Religionlaw mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Religionlaw digest... Today's Topics: 1. Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 2. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 3. Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 4. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 5. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 6. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 7. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) 8. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Amar D. Sarwal) 9. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Paul Finkelman) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:07:39 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I will be out of the office until April 14, 2004, and will not be checking email regularly while I am away. If you need assistance prior to my return, please contact: Kara Stein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (212) 891-6742. -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:54:50 -0400 From: Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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 ATT Broadband failed explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right. Surely ATT is entitled to have a harmonious
