[Vision2020] Score one for the KKK!

Tim Lohrmann timlohr@yahoo.com
Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)


--0-2077665737-1081637054=:88413
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Tom,
    I don't think you understand the court's reasoning.
    The language the article quoted is as follows: 
  
"Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including sexual orientation."
  
  So, in other words he was in fact required to state that he "values" same-sex sexual orientation. His particular faith apparently teaches that this is not something to be valued. So, as the court ruled, this was a violation of freedom of conscience. 
  
 Again, this fellow agreed not to engage in any discriminatory behavior. That should be all that's necessary to accomplish the employer's goal of a discrimination free workplace. 
But here, AT&T went beyond that and required that the employee renounce his own private views violating his own freedom of conscience.
  
  Your beef is with the Civil Rights law which the article quotes as:
   
   " The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so." 
 
  Since the employee agreed not to discriminate--they were unable to show the undue hardship mentioned above.
  Apparently you would prefer to pick and choose to which groups Civil Rights law applies. Of course that would violate the whole purpose of Civil Rights protections. But hey, you're entitled to your opinions.
  TL
Tom Hansen <thansen@moscow.com> wrote:
Mr. Lohrmann -

For the final time, the article states that Mr. Buonanno refused to sign a
"certificate of understanding"concerning a requirement to respect and value
the "DIFFERENCES" among all of us. Nowhere does it say that Mr. Buonanno
would be required to value homosexual behavior.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
--0-2077665737-1081637054=:88413
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>Tom,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't think you understand the court's reasoning.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The language the article quoted is as follows:&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>"Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said "each person at AT&amp;T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including sexual orientation."<BR>&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp; So, in other words he was in fact required to state that he "values" same-sex&nbsp;sexual orientation. His particular faith apparently teaches that this is not something to be valued. So, as the court ruled, this was a violation of freedom of conscience. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;Again,&nbsp;this fellow&nbsp;agreed not to engage in any discriminatory behavior. That should be all that's necessary to&nbsp;accomplish the employer's goal of&nbsp;a discrimination free workplace. </DIV>
<DIV>But here, AT&amp;T went beyond that and required that the employee renounce his own private views violating his own freedom of conscience.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp; Your beef is with the Civil Rights law which the article quotes as:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp; &nbsp;" The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so." </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp; Since the employee agreed not to discriminate--they were unable to show the undue hardship mentioned above.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp; Apparently you would prefer to pick and choose to which groups&nbsp;Civil Rights&nbsp;law applies. Of course that would violate the whole purpose of Civil Rights protections. But hey, you're entitled to your opinions.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp; TL<BR><B><I>Tom Hansen &lt;thansen@moscow.com&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Mr. Lohrmann -<BR><BR>For the final time, the article states that Mr. Buonanno refused to sign a<BR>"certificate of understanding"concerning a requirement to respect and value<BR>the "DIFFERENCES" among all of us. Nowhere does it say that Mr. Buonanno<BR>would be required to value homosexual behavior.<BR><BR>DO YOU UNDERSTAND???<BR><BR>Tom Hansen<BR>Moscow, Idaho<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p><hr size=1><font face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! Tax Center - <a href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html">File online by April 15th</a>
--0-2077665737-1081637054=:88413--