[Vision2020] Score one for the KKK!

Donovan Arnold donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:30:24 -0700


It really surprises me that you overlook what is really going on here with 
this case.

The following statement:

"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."

Does NOT mean, "you as an individual shall value above even your own 
religion two men having intercourse." That is how you are reading it, and I 
think that is unfair and incorrect.

If you believe this to be the correct interpretation then you must also read 
it to also say.

"you as an individual shall value above even your own religion a grown man 
having sex with children."  You must also read it as: "you as an individual 
shall value above even your own religion a man having sex with his daughter 
and sister."

All these are lifestyles and sexual orientation. Pedophilia, Hebophilia, 
Necrophilia, Bestiality, and Incest.

Do you in good conscious honestly believe that what AT&T meant in its' 
policy was that it supported, and expected its' employees, to support 
Pedophilia? I don't think so.

Further, to show the bigotry of this man and case, I make the following 

1) Why target Homosexuals? Why not Jews, they have different lifestyles that 
is objectionable to Christians? Or how about Rapists, or Pedophiles, or 
Murderers, or Thieves? He went right for Gay people directly. Would not his 
argument from his interpretation carry the same weight for Jews? If so, why 
not use that instead, I think you know the answer to that. It is more 
expectable to target gays and lesbians than Jews.

2) Second, the company is not asking for acceptance of "behavior" just 
orientation. Lifestyle is not one specific behavior and can include and 
exclude certain behaviors and still be considered the same lifestyle.

3) Third, if the man is a "Christian" because he follows "Christ", then let 
him show exactly when "Christ" spoke against, or denied Gays "respect and 

4) If he was a Christian, why would he not gladly quit his job and let 
Christ take care of him instead of seeking earthly materialistic goods in 
return for his "Values". Even Judas gave the money back.

5) Why would anyone want to work for a company that they do not agree with?

6) Why should a company have to keep employees that will not value the 
customer and just not discriminate against them. When I go into a store, I 
don't want to be just not discriminated against, I want to be a "valued 
customer". If a business does not value me then I will go someplace else. If 
this effect is multiplied, that business will face a loss, and go out of 
business. This is an unbearable burden for a business.

This is just a BS way of twisting words to stop gays and lesbians from 
achieving equality in workplace and marketplace. PERIOD.


Donovan J Arnold

>From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
>To: thansen@moscow.com
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Score one for the KKK!
>Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
>     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.
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th

Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN