[Vision2020] Score one for the KKK!
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1366073527-1081718271=:85436
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Donovan,
I'm not overlooking anything.
What went on is that the employer required the employee to state that he "values" differences including different sexual orientations.
The employee, while pledging not to engage in discriminatory behavior, refused to state that he "values" something that his religion teaches is a sin.
The applicable civil rights law requires accomodation of religious beliefs as long as such accomodation doesn't present the employer with an "undue hardship."
Again, the employee pledged not to engage in any discriminatory behavior so the goal of preventing discrimination in the workplace had been achieved.
Since accomodating the employee's religious beliefs resulted merely in not having a signed pledge on file, AT&T could hardly prove that it suffered any such hardship.
Therefore, it is required to follow the Civil Rights law and make this accomodation.
The fact that many of us might disagree, as you apparently do quite vehemently, with this fellow's beliefs is irrelevant to the case.
In fact, it makes the sections of the Civil Rights law protecting the free-exercise of religion even more important.
Your extended discussion of "targeting" one group strays from the facts of the case. AT&T itself required that sexual orientation be "valued"--not the employee. If any entity here engaged in targeting it was the personnel department that drew up the pledge.
Your theological points are not relevant. That's something that you could debate with this fellow over a beer or something. It's a matter of pesonal belief and interpretation.
Your need to be "valued" instead of merely "respected" by employees of businesses which you patronize is interesting. But, I'm afraid you'll have to either develop your psychic powers or have a trained ESP practitioner accompany you on your shopping trips to be able to determine what another person truly thinks of you.
Unless and until you able to read minds the employee's private thoughts and opinions will remain just that--private.
Thank goodness!
TL
Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tim,
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
points:
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
value."
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.
Respectfully,
Donovan J Arnold
>From: Tim Lohrmann
>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)
>
>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 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
_________________________________________________________________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
Premium!
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
--0-1366073527-1081718271=:85436
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>Donovan,</DIV>
<DIV> I'm not overlooking anything. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> What went on is that the employer required the employee to state that he "values" differences including different sexual orientations. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The employee, while pledging not to engage in discriminatory behavior, refused to state that he "values" something that his religion teaches is a sin.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The applicable civil rights law requires accomodation of religious beliefs as long as such accomodation doesn't present the employer with an "undue hardship."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Again, the employee pledged not to engage in any discriminatory behavior so the goal of preventing discrimination in the workplace had been achieved. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Since accomodating the employee's religious beliefs resulted merely in not having a signed pledge on file, AT&T could hardly prove that it suffered any such hardship.</DIV>
<DIV> Therefore, it is required to follow the Civil Rights law and make this accomodation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The fact that many of us might disagree, as you apparently do quite vehemently, with this fellow's beliefs is irrelevant to the case. </DIV>
<DIV> In fact, it makes the sections of the Civil Rights law protecting the free-exercise of religion even more important. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Your extended discussion of "targeting" one group strays from the facts of the case. AT&T itself required that sexual orientation be "valued"--not the employee. If any entity here engaged in targeting it was the personnel department that drew up the pledge. </DIV>
<DIV> Your theological points are not relevant. That's something that you could debate with this fellow over a beer or something. It's a matter of pesonal belief and interpretation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Your need to be "valued" instead of merely "respected" by employees of businesses which you patronize is interesting. But, I'm afraid you'll have to either develop your psychic powers or have a trained ESP practitioner accompany you on your shopping trips to be able to determine what another person truly thinks of you.</DIV>
<DIV> Unless and until you able to read minds the employee's private thoughts and opinions will remain just that--private. </DIV>
<DIV> Thank goodness!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> TL<BR><BR><B><I>Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Tim,<BR><BR>It really surprises me that you overlook what is really going on here with <BR>this case.<BR><BR>The following statement:<BR><BR>"each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully <BR>recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including <BR>sexual orientation."<BR><BR>Does NOT mean, "you as an individual shall value above even your own <BR>religion two men having intercourse." That is how you are reading it, and I <BR>think that is unfair and incorrect.<BR><BR>If you believe this to be the correct interpretation then you must also read <BR>it to also say.<BR><BR>"you as an individual shall value above even your own religion a grown man <BR>having sex with children." You must also read it as: "you as an individual <BR>shall value above even your own religion a man having sex with his daughter <BR>and sister."<BR><BR>A!
ll these
are lifestyles and sexual orientation. Pedophilia, Hebophilia, <BR>Necrophilia, Bestiality, and Incest.<BR><BR>Do you in good conscious honestly believe that what AT&T meant in its' <BR>policy was that it supported, and expected its' employees, to support <BR>Pedophilia? I don't think so.<BR><BR>Further, to show the bigotry of this man and case, I make the following <BR>points:<BR><BR>1) Why target Homosexuals? Why not Jews, they have different lifestyles that <BR>is objectionable to Christians? Or how about Rapists, or Pedophiles, or <BR>Murderers, or Thieves? He went right for Gay people directly. Would not his <BR>argument from his interpretation carry the same weight for Jews? If so, why <BR>not use that instead, I think you know the answer to that. It is more <BR>expectable to target gays and lesbians than Jews.<BR><BR>2) Second, the company is not asking for acceptance of "behavior" just <BR>orientation. Lifestyle is not one specific behavior and can include and
<BR>exclude certain behaviors and still be considered the same lifestyle.<BR><BR>3) Third, if the man is a "Christian" because he follows "Christ", then let <BR>him show exactly when "Christ" spoke against, or denied Gays "respect and <BR>value."<BR><BR>4) If he was a Christian, why would he not gladly quit his job and let <BR>Christ take care of him instead of seeking earthly materialistic goods in <BR>return for his "Values". Even Judas gave the money back.<BR><BR>5) Why would anyone want to work for a company that they do not agree with?<BR><BR>6) Why should a company have to keep employees that will not value the <BR>customer and just not discriminate against them. When I go into a store, I <BR>don't want to be just not discriminated against, I want to be a "valued <BR>customer". If a business does not value me then I will go someplace else. If <BR>this effect is multiplied, that business will face a loss, and go out of <BR>business. This is an unbearable burden for a
business.<BR><BR>This is just a BS way of twisting words to stop gays and lesbians from <BR>achieving equality in workplace and marketplace. PERIOD.<BR><BR>Respectfully,<BR><BR>Donovan J Arnold<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>>From: Tim Lohrmann <TIMLOHR@YAHOO.COM><BR>>To: thansen@moscow.com<BR>>CC: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Score one for the KKK!<BR>>Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)<BR>><BR>>Tom,<BR>> I don't think you understand the court's reasoning.<BR>> The language the article quoted is as follows:<BR>><BR>>"Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in <BR>>January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the <BR>>responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among <BR>>all of us," including sexual orientation."<BR>><BR>> So, in other words he was in fact required to state that he "values" <BR>>same-sex sexual orientation!
. His
particular faith apparently teaches that <BR>>this is not something to be valued. So, as the court ruled, this was a <BR>>violation of freedom of conscience.<BR>><BR>> Again, this fellow agreed not to engage in any discriminatory behavior. <BR>>That should be all that's necessary to accomplish the employer's goal of a <BR>>discrimination free workplace.<BR>>But here, AT&T went beyond that and required that the employee renounce his <BR>>own private views violating his own freedom of conscience.<BR>><BR>> Your beef is with the Civil Rights law which the article quotes as:<BR>><BR>> " The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the <BR>>religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create <BR>>an undue hardship on the company to do so unless the employer can show it <BR>>will create an undue hardship on the company to do so."<BR>><BR>> Since the employee agreed not to discrimina!
te--they
were unable to show <BR>>the undue hardship mentioned above.<BR>> Apparently you would prefer to pick and choose to which groups Civil <BR>>Rights law applies. Of course that would violate the whole purpose of Civil <BR>>Rights protections. But hey, you're entitled to your opinions.<BR>> TL<BR>>Tom Hansen <THANSEN@MOSCOW.COM>wrote:<BR>>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>><BR>><BR>><BR>>---------------------------------<BR>>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>>Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Watch L!
IVE
baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN <BR>Premium! <BR>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/<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>
--0-1366073527-1081718271=:85436--