Company's 'Tolerance' Clause Prompts Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 2/18/04 | Melanie Hunter

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - A Denver man is suing AT&T Broadband after he was fired for refusing to sign off on "tolerance" portions of the company's employee handbook that he felt violated his religious beliefs.

The handbook contained a provision that "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."

Albert Buonanno said his religious beliefs prevented him from condoning or approving of homosexuality.

Attorneys for the Rutherford Institute are presenting testimony in federal court in Washington on behalf of Buonanno, who worked as a quota specialist. His lawyers are seeking back pay and punitive damages.

"Federal and state law prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees based on religion," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute.

"AT&T Broadband's policy goes too far by demanding that their employees forswear their religious values in the name of tolerance.

"This is just one case among many in which employees are being wrongfully denied accommodation and the right to freedom of conscience because of their religious beliefs - rights guaranteed both under federal law and under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Whitehead added.

One year after Buonanno started working for AT&T, the company published a new employee handbook, including the "tolerance for homosexuals" provision, and employees were required to sign a written acknowledgment that they received it, along with a "Certificate of Understanding."

The Certificate contained a statement that the employee signing it "agreed with and accepted" all of the terms and provisions of the handbook, including its policies and rules.

Buonanno informed his supervisor of his concerns, saying he could not sign the statement. But he said he had no problem declaring that he would not discriminate against or harass people who were different, including homosexuals.

On Jan. 31, 2001, Buonanno gave his written statement and the unsigned certificate to his supervisor, who alerted the company's human resources representative. When Buonanno went to work the next day, the human resources representative told him the company would fire him if he refused to sign the certificate.

When Buonanno explained his proposed accommodation to the human resources representative, she informed him that his continued employment at AT&T is contingent upon his signature. Buonanno refused to sign the certificate and was immediately terminated.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Gorzaloon]

It is disgusting how the Gaystapo has taken over the big corporate HR departments.

I feel truly blessed in my long career that I have always been able to avoid "sensitivity" or "Diversity" indoctrinations.

Maybe my threats to take a nearly lethal dose of Ex-Lax and violently disrupt such assemblages were heeded.

[gunnedah]

Wev are going to create 100 million new jobs and thet are going to be Lawyers. The Clintons carried their buddies to DC now they own it and the rest of the country.
I eagerly await the day they go to bringing suit against each other, I guess that will be when hell freezes over.
OurLegal system is a mess and those who lose in it need to bring suit against their lawyer for "Ineffective Representation" but remember, everyone sues everyone else except lawyers. They have a bond beyond belief and have total control of the legal system so I guess we are living under a "Dictatorship" already! THINK ABOUT IT!

[AAABEST]

"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."

The self absorbed narcicist homosexual mentality at work.

It's not enough that they just be left alone, which they claim is all they want. Given the opportunity they'll have us signing legalally enforceable documents swearing to respect and value their dangerous and immoral poop-sex.

[Grut]

AT&T has no obligation to hire this man; religious beliefs sometimes carry a cost. Most of the posters on this thread sound as though they'd be upset if a court ordered some company to let its Wiccan employees off for Beltane, but it's the same sort of thing.

[FreedomPoster]

>>It is disgusting how the Gaystapo has taken over the big corporate HR departments.
>>“Ve haff vays of making you TOLERANT! You VILL komply!!!”

Have you seen the South Park episode called "Death Camp of Tolerance"? Or are you just on the same theme?

Trey Parker and Matt Stone nailed the PC Gaystapo in that episode.

Plot Summary
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-344/epid-212343/

Camp pic:
http://www.planearium2.de/pics/pics-614-3.jpg

[Lucky Dog]

This issue presents an interesting conflict of “rights.” The individual cited in this article is suing (correctly in my mind) for a violation of his religious freedom. However, counterbalancing the issue, there is the right of the company to define the work environment for its employees.

The legal balance formerly would have fallen clearly on the employee’s side as discrimination because of race, sex or religion is enshrined in national and state law and has been for a very long time. However, activists have successfully clouded the issue with the meaningless term, “sexual orientation.”

“Sexual orientation” without any associated behavior is simply a “feeling.” However, amazingly, we now have companies telling employees that they must not discriminate on the basis of how someone else may “feel.”

In reality, the activists do not really want legal protection for how they “feel.” These activists want legal protection for what they do: homosexual acts. Even beyond legal protection for their acts, these activists are demanding that those who disagree with the morality of their behavior be silenced and forced to support their behavior. Unfortunately, the courts have been progressively been taken over by judges more interested in substituting their opinions for what “should be the law,” rather than interpreting what legislative bodies have voted “is the law.” Unless this trend is reversed, our republic is doomed to become a tyranny of those in black robes.

[Gorzaloon]

I feel truly blessed in my long career that I have always been able to avoid "sensitivity" or "Diversity" indoctrinations. That's quite an accomplishment! You must have tiptoed quietly past the gulag-meisters if you've worked at any major companies in the past 10 years.

The amazing thing was that 23 of those years were at a Fortune 500.

But we had lots of little, nearly autonomous divisions filled with engineering and R&D geeks, so maybe HR was beaten down by trying to herd cats.

To sum up the attitudes, when they gave away Thanksgiving turkeys, HR used to get the forms where one could choose "I want to take the turkey home", or "Donate mine to the homeless shelter",or "Other" people would check a box, then add "Unless the turkey has an MBA, in which case, hire it for Corporate as usual".

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Have you seen the South Park episode called "Death Camp of Tolerance"? Or are you just on the same theme?"

My favorite episode.

"We must learn to get along with gays, muslims, blac...THERE'S AN EVIL SMOKER!!! KILL HIM!!"

[garylmoore]

AT&T has no obligation to hire this man; religious beliefs sometimes carry a cost.

---

But they did hire him and then terminated his employment because he believes that "poop sex" is preverted. Cult beliefs carry the cost.

[Skooz]

"AT&T Broadband's policy goes too far by demanding that their employees forswear their religious values in the name of tolerance."

That about sums it up.

[TheGeezer]

Uhhhhhh, actually, I think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based upon religious affiliation or beliefs...

[Skooz]

Read it again. He was fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for thought crimes.

[Adder]

Nonsense.
AT&T hired him then a year later presented him with the choice.
Its sorta funny that folk are defending co,'s like this saying they have a right to do this and to blatantly discriminate against this man for his religious beliefs[I believe Kodak did something similar...and they are not alone] but if this company were to say you must not hire any Mexicans, there would be hell to pay. This man's beliefs are or should be "valued and respected" just like any others are.
Insubordination or whatever excuse given or rationale concocted, this is plain wrong. You do not check your morality at the door when you go to work for someone. Nor do they have any right to require that you do. You are being paid for the skills you have, not the beliefs you hold. This naked attempt at forcing compliance with the current PC belief system[subject to change to include pedophiles or whatever darling of the "tolerant" comes next] should be despised rather than defended.