Replies

hrmn.

I have mixed opinion of this.

On the one hand, I am glad that the creeping "normalization" of homosexuality was given even so trivial a check as this.

On the other hand, a private individual, group, corporation, or organization should have the power to choose who it will hire and retain, rent to, or otherwise do business with, and on what grounds.

I believe this falls under freedom of asociation (with its corollary: freedom FROM association) under the First Amendment, as well as the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Cases in point:
- The BSA should, by all means, have the right to exclude homosexuals from positions of authority.
- A Christian-based charity organization should have the unchallengeable power to refuse to hire or retain Muslims, pagans, heretics, and flagrant and unrepentant sinners.
- If a nationally dispersed and popular restaraunt chain wishes to hire and retain ONLY cute, busty, extroverted young women as waitresses... get the hint?
- To get utterly ridiculous for a moment, the Aryan Nation - were it ever to found a home-office - should have the unquestioned right to exclude minorities and their sympathizers from its payroll.

This has a variant bearing on this case:
If a company desires to hire and retain only poofs and their sympathizers, I cannot see where the government in any of its forms has any business interfering with this practice, and any suit brought before any court claiming wrongful termination on these grounds should be summarily dismissed.

In the same way, if AT&T wishes to employ ONLY the utterly PC-whipped, so be it.

I share your "mixed opinion," but was very glad to see a Christian being protected by anti-discrimination law. I think it is really a wake up call when your employer assumes the right to dictate how you think, as opposed to how you act or perform your job. I wonder, though, if AT&T is in a special position due to the nature of its work (i.e., subject to more government regulation). Personally, I find the idea of being asked to "value" someone else's lifestyle bizarre. All these special groups claim they are asking only for tolerance...but that is proven more untrue every day. For others to tolerate them is insufficient... we must celebrate them! I see no reason why co-workers need to celebrate each other's sexuality of any orientation. I'd be happy if I could get some decent customer service from AT&T; when my telephone goes out, the extent to which AT&T employees are valuing homosexuality really isn't on my radar screen. I give this guy a lot of credit for taking a stand.

A couple problems that I see are that many, many companies now do this. I don't know enough to say the majority, or even how many. But it is a common practice.

Second, there are so many governmental regulations - state and as far as I know fed - mandating "non-discrimination" policies which include sexual orientation.

Third, suppose it was company policy to make employees sign statements or policy thingies that forced acceptance of other vices? How about bestiality, or child/adult sex?