[gracesdad]

"True---but this is a case of UNEQUAL application of the rules. One faction (the queers) are openly permitted speech espousing THEIR position on company time with company resources, but the Christians are prevented from doing so. Either let BOTH factions speak, or shut BOTH factions up."

I agree with you but on reading the 9th's ruling I don't see where appellants even raised this issue. Maybe they did in the earlier appeal, but not here.

[P-Marlowe]

One faction (the queers) are openly permitted speech espousing THEIR position...

Tsk Tsk Tsk. I believe the word dejeur is

BTW The title of the picture above is:

"fag_train_going_to_fag_town_filled_with_faggots"

I kid you not.

[voltaires_zit]

>> Either let BOTH factions speak, or shut BOTH factions up."
>
> I agree with you but on reading the 9th's ruling I don't
> see where appellants even raised this issue.

It was raised at the district court. The judge even called the argument "superficially appealling", but he correctly pointed out that making it a ruling of the court would involve the courts in micromanaging employer/employee relations.

If the women had raised the earlier, offensive, e-mails and postings as offensive to their religious beliefs, they might well have prevailed administratively.

We don't know, because they didn't.