FYI An Interesting Case

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/7/2004 3:54:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
noman at mail.netoriginals.com writes:
BTW, it seems to me that having the state require an oath and having AT&T 
require an oath are different sorts of things.  The state has more guns than AT&T 
does.
Of course, the State, at least since Barnette, has always been required to 
give special regard to the conscientious dissenter in the pledge cases.  So, 
absent evidence of more than a de minimus impact on the dissentiphobic employer, 
the decision seems about right.

Jim "Neologiphobic" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040407/d2af3bf8/attachment.htm