On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:56:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I wouldn't know, I suppose you could, for example, in a religious
>> institution require that workers there need to be members, but I'm not
>> sure how that applies to an organization like this.
> 
> That was kind of what I was talking about. Nobody seems to think it's
> silly to let a church require religious people to fill particular roles.
> But if you ask the same thing about a "nasty" group that's just as
> protected under US law, I can see people getting bent out of shape.

Yeah, I can see that point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message