Here's a video I'm afraid we'll be seeing more of - a young man from Massachusetts fired from his job for objecting to a coworker's announcement that she was going to marry her same-sex partner.
The key legal issue (like that matters) is whether he is correct that she was harassing him throughout the day, or whether he is offering a self-serving version of events. Either could be true. I'm skeptical that his employer would have fired him for a single incident like this on a single day, but those are questions to be investigated (not like anyone will care). He could be right that the coworker was taunting him.
But two things about the video jumped out at me. First, and overwhelmingly, I was struck by how immediately his joy at a coworker's happiness turned into sour judgementalism. Are his religious beliefs really so harsh that they have this effect on his normal human emotions, ecstatic for his co-worker one moment, and disgusted the next? Is it the role of religion to transform the joy we feel for other people into an emotional menace?
Second, his repeated argument in the first two-thirds of the tape warning people in other states about how they, too, could suffer this kind of joy-deficit if their state passes same-sex marriage completely dissolves before our eyes when he intently criticizes the employee training tape about expressing opposition to someone of the same-sex making a pass at you. If that's actually what the tape says (and this seriously undercuts his credibility, in my eyes - I honestly can't imagine this not falling under the rubric of sexual harassment, at least if it were repeated) then his concern about gay marriage laws is the smallest part of his concern. As with so many other arguments purporting to be about same-sex marriage, the real concern he has is with open homosexuals in the workplace he shares with them. And if he thinks stopping gay marriage will halt that, too, he has another think coming.
Again, I doubt any of this will actually matter as the tape make the rounds of the right wing sites. But I couldn't help noticing.
64 Comments for “Another Video Against Same-Sex Marriage Whose Underlying Facts Will Be Ignored”
posted by esurience on
What this man wants to do is force gay and lesbian people into the closet while at work, and not allow them to discuss everyday aspects of their lives in the same way heterosexuals do.
Imagine the following situation:
John asks a co-worker, Bill, what they did yesterday. Yesterday, being Sunday, Bill replies “I went to church.”
John then says: “Bill, please don’t bring up your Christianity around me. It makes me uncomfortable. I think Christianity is deeply immoral and the source for all manner of evil in the world.”
If Christians are allowed to condemn someone, at work, for merely bringing up an important detail of their lives, then you’d also have to allow someone to condemn a person for being a Christian, while at work.
posted by esurience on
Does anyone think that a video like this could change someone’s opinion with regard to marriage equality (in the negative)?
I’m a little confused about its supposed persuasive value. For people who agree that gays and lesbians should be able to legally marry, they have no direct concern over something like this, because they’re not the type of people who would feel compelled to denounce a gay person’s marriage at the office.
This is an argument Maggie Gallagher makes, it goes like this: the more that marriage equality is accepted in society, the less accepted we bigots will be.
Umm? But how is this persuasive to anyone who has already given up their bigotry?
Perhaps I’m looking at this the wrong way, and this video (and Maggie Gallagher’s argument), is simply a “preaching to the choir” argument meant to motivate people already on their side, rather than a persuasive argument to change people’s minds.
On the other hand (sorry for the rambling), maybe it is meant to be persuasive in this sense: evoking sympathy towards the “bigots” from people who do believe in marriage equality. In other words, maybe someone believes in marriage equality, but doesn’t regard it as a “bigotry” to be opposed to same-sex marriage, and therefore they are sympathetic to anyone who faces repercussions for expressing their intolerance of same-sex marriage.
That might be a concern for us. But the answer to that concern would be to convince our supporters that the other side really are bigots.
posted by William on
Personally, I think it should be acceptable to dismiss those who are creating an uncomfortable environment according to however HR in the firm defines it. But even from his version of the story, it doesn’t sound like she was trying to egg him on. She sounded delighted about her coming marriage, he said he said nothing the first time she mentioned it. This man sounds a little ridiculous, such as when he says, “according to Blackwater, homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts”.
I do think this is the big issue to address or at least realize for proponents of marriage equality. That we will have to say to people, I’m afraid it’s no longer an “issue”, in political terms, it’s fact, so if it’s mentioned, in work, school or wherever, it’s not meant as a statement.
When he talks of the employer training tape, he says that two straight men shouldn’t walk around talking about not wanting gay men to hit on them, as in just talking negatively. It doesn’t sound like the tape says that if a gay man hits on you, you can’t tell him to stop.
posted by Pauliji on
I’m sure the wingnuts will add this one to their repertoire of supposed dire consequences of marriage equality. They don’t care if it’s accurate, true or fair, or even relevant. Employers have always had the legal right to regulate the speech of employees on company time. If this guy had a legitimate beef against his superior for some sort of harassment, he should have gone through the proper channels. His response was to diss his own boss in her own store to other employees. Did he think it wouldn’t come back to bite him in the ass? If he really is a complete idiot, then they are totally better off without him. But it was so monumentally ill-considered, and he’s such a conservative douchebag, that I suspect he was looking for a new job already, and volunteered with his local bigot brigade, “Mass resistance” to be a “martyr” for the cause. They have pulled this kind of thing before as in sending little old ladies into crowds of marriage equality supporters and causing trouble so they can say they the evil gays threatened the sweet little old lady with the styrofoam cross. Or the Parkers, who moved here specifically so they could enroll their child in the public school, and then demand that the school tailor the curriculum to their individual needs by erasing all mention of gay families. Then they staged an incident on school property when the school wouldn’t comply, so they could claim oppression. They also falsely claimed their son was bullied in school because of their xtian viewpoint, and the lawsuit. All of these Mass REsistance related incidents have ultimately proven to be baseless, or fabricated, or both. This is a group which has earned the title of a Hate Group from the Southern Poverty Law Center. They have found their new poster boy.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, God, so much to deride here, which do I pick?
I suppose I can take some perverse satisfaction that finally young white white-collar men have learned how to be shrill hyperventating crybabies like the feminists, the Al Sharptons, and the GLAADs. It’d be even funnier if it worked.
The key legal issue (like that matters) is whether he is correct that she was harassing him throughout the day, or whether he is offering a self-serving version of events.
This man is an idiot. He confronted a high superior alone in an informal setting, in a very direct manner with a very real risk of retaliation. When I’ve needed to confront someone much higher than me about something I didn’t like (always work-related in my case), I’ve gone to my union rep first to get a script, observed the chain of command by going to my immediate supervisor, or I made my point as indirectly or meanderingly as I could in a packed room. Advocating for yourself clearly and in a nonconfrontational way is an important work skill.
Of course she was taunting him. So what? He made her self-conscious when his joy just vanished. I get taunted at work all the time, too. Every three weeks or so one of the two guys I sit with remembers that I don’t think and asks me 1000 times “you mean you never drank anything in your entire life”? A couple of months ago my co-worker taunted someone who has two kids asking him when is he going to marry his girlfriend? I think it’s immoral, and they know it because they never ask me. We’re all adults. I wish someone would taunt me with when am I going to get a girlfriend every now and then.
We have a big problem with people who think the mere mentioning of gay relationships is on the same level as leaving nothing out about your sex life in the workplace.
posted by Jorge on
/\\I mean I don’t drink.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I think that the Christian guy AND the lesbian manager both behaved like ridiculous thin-skinned princesses.
He shouldn’t have been offended in the first place merely because she was sharing her glad tidings about solemnizing her relationship with another woman — as long as she doesn’t phrase the news in an overtly politicized way, e.g., “Me and Bertha are gettin’ hitched and all those homophobic Christianist Mormons who voted for Prop H8 can kiss my clit!”, and as long as she doesn’t go into lurid NC-17 detail about their honeymoon plans.
On the other hand, as a manager, she was wrong to have a subordinate fired because her pwecious feelings were hurt. Noblesse oblige, bitch.
And if she was deliberately taunting him, as Jorge suspects, rather than just babbling on like a giddy bride-to-be, that’s even worse. But it’s not totally clear to me that she was rubbing it in his face on purpose, to make him uncomfortable — it’s possible that she just couldn’t STFU about her impending nuptials because (a) she’s a woman, and (b) ohmigod it’s my wedding ohmigod!!!
😉
posted by Scott Lassiter on
Maybe some Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for religions? Oh, someone’s religion is already protected. Looks like a good case of firing someone because of their religious beliefs to me. You mean we can’t do that? Sorry, but this boss was stupid, regardless of how the story is used. She needs more sensitivity training in her leadership and management classes.
posted by Debrah on
“I think that the Christian guy AND the lesbian manager both behaved like ridiculous thin-skinned princesses.”
**************************************
This is perhaps closest to the truth as anyone will ever get when discussing such a tedious scenario.
It’s difficult to comprehend how someone could have been fired over something like this without personal agendas being used as tools in the workplace.
Imagine for a moment what it would be like to have Rosie O’Donnell and a son of Jerry Falwell in the same room. Yikes!
A lathered up religious nut alongside a bulldozing blowhard constantly wallowing inside lesbian rodomontade.
Gag.
posted by Bobby on
What the hell is wrong with this country? Am I living in nazi germany? I’m gay but I don’t expect people to approve of my sexual orientation, as long as they don’t call me a f-g to my face and don’t harass me, I’m ok with it. However, if I told a coworker I was marrying a man and he didn’t approve, I’m fine with it and it’s my own damn fault for telling people I’m getting married.
Seriously, if gays don’t understand how this incident is horrible PR for us then the cause is hopeless. Incidents like this will only inspire more gay bashing and more paranoia.
posted by esurience on
However, if I told a coworker I was marrying a man and he didn’t approve, I’m fine with it and it’s my own damn fault for telling people I’m getting married.
Umm? People socialize at work. Someone getting married is a very significant event in a person’s life. And it probably means taking time off for the honeymoon… so even if you’re some sort of anti-social person that doesn’t share anything about their life with your co-workers, it’s still a topic that is going to come up when you submit that vacation request. (You do tell your co-workers when you’re going to be gone for a couple weeks, don’t you?)
Seriously, if gays don’t understand how this incident is horrible PR for us then the cause is hopeless.
I don’t think so. This “cause” is both a political movement, to get equality under the law, as well as a cultural movement, to get people to treat our relationships with the same respect and dignity that they treat heterosexual relationships (note the separation here, the political movement seeks to change the law, the cultural movement seeks to change people’s hearts and minds).
For anyone who thinks our relationships are in fact equal in dignity to heterosexual relationships, then this case doesn’t really present a complicated issue.
Imagine someone telling this guy about their heterosexual marriage and him reacting in the same way… in that case, okay, not necessarily discriminatory, but he should still be fired for being a jerk.
posted by Debrah on
“Imagine someone telling this guy about their heterosexual marriage and him reacting in the same way…..”
************************************
Yes, many of us can imagine that scenario well.
There’s nothing quite so extraordinarily icky as having to listen to some corn-fed bride-to-be with a much-too-thick waistline…….rhapsodizing about her impending nuptials and asking her flock of corn-fed snowbirds if she looks fat in her new custom-designed (out of porker necessity) wedding gown.
This scenario plays out all the time.
There are myriad reasons why people get turned off about a lot of things.
Forcing others to “accept and like” something is so homiletic it might be considered by rational people as unconstitutional.
There’s a whole host of things that turn people off on this issue.
None having to do with “bigotry”….or…..”ignorance”…..or……”meanness”.
My G/d, I’ve never encountered such a group of humans who’ve developed more in-your-face strategies.
Tiresome.
And after the Maine decision, those who cannot accept reality are using the “race and slavery” analogy. It’s really quite pathetic.
Many in the black community take enormous offense.
And unfortunately—especially inside the blogosphere—it’s most often the most unattractive, overweight, and obnoxious people who are out there with such force.
Most people are turned off by loud, unattractive couples—-hetero, gay, or whatever.
posted by esurience on
And after the Maine decision, those who cannot accept reality are using the “race and slavery” analogy. It’s really quite pathetic.
Debrah:
I doubt that anyone is morally comparing the injustice of denying marriage to gays and lesbians to the evil of slavery.
What people do compare is the reasoning behind the arguments, but this distinction is often lost on people that don’t have a firm grasp of logic and reasoning, unfortunately.
For a good article relating to that, please read this:
http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-thats-how-i-was-raised/
posted by Paul on
Am I the only person that thinks this guy doth protest too much? Having said that, I don’t think anyone should be fired just because they’re a closet case.
posted by Debrah on
Esurience–
That one from Corvino touches a lot of bases.
He’s a thoughtful man and an able writer. If only more could present the issues as well as he.
There’s just no way the historical issues of race—which, in reality, are no longer…even as many race-hustlers try to keep the cottage industry alive—should even be uttered in tandem with the gay community’s quest for marriage rights.
Two very different issues. Why can’t anyone see this?
Is it mere laziness?
Knowing that the race issue evokes such high drama, it’s a quick way to the victimology train?
One of my neighbors—who happens to be a black female Ph.D—becomes livid when her struggles and those of her family are used as a comparison by the gay rights activists.
This is understandable. I don’t know why some still persist with this ridiculous analogy….except they have no place else to go.
It might also be noted that the South is hardly the place where you find the most bigotry. Below the Mason-Dixon Line is yet another tool used by those too lazy for real debate.
People elicit emotion from lots of things. A black man or woman cannot go in and out of the closet when they so choose…..and never have been able to.
Very bad analogy all the way around.
posted by esurience on
One of my neighbors—who happens to be a black female Ph.D—becomes livid when her struggles and those of her family are used as a comparison by the gay rights activists.
Can you elaborate on that? What, specifically, is something that someone would say that would make her livid?
And when I say specifically, I mean give me a hypothetical quotation, as an example of what would make her livid.
Also, when you say she becomes “livid” — what does that mean? Just angry at the specific person who said something that offended her? Or does she actually make the fallacy that because someone uses a bad argument in support of their cause, that means the cause in itself is bad/illegitimate?
posted by Debrah on
Esurience–
I won’t get into the realm of putting words in the mouth of someone else. I suppose she arrived at her views from her own personal experiences.
I didn’t get the impression that this woman is “anti-gay”. Just anti-using-gay-issues-alongside-race-issues.
We didn’t sit down and have a long conversation about it.
Both of us drive Volvos….so, consequently, we occasionally have light exchanges about auto upkeep, politics, the weather…..etc…etc…..
Her referencing gay activists was a cumulative look over time and how the analogy has been used. She, as well as many, many others, do not see a shared “victimhood”.
I don’t need to revisit the fact that many in the black community—not all, of course—do not support the idea of gay marriage.
Obama does not support gay marriage; however, most gays will only illuminate this fact in a very muted way.
So much better to use the old lazy “boogie-men”—the South. LOL!!!
Some such as this very capable and well-educated woman do not, and will not, abide sexual orientation and all its manifestations being used as a comparison to a group who were discriminated against because of their race.
Many in the black community are also very religious.
One has only to view and read coverage and resulting lamentations of the Maine decision to see how many want to use the black community’s past struggles as an analogy.
posted by Debrah on
Esurience–
Obviously, we can find obnoxious and over-exercised gay bloggers—who also happen to be black—who will certainly agree with the basic patina of those gross analogies.
However, I’d like to hear from people like John McWhorter or Deroy Murdock.
Wonder if they think it’s been more difficult for those in their families to have been black…..or for them to be gay?
(Keep in mind that intelligent people who read and keep up to speed also do not acknowledge that “race” is the problem today that the PC crowd would have us believe.)
In short, it’s hard out there for a pimp.
:>)
posted by esurience on
There’s just no way the historical issues of race…should even be uttered in tandem with the gay community’s quest for marriage rights. Two very different issues. Why can’t anyone see this?
Well, there’s two different considerations at play here. The first is whether it is wise a strategic matter to make these sorts of analogies, knowing that many people misinterpret them and/or are offended by them.
The second consideration is whether the analogies are appropriate in the first place, or whether they totally miss the mark.
The second consideration is what I want to focus on here:
I’m against racism for many of the same reasons that I’m against homophobia. Here’s a couple reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
1) I think it’s wrong not to allow people the opportunity to make the best out of their own lives.
2) I think it is wrong to discriminate against a person for a characteristic of theirs, when the characteristic itself is morally neutral (meaning it does inherently lead to harm).
With regard to (2), some people obviously disagree that homosexuality is morally neutral.
But those people are demonstrably wrong.
If a person who considers themselves to have a good moral compass, and yet they oppose marriage equality, or support other forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians, I think it would be instructive for them to ask themselves:
Could their reasoning be used in support of segregation, or in support of anti-miscegenation laws, or against women’s suffrage? (at the time these various things were actually occurring). I’m not saying that people who are anti-gay today support, for example, taking away a woman’s right to vote. Because they are privy to the facts that we know today, that societies operate better when men and women are treated equally under the law, they could make a fine argument in favor of a woman’s right to vote. But how do they make that argument before the evidence is available? How do they make the argument that it is good to allow a woman to vote, before actually being able to see whether or not it’s a good thing?
Opponents of marriage equality like to foist an impossible burden of proof upon us: Prove that allowing gays and lesbians to marry won’t be bad for society. Of course, we can’t prove this without allowing it to happen first, and arguably we’d have to have marriage equality for a quarter-of-century, or half-a-century, or longer, before we could reach solid sociological conclusions about it’s effects.
And people that opposed a woman’s right to vote, or favored discrimination on the basis of race, of course foisted the same impossible to meet burden of proof on their opponents: Prove that this change you want will not lead to the breakdown of the family and of civilization or any other ill-effects.
The point is that we can’t prove these things in advance of trying them. All we can do is offer argumentation for why they will be good, and point out that our opponents don’t offer any plausible argumentation for how these worst-case scenarios would possibly come about.
For people who think they have a good moral compass, I think it’s a good thought exercise to for them to place themselves in societies 50, 100, 200 years ago, etc… and figure out, based on the reasoning they use today, and (very importantly), the facts that they would know back then (as opposed to the facts they know today), what side of a moral issue (like a woman’s right to vote, or anti-miscegenation laws, or segregation), they would come out on.
posted by David on
Even if you took this guy’s version of events at face value, there is no harassment here because “harassment” has to be objectively, not subjectively, offensive and must be sufficiently pervasive or severe as to affect the victim’s employment. None of that happened here and it has never been held by any court that the mere mentioning of a relationship (hetero or homo, married or unmarried) is harassment.
This is yet another “incident” that has nothing to do with marriage that these religious right idiots will use. They don’t even try to show causality any more; it is purely an exercise in deceit.
posted by Bobby on
“Umm? People socialize at work.”
—Not me, I learned that while putting an Obama poster in your cubicle is acceptable, putting a McCain poster can get you ostracized. That’s why at work I keep my private life private and only tell a few people that I’m gay, NRA member, etc.
“Someone getting married is a very significant event in a person’s life. And it probably means taking time off for the honeymoon… so even if you’re some sort of anti-social person that doesn’t share anything about their life with your co-workers, it’s still a topic that is going to come up when you submit that vacation request. (You do tell your co-workers when you’re going to be gone for a couple weeks, don’t you?)”
—That doesn’t mean your co-workers have to approved of your plans. Many things in life are controversial, gay marriage, being an NRA member, listening to Rush Limbaugh, all of that is controversial and you have no right to expect approval from your fellow liberals or conservatives, whatever the case may be.
“I don’t think so. This “cause” is both a political movement, to get equality under the law, as well as a cultural movement, to get people to treat our relationships with the same respect and dignity that they treat heterosexual relationships (note the separation here, the political movement seeks to change the law, the cultural movement seeks to change people’s hearts and minds).”
—You think firing people who don’t approve of gay marriage is the way to do it? What if I’m the chef at my company’s cafeteria and a muslim coworker demands that I stop serving pork. Should I get fired if I tell him that most people in America eat pork and if he doesn’t like it he can have the chicken?
“Imagine someone telling this guy about their heterosexual marriage and him reacting in the same way… in that case, okay, not necessarily discriminatory, but he should still be fired for being a jerk.”
—No he wouldn’t, political correctness only discriminates against conservatives, never against liberals. So if a gay guy gets angry because he can’t get married, his liberal enablers will defend him.
In the end, it’s sad that those who seek freedom have no problem denying others of their freedoms.
posted by Amicus on
It’s interesting to me to watch the reactions here and elsewhere.
It wasn’t so long ago that, when gay people complained about their work environment, the libertarian response, often snarky and smug, was that if ‘a gay’ didn’t like it, they could go work somewhere else.
This is how you belittle people: He has no “right” to work there, so screw him. If he can’t work there, he should go do missionary work.
Of course, “we” can’t say that, because the hidden, coded message to the viewers is that their right to “fight Satan”, even in the workplace, is easily more important than any gay person.
That’s not an exaggeration. Notice, he’s not given any examples of what else he’s spoken out about at work – one can be certain that it is not a devout Christian workplace, right? It’s just this one lesbian.
posted by Jerry on
Testing. Two attempts to post to this article have failed.
posted by Jerry on
The young man recording this video does not identify himself. Nor does he identify the alleged lesbian manager who “harassed” him. There is a Brookstone store at Logan Airport. Has anyone checked to see if he actually ever worked there? Was he dismissed? Or is the video just a complete fabrication. Much of the language has a lot of hesitation as though he might be creating his story as he moved along.
posted by Jorge on
Seriously, if gays don’t understand how this incident is horrible PR for us then the cause is hopeless. Incidents like this will only inspire more gay bashing and more paranoia.
This incident isn’t much more than the right wing leaping to conclusions based on wild speculation. The real problem is that it’s one of many similar incidents that reflect a tone in which workplaces responds with clear hostility toward the Christian right whenever conflicts between them and gays erupt in the workplace.
A big reason for this is uneven lawsuit protection: the courts rule against the Christians and in favor of anyone from a politically correct group within a protected category when the workplace dismisses their complaints or discriminates against them.
Low-level workers in some places have no rights and can be fired for any reason. A single complaint by the manager about unprofessional behavior or attitude can be a firing offense. You don’t know what the manager actually said when complaining or how far she threw her weight around.
Even worse for the worker, the company already has a nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy, and their training explicitly identifies an HR politics favoring gays over macho culture. Also the guy made a very weak, possibly even incriminating argument during whatever appeal or disciplinary hearing he had.
posted by Bobby on
“This incident isn’t much more than the right wing leaping to conclusions based on wild speculation. The real problem is that it’s one of many similar incidents that reflect a tone in which workplaces responds with clear hostility toward the Christian right whenever conflicts between them and gays erupt in the workplace.”
—A conflict is someone calling you a f-g, or getting a group of co-worker to harass you, or a woman exposing her breasts to turn you straight. Someone telling you “I don’t approve of homosexuality” or “I don’t approve of same-sex marriage” is not harassment but stating opinion which is the highest form of free speech there is.
“Even worse for the worker, the company already has a nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy, and their training explicitly identifies an HR politics favoring gays over macho culture. Also the guy made a very weak, possibly even incriminating argument during whatever appeal or disciplinary hearing he had.”
—Dissaproving of same-sex marriage does not violate the anti-harassment policy. Think about it, do you think it would be legal for a company to force all their employees to become muslim? No, it violates freedom of religion and the EEOC would have a field day. Dissaproving of same-sex marriage is no different than dissaproving of smoking, tattoos, interracial marriage, pork, beer, or anything else.
Seriously, it’s amazing how there’s no common sense anymore. Does congress need to pass the Dissaproval of Gay Marriage Protection bill to protect the freedoms of our citizens?
What happened here is an outrage, I may be gay but I am not a fascist, I am not a censor, I am not afraid of those who disaprove of me.
I’m sick of political correctness, in Minneapolis muslim cab drivers refuse to give rides to passengers with dogs or wine bottles. Rights aren’t only for minorities, the majority has rights to. The firing of this man was unjust, where are your principles people? If a gay had been fired for disaproving of straight marriage you’d all be defending him!
posted by Debrah on
“Seriously, it’s amazing how there’s no common sense anymore. Does congress need to pass the Dissaproval of Gay Marriage Protection bill to protect the freedoms of our citizens?
What happened here is an outrage, I may be gay but I am not a fascist, I am not a censor, I am not afraid of those who disaprove of me.”
********************************************
And this is it, folks, in a nut shell.
It’s not even “disapproving” of anyone.
In many cases when there is a disagreement about fairness or perhaps holding a gay person to the same standards as anyone else, it’s made into an “attack” of some kind.
No doubt, as a strategy to divert attention away from the real issue.
“Friends” are brought in as lame kibitzers. And maybe mention of a law enforcement officer as intimidation.
LOL!!!
It’s sick. If it’s a woman behaving in such a way, that’s bad enough, but when it’s a gay man, this only re-enforces stereotypes and makes people of good will want to stay as far away from that **** as possible.
Then the “victim” can go back to his/her gay friends and lament the world of “big, bad heteros”…….when it was their own bizarre and self-serving character that was the root of the problem.
Life is too short for this crapola.
posted by Bobby on
I’m glad you get it, Debrah. This country is going crazy, I remember when a congressman was accused of being a racist for calling Obama “articulate,” it’s like you can’t say anything anymore, it’s as if those college campus speech codes have overtaken the rest of society.
In my life I’ve deal with some real homophobes, this HR guy seems like a great guy in comparisson. I watched the video, he seemed real friendly, so what if he disaproves of same-sex marriage? I disaprove of short women dating tall men, should I get fired for those views?
Are some members of our community so insecure that they need to censor anyone who disagrees with them? That’s not what gay pride is supposed to be about. Our movement is supposed to be about freedom, the freedom to be yourself, to express yourself, to hold hands with your mate in public. I remember watching the Milk movie how Harvey came to the baptism of Dan White’s son. Harvey could have stayed away, it was in a catholic church after all, yet he came with his boyfriend, he was proud, and he wasn’t looking for approval. That lesbian needs to grow some thicker skin.
posted by jimmy on
It seemed pretty clear to me that in his forthright statement to his superior that he did not feel her gay marriage was acceptable, he was, by logical extension, telling her that he felt she herself was unacceptable. In doing so, he was being personally insulting and harassing in his behavior.
If, say, my boss is Turkish and one day she is talking to someone else about how proud she is of her Turkish heritage and I, upon overhearing that conversation, take it upon myself to tell her that I think Turkey and the Turkish people suck because of what they did to the Armenians and that I find her feelings about her identity to be unacceptable. It would be abysmal judgement on my part and completely unprofessional to say that to her. Oh, and we work in a customer service and sales environment where we come into contact with all sorts of people. My boss now knows that I’m an asshole and that I’m potentially going to have a problem with any Turkish customer, hell, I might even share my prejudices with that customer and run them off, hurting business.
To say that I was just asking to get canned is a understatement.
posted by Jorge on
A conflict is someone calling you a f-g, or getting a group of co-worker to harass you, or a woman exposing her breasts to turn you straight. Someone telling you “I don’t approve of homosexuality” or “I don’t approve of same-sex marriage” is not harassment but stating opinion which is the highest form of free speech there is.
That’s a nice philosophy, but the guy got fired and posted a ranty YouTube video, and we’re all blowing a haystack. That sounds like conflict to me.
I’m sick of political correctness, in Minneapolis muslim cab drivers refuse to give rides to passengers with dogs or wine bottles. Rights aren’t only for minorities, the majority has rights to. The firing of this man was unjust, where are your principles people? If a gay had been fired for disaproving of straight marriage you’d all be defending him!
I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how far he can get, but I’m not putting anything on the line for him. There’s just something nutty about this guy, and he’s wrong in a lot of places. It’s much too risky to take a “stand” behind a case that is so one-sided. You could get burned very badly by what you don’t know about the situation.
The backlash is coming anyway and there will be incidents that are more clear-cut. There is no reason to make a personal crusade out of supporting a group or an ideology in every little situation regardless of its credibility or the evidence. That’s what differentiates the activitsts from the hustlers.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ESURIENCE and DEBRAH,
Hi.
I am a straight black woman that makes the analogy regarding black/gay struggles all the time.
A good many black people reveal just how much they understand about the root basis for Jim Crow and the means by which a society will maintain a harsh hierarchy.
What I mean to say is that black SEXUALITY was at the root of Jim Crow. Color was simply a means of achieving it.
But there must be some black people who have talked to their families about how white women,in particular couldn’t casually be near any black males for the same fears and paranoia that demonizes gay men around boys.
This historical blindness also forgets the sexual exploitation of black women, and that of lesbians in our own time.
Black and gay men are emasculated to the point of expecting both to live like children with no more status or self reliance than the same.
And now, the laws that keep gay men and women from marrying, which puts them at risk of separation from their children and each other….hasn’t been seen since SLAVERY.
A lot of people’s history isn’t EXACTLY the same, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a lot in common.
Jews aren’t gay, and blacks aren’t women, but all have a history of systemic bigotry and discrimination.
And I don’t appreciate black people behaving as if it’s justified against gay people because they say it’s only about behavior.
Well, religious discrimination and abuse is too, doesn’t mean it’s right or fair to discriminate against people of faith. Then if they want to shoot off that it’s about sex and sexuality than they need to be informed on how whites defended Jim Crow based on black sexuality and the myths that were fomented. Such as blacks didn’t have the morals or restraint to be around white people. Just look at the low marriage rates and high out of wedlock births.
Indeed, LA, MS and GA tried to ban blacks from marrying with such a record.
Unmarried status is working against gay people like color has against blacks.
As for this man’s complaint and the workplace. He was most likely on a probationary period. He wasn’t there for very long and he didn’t consult with an discrimination advocate group like the EEOC or even the ACLU that has been known to defend the free speech rights of the KKK.
So, what does THAT tell you?
There is no way of knowing how and to what extent you will offend someone or can avoid it.
Some people are more determined to be offended than let something minor go away.
I am married to a white man, and we were standing in a checkout and as my husband walked away to find something we’d forgotten a white woman gave me the stink stare. For being a mixed couple. Rather than cause a scene, as nicely as I could I said ‘good morning’.
She scowled, but her tiny little girl, said good morning back to me, just as sweetly.
Then the woman proceeded to abuse the child for being nice to me! She stomped off so fast and I was shocked into paralysis.
I’d never seen anything like THAT before.
Bigot abuse by proxy, on a little child!
So, what I can say. Just being alive will offend someone and they don’t have the good manners to restrain THEMSELVES over something that is expected and done everyday of anyone’s life.
Especially in the workplace.
It’s acceptable to be excited about one’s nuptials and the birth of one’s child or that child’s progress.
It’s not, to say something bigoted, UNNECESSARILY.
Then you get just what happened. And if you the new kid in town, you’re the easiest to kick off the block.
posted by Bobby on
“It seemed pretty clear to me that in his forthright statement to his superior that he did not feel her gay marriage was acceptable, he was, by logical extension, telling her that he felt she herself was unacceptable. In doing so, he was being personally insulting and harassing in his behavior.”
—So Jimmy, are you saying that a Christian should instead say “gee, that’s great, you’re getting married, I’m so happy for you.” Is that what you want? For people to lie and say they approve things they disaprove?
“That’s a nice philosophy, but the guy got fired and posted a ranty YouTube video, and we’re all blowing a haystack. That sounds like conflict to me.”
—No, nowadays it’s a trend to use youtube to complain about an injustice. I saw a guy complained that FedEx broke his guitar and refused to pay for it, so he put a rant on youtube and then FedEx paid for the guitar and then the guy posted a video thanking FedEx. Besides, you’re supposed to be polite until they fire you, then all bets are off.
“I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how far he can get, but I’m not putting anything on the line for him. There’s just something nutty about this guy, and he’s wrong in a lot of places. It’s much too risky to take a “stand” behind a case that is so one-sided. You could get burned very badly by what you don’t know about the situation.”
—I’m only defending justice here, I support same-sex marriage but I don’t support the nazi-like intimidation that supporters of traditional marriage are facing. I don’t support people getting fired from their jobs for having a politically incorrect opinion. I have a lot of politically incorrect opinions which I will gladly communicate if anyone at work ask me, and I would not want to get fired because some oversensitive liberal got an answer he didn’t like.
If you don’t want perfect strangers at work to disaprove of your relationship don’t tell them! If you tell them accept that not everyone will approve and deal with it. Seriously, gays are becoming too thin skinned.
The backlash is coming anyway and there will be incidents that are more clear-cut. There is no reason to make a personal crusade out of supporting a group or an ideology in every little situation regardless of its credibility or the evidence. That’s what differentiates the activitsts from the hustlers.
And by the way, people have always had the right to object to any marriage, in fact, that’s part of the christian wedding vows: “If anyone objects to this union speak now or forever hold your peace.”
posted by esurience on
“So Jimmy, are you saying that a Christian should instead say “gee, that’s great, you’re getting married, I’m so happy for you.” Is that what you want? For people to lie and say they approve things they disaprove?”
Sure, Bobby. I lie all the time. Sometimes politeness requires it. Should a workplace not be able to require people to be decent and polite to each other?
posted by Jorge on
And by the way, people have always had the right to object to any marriage, in fact, that’s part of the christian wedding vows: “If anyone objects to this union speak now or forever hold your peace.”
Supposedly that dated from a time before electronic communication when outside relatives may have conceivably had knowledge of such objections, like that one of them was still marriaged. Anyway it’s way antiquated and you can be sure I wouldn’t dare include that line in my wedding ceremony.
A lot of people’s history isn’t EXACTLY the same, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a lot in common.
Jews aren’t gay, and blacks aren’t women, but all have a history of systemic bigotry and discrimination.
I love that. I think I’ll use it someday.
posted by jimmy on
Bobby – Esurience is right, he could have kept his trap shut. As a christian, no one is forcing him to be in a gay marriage, attend a gay marriage, or anything else that is an affront to his brand of christianity. I don’t recall his boss asking him what he thought about her or her pending nuptials.
posted by Debrah on
Regan DuCasse—
With all due respect, and I do hope yours is not a pseudonym since you’ve put yourself on the line with such archaic drivel—(well-meaning as it might be).
Hyperbolic imagery from the early to mid-20th century no longer plays in today’s world.
The “victims” have become the “victimizers”.
Revisit the facts of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax (which is only one example inside the academy, as well as the climate throughout our society) and get back to me about what actually takes place regarding race/class/gender issues.
Those who possess even a semblance of an advanced education know the degree to which history embroiders along with recording of actual events.
NO GROUP has ever been as damaged by outside forces to the degree those tethered to the never-ending idea of “victimhood” want us to believe.
Moreover, no one needs a refresher course on grievances of those who have suffered, historically; however, many simply WILL NOT let go of their very lucrative seat at the pity-party.
It will never be enough. Not even the election of a black president—who is becoming a disappointment—for whom I supported.
You’re entitled to your opinion….and others, theirs.
The “black grievance train” and the “gay grievance train” are as different as night and day. Originating from, as well as destined toward, two entirely different terminals.
One might wonder why the Jews, a tiny fraction of the population, have not only survived, but thrived.
One might ask.
posted by Audrey the Liberal on
I’m of the opinion that in an ideal world, employment would be strictly at the employer’s discretion. Since, however, we live in a world where it’s illegal to fire someone for a series of arbitrary reasons (race, religion, etc.), well, I wish to note the depravity of fundamentalist Christians, for whom such laws are fine and dandy when they benefit, but immoral when they might be extended to gay people.
posted by Infovoyeur on
[1.] Did the female refer four times to her spouse–oh, and if a heterosexual had done the same would that be actionable?
[2.] As for getting hit on, actually–would not anti-harrassment laws already in place, handle that?
Otherwise, more Lavender-Menace Queer Fear, I fear…
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Debrah,
You might well ask too, how have gay men and women a minority have THRIVED too.
Despite being victims of the Holocaust too. Despite automatic destruction of exemplary careers in all manner of every day life and institutions that have excluded gay people.
I’m not reiterating VICTIMIZATION, just that there is enough in common with what OTHER groups have endured as WELL AS overcome in SOME areas.
Gay men and women, who serve in uniform, for example, despite all the risks, STILL have the moral accommodation to fight for the protections and rights that cannot fully have.
And those gay parents who have taken in children who otherwise would have NO ONE to support them.
What about how despite every kind of outrage and physical brutality against any innocent member of their group, gay people respond in admirably non violent ways.
And yet, this COUNTRY refuses to acknowledge this strenght of character that could contribute a great deal to our society.
And yet, the collective commitment that gay people have to being full participants in the responsibilities of being a citizen, still don’t have full access to it’s protections and privileges.
We’re denying what could be a vital ally, the realization of their full potential.
THAT is the very definition is a country, our society that hinders the self reliance of people who make consistent contributions. When less than a generation before, being gay meant automatic institutionalization and abandonment by the family and incarceration.
I simply acknowledge what is historical context to a fair analogy of the gay struggle in America.
But I could also reiterate the triumphs in SPITE of it.
Just don’t try to pretend there isn’t MUCH that could be done, and much that could be BETTER.
posted by Throbert McGee on
A little Gedankenexperiment for everyone who thinks that it was the whiny Christian subordinate, and not the lesbian manager, who behaved unprofessionally here:
Suppose that a Christian manager had been going on all day about how glad she was that Same-Sex Marriage had been voted down in Maine, and how this was a victory for traditional values, etc. And suppose that a gay subordinate had taken this as a personal attack and had proceeded to do what this guy did:
1. He spoke to the Christian manager in private (good move)
2. He complained that her repeated gloating about the outcome in Maine was creating an uncomfortable working environment for him as a homosexual (fair enough, even if it hadn’t been her intention to hurt his feelings)
3. He added that, furthermore, he considered her and other opponents of Same-Sex Marriage to be “hateful bigots” who were doing something “wrong” (bad, insofar as it amounts to pejorative name-calling in the workplace, and also stupid, insofar as it was directed at someone higher up on the corporate ladder)
In that situation, should the manager have retaliated for the “hateful bigot” remark by going to HR to get the guy fired?
It seems to me that, ignoring all the particulars about same-sex marriage and traditional religious viewpoints vs. gay rights, this was essentially an abuse of power by management, and the manager got away with it because of stupid political correctness that automatically favors the “historically oppressed minority” even when the member of said HOM is in the position of greater power.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby – Esurience is right, he could have kept his trap shut. As a christian, no one is forcing him to be in a gay marriage, attend a gay marriage, or anything else that is an affront to his brand of christianity. I don’t recall his boss asking him what he thought about her or her pending nuptials’
—Funny, you don’t like it when the christians tell you to go back into the closet and keep your mouth shut, but when it comes to Christians that’s exactly what you want them to do.
You wouldn’t like it if someone was fired for coming out of the closet or for displaying the picture of his boyfriend at work, yet you have no problem getting Christians fired for politically incorrect views.
And then we wonder why they hate and fear us? Duh! If a christian was reading this thread what would he think? He’d think that except for Bobby most gays want Christians to shut up.
Honestly, I hope he sues and I hope he wins, I will be rooting for the Christian not because I agree with his views but because I agree with the principles of free speech and fair dealing. Firing people for not celebrating the nuptials of two lesbians is ridiculous.
If you can’t agree with me then don’t go complaining about homophobia, you can’t condemn one prejudice while defending another.
posted by David Skidmore on
Christians can say what they like about homosexuality when I’m around. But they have to accept the consequences of their behaviour when I retaliate. Or maybe when I praise them. It all depends on what they’ve said – then I decide whether they’ve been good or not.
posted by jimmy on
Throbert – the gay employee was on solid ground until he called her a bigot, which was disrespectful and insubordinate. He could well be fired.
Bobby – According to Brookstone’s EEO policy, speech that creates a hostile work environment is not tolerated. Nothing about the manager’s sexuality or the fact that she was about to be married to another woman, which is a matter of fact no different than observing that the sky is blue, impeded his freedom to be a christian or believe what he believes. To say to another employee, “You disturb me. I don’t approve of you. You offend me by being who you are,” is hostile on it’s face.
We only have his side of the story, but even at that, it drips with hostility every time he uses the qualifier ‘so-called.’
The thing about free speech is that it is not without consequences. This guy isn’t being arrested by the state and thrown in jail for what he said. He’s free to say what he wants. Wisdom and judgement dictate when it is best to say it. In a free market, what’s bad for business is bad judgement.
I don’t care why they hate us. There isn’t a damn thing we could do to keep them from hating us – nothing would ever be enough. Only when their hegemony is threatened do they claim victimization. I thought Christians got off on persecution.
posted by KK on
Bobby he went a little bit further than sharing his opinion. He called her “deviant” (both to her face and to the HR rep – this is in the paperwork the right wing hate site shows). He can hate gays all he wants but can’t create a hostile work environment.
I can disagree with christians at work all I want, but if I (or anyone else) was to mock them and call them idiots or zombie followers or anything else I’d be creating a hostile work environment and should rightly be reprimanded (up to termination) as well.
His contempt comes through loud and clear in the video and the fact that he ran off to have his story told by an extremely anti-gay hate group only shows his true colors. I’m all for free speech too, whether I agree or not, but this jerkoff doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on so he’s just grandstanding and hoping to become the latest “victim” of the anti-gay industry.
Calling someone names and disparaging them is quite a bit different than displaying a picture of a loved one on a desk or talking about a big event in your life.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby – According to Brookstone’s EEO policy, speech that creates a hostile work environment is not tolerated.”
—So if you’re a republican and your worker has Obama posters and anti-Bush cartoons, can you claim hostile work environment? I don’t think so.
“Nothing about the manager’s sexuality or the fact that she was about to be married to another woman, which is a matter of fact no different than observing that the sky is blue, impeded his freedom to be a christian or believe what he believes. To say to another employee, “You disturb me. I don’t approve of you. You offend me by being who you are,” is hostile on it’s face.”
—To me it’s no different than an employee telling me he’s going to vote for Obama. If an employee told me that I would say, “well, Obama is bad for America.” Do you think that should get me fired?
“We only have his side of the story, but even at that, it drips with hostility every time he uses the qualifier ‘so-called.'”
—That’s not hostility, you need to meet some real homophobes, they’ll show you what hostility means. Being pushed against a locker is hostility, a coworker leaving you a f-g message at your desk is hostility, a coworker callig you that to your face is hostility, “so-called” is not hostility, it is rethoric.
“The thing about free speech is that it is not without consequences. This guy isn’t being arrested by the state and thrown in jail for what he said. He’s free to say what he wants. Wisdom and judgement dictate when it is best to say it. In a free market, what’s bad for business is bad judgement.”
—I can’t fire blacks for being black, can’t fire jews for being jews, but I can fire Christians for being Christian. That’s what you seem to be telling me. A free market for some indeed, it’s sort of like segregation, you’re free to ride the bus but make sure you sit in the back.
“I don’t care why they hate us. There isn’t a damn thing we could do to keep them from hating us – nothing would ever be enough. Only when their hegemony is threatened do they claim victimization. I thought Christians got off on persecution.”
—We could try supporting fairness and freedom instead of acting like a bunch of goddamm nazis. We could try standing up for principle instead of always defending our own even when they do wrong.
You know something, we don’t deserve same-sex marriage, not if we’re gonna act like a bunch of fascist and nazis, not if it means freedom of opinion ends and political conformity begins. I would rather be a second class citizen in a free country than a first class citizen in a politically correct society. It depresses me how a movement that once came to simbolize freedom now simbolizes oppression.
It is an outrage that this man was fired, but I guess you won’t understand it until it happens to you. Maybe one day you’ll see an employee with an anti-gay marriage bumpersticker, and you’re gonna start an argument with her and maybe she’ll call HR, complain about a hostile work environment and maybe it will be your ass that gets fired. See? Political correctness can work both ways.
posted by KK on
Yes Bobby, if someone starts an argument with someone with an anti-gay marriage bumpersticker then they are creating a hostile work environment and should deal with the consequences. Starting arguments, calling people deviant, etc is not professional. Nobody is saying he can’t be a christian, what they are saying is he can’t attack and disparage an employee for talking about her marriage (or as he calls it, her “so called marriage”).
And don’t forget you’ve only heard HIS side of the story, told through the extremely biased eye of a vehemently anti-gay group.
There are true free speech cases out there to get worked up about, but this douche-nozzle and his idiotic story is not one of them. If you listen to his video the last thing he’d do is care if you were fired for being gay, so I wouldn’t waste too much time crying crocodile tears for him.
posted by jimmy on
Bobby – “—So if you’re a republican and your worker has Obama posters and anti-Bush cartoons, can you claim hostile work environment? I don’t think so.”
I don’t think so either and I’ve never seen an instance of it. Having worked in a unionized office in the telecom business, there would have been plenty of opportunity for that sort of thing.
“—That’s not hostility, you need to meet some real homophobes, they’ll show you what hostility means. Being pushed against a locker is hostility, a coworker leaving you a f-g message at your desk is hostility, a coworker callig you that to your face is hostility, “so-called” is not hostility, it is rethoric.”
Why does it have to come to such an extreme?
“-I can’t fire blacks for being black, can’t fire jews for being jews, but I can fire Christians for being Christian.”
No you can’t. But, you can fire any of the above for violating HR policies that they all agree to follow when they hired on.
I’m convinced people have stopped being rational when they start seeing nazi’s all around them.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Erm, two things have come to my attention since my previous post, in which I accused the offended lesbian manager of behaving unprofessionally by pursuing this with HR:
(1) The fired guy, Peter Vadala, was himself a manager, albeit a lower-level manager than the aggrieved lesbian. So there was not as much of a power disparity going on here as I had previously believed.
(2) According to the termination letter that Mr. Vadala got from Brookstone’s HR department, he had voiced his disapproval of homosexuality not only to the lesbian manager, but also to a sales associate — in other words, a laboring grunt in a position subordinate to him.
Point (2) is really what’s pertinent, to me — because as soon as Vadala voiced his strong disapproval of homosexuality to a subordinate, he was EPIC-FAILING to promote Brookstone’s non-discrimination policy, regardless of whether the subordinate took offense at the statement. (And this is quite apart from whether his comments to the lesbian manager constituted “discrimination and harassment” against her.)
posted by Bobby on
If a black employee comes to my office and says “I’m going to the Million Man March sponsored by the Nation of Islam” and I reply “that’s fine, but I got to say that organization is run by anti-semites, racists and homophobes, but you do what you like” should I get fired from my HR job?
Moving on…
“I don’t think so either and I’ve never seen an instance of it. Having worked in a unionized office in the telecom business, there would have been plenty of opportunity for that sort of thing.”
—I have worked in advertising and I’ve seen plenty of liberal workers come to work wearing Obama t-shirts, putting anti-Bush posters and openly celebrating the election of America’s fuhrer. So it’s not like people come to work and leave their personalities outside the door, the question is can you be yourself when you’re politically incorrect? I think you can.
“Why does it have to come to such an extreme?”
—Sure it does, laws are supposed to punish real crimes. What’s next? You tell an HR person you’re getting married, he doesn’t smile but says “fill form 24-A” and then he gets fired for not being happy about your engagement? Dissaproving of gay marriage does not create a hostile work environment. If you cannot distinguish between civil debate and harassment and I don’t know what to say.
“No you can’t. But, you can fire any of the above for violating HR policies that they all agree to follow when they hired on.”
—They didn’t agree to support gay marriage or to be pro-gay.
“I’m convinced people have stopped being rational when they start seeing nazi’s all around them.”
—There’s a lot of similarities between national socialism and the progressive movement. Both groups seek their own versions of political correctness, both support censorship, both celebrate conformity, both find enemies and get them fired from their jobs, both apply a double standard, one for prefered groups and another for everyone else.
posted by Debrah on
Both Bobby and the illustrious Throbert bring a refreshing sense of intelligence and calm to such a “debate”—contrived as this case seems to be
In my estimation, there’s very little difference, methodically, in the whipped-up religious right and the nauseating eructations from the gay-free-to-be-me contingent.
Both are vile, relentless, and cannot seem to function without a lifetime pacifier stuck inside their mouths…….(which would be a nice change for some, instead of what’s usually have stuck in there).
posted by jimmy on
Debrah-
A woman moved is like a fountain troubled,-
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty.
I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace.
The Taming of the Shrew, 5. 2
posted by Debrah on
“A woman moved is like a fountain troubled…..”
*************************
No, Jimmy.
You’ve got me all wrong.
When I’m “troubled”, I move rather like a volcano.
That way there’s no ambiguity. No one’s time is wasted trying to figure things out.
“I am ashamed that women are so simple….
To offer war…..”
*****************************
Don’t be “ashamed” of war. War and winning them are what allow both of us our freedom to kibitz and moan….and contemplate the strange.
But let me make a suggestion while you’re doling out veiled insults.
Take a stroll over to some of the better-known gay websites (as well as other blogs which used this sorry episode and should have known better) and revisit the posts as well as the comments about the 20-ish imbecilic former Ms. California.
If you want to see middle-aged gay men—most twice the age of this unfortunate woman, who has breast implants (LOL!) and will probably be a has-been in about a year–acting like loose-lipped hags, check them out. You’ll witness WAR.
And all because this empty vessel expressed herself on the gay marriage issue.
Even allegedly intelligent gay men—no doubt angry because someone didn’t give high praise for bent-over-bareback-breeding—jumped on her in what can only be described as WAR-LIKE attacks.
Pot, kettle, black.
posted by Bobby on
“In my estimation, there’s very little difference, methodically, in the whipped-up religious right and the nauseating eructations from the gay-free-to-be-me contingent.”
—Well, I agree with that, both groups portray themselves as the victim and the other group as the oppressor. While I woudln’t want a return to the virulent homophobia of the past, I’m not interested in a new christianphobia either. A society that cannot tolerate vigorous debate is doomed to failure. I know one gay couple that’s been together for 25 years, they would have never demanded the firing of that HR guy.
Speaking of bias, in one of the conservative blogs I frequent I found that comedian Kate Clinton has been accused of hate speech for saying the following:
“Sometimes I wake up . . . and all I want to do is smoke cigarettes and spit at Christian fundamentalists . . . nut jobs that I want to spit at . .”
While I happen to like Kate Clinton it’s obvious that political correctness benefits one group while harming another. It reminds me of a quote from Henry Ford – “You can have it any color you want as long as it’s black.”
And that’s why the right is so upset, the left only wants to have it black.
posted by jimmy on
Debrah –
Carrie took it upon herself to pick a side in a culture war. Then she accepted the role as pin-up girl for the traditionalist movement. Her complaining about darts thrown at her likeness by those who disagree, on every talk-show that will book her, is laughable. People of any age, gay or straight, mocking her in the blogosphere is exactly what she invited.
Judging from the vile nature of posters over at Wingnutdaily and FreeRepublic, which a couple of your characterizations mirror (a strange preoccupation), no one has the market cornered on war-like attacks.
Bobby-
Clinton is catholic. When one christian insults another christian, it’s called Christianity.
posted by Debrah on
Let me reiterate…..again and again……in bold relief……that I am not, and have never been, an apologist or defender of Prejean. In all honesty, I wish the woman had never been made into an issue of this magnitude.
The gay community really picked a highbrow enemy in that one. LOL!!!
That’s what’s so sick about it all. It shows how feverish and ready for a fight some people are.
“Carrie took it upon herself to pick a side in a culture war.”
*************************************
No, she didn’t “take it upon herself”.
Perez Hilton—a “man” who always appears to have just emerged from a train tunnel carrying around a bad Liberace impression—knew all about the woman’s views and her “Christianity” and he ambushed her on national TV. (I suppose some people still watch that archaic crap.)
Then some people I had previously thought were too dignified and smart to participate, took part in using this issue as a war-like expression of their gayness and their hostility and intolerance toward anyone in disagreement.
Lastly, I really don’t think some of you can quite understand the shock in seeing who planted themselves solidly inside the camp of the pathetic Perez Hilton.
Something like this changes opinions.
posted by jimmy on
Debrah-
“Perez Hilton—a “man” who always appears to have just emerged from a train tunnel carrying around a bad Liberace impression—knew all about the woman’s views and her “Christianity” and he ambushed her on national TV.”
There was no ambush. She picked the pre-submitted question at random.
I didn’t think you were an apologist for Prejean, but you brought her up in the conversation. She is a public figure now, something she embraces, so she’s fair game.
Many of your posts contain some mean spirited jabs at gay men in general and I wonder where that’s coming from, beyond the politics. What’s the not-so-subtle hostility all about?
posted by Debrah on
“Many of your posts contain some mean spirited jabs at gay men in general and I wonder where that’s coming from, beyond the politics.”
*************************************
Hmmmm…..”hostility”?
Perhaps you’re just not used to naked candor. In several previous comments, under previous posts, I elaborated on all this to some extent.
Your question is a loaded one and one which will take a lot of time and discussion.
This topic could even be made into an actual post…..if someone has the guts for some open and honest discussion.
This topic, IMO, holds some of the elements which give people pause regarding their opinions about gay marriage.
As I said, it’s loaded.
If I’m hard on gay men, it’s because I love men.
They often give me great pleasure. And in many respects, I think like a man.
Why would I want to waste all that on women?
posted by Jack Anorak on
Wow. Firstly, would one expect to state that they do not approve of black people to a black boss and not get fired. Secondly, she only mentioned it four times! She’s just gotten engaged! That definitely qualifies as holding back.
Also, is it wrong that I think he’s kind of cute? I feel like being in a video like that should definitely “de-cute” someone, but I have to say, he’s not half bad.
posted by Bobby on
“Wow. Firstly, would one expect to state that they do not approve of black people to a black boss and not get fired”
—It’s not the same, while blackness is obvious sexual orientation isn’t. A woman can go from gay to straight and back to gay, we’ve seen it happen with prominent “lesbians.”
Moreover, if people are going to get fired everytime they say something offensive this will stiffle free speech, creativity, and turn the office into a stuffy, politically correct prison.
Firing people should be a last resort, specially when the person fired is talented as his job. It would be better to have mediate/counseling between both parties, either way, all this incident does is create more homophobia and paranoia about gays.
posted by Bobby on
“Wow. Firstly, would one expect to state that they do not approve of black people to a black boss and not get fired”
—It’s not the same, while blackness is obvious sexual orientation isn’t. A woman can go from gay to straight and back to gay, we’ve seen it happen with prominent “lesbians.”
Moreover, if people are going to get fired everytime they say something offensive this will stiffle free speech, creativity, and turn the office into a stuffy, politically correct prison.
Firing people should be a last resort, specially when the person fired is talented as his job. It would be better to have mediate/counseling between both parties, either way, all this incident does is create more homophobia and paranoia about gays.
posted by David Skidmore on
I totally agree with Bobby’s last comments. If someone at my ever said “I think homosexuality is wrong” (as the guy on the video did) my response would be “I think your religion is wrong – deal with it” rather than whinging to the boss.
In other words, my colleagues have free speech but they still have to deal with the consequences of free speech. And so do I.
posted by Bobby on
Anyone saw friday’s episode of Ugly Better? The flaiming queen character has a very interesting approach when it comes to people who disaprove of him. He told Betty’s nephew that when someone makes fun of you the thing to do is return the joke to them. The best part of when the nephew is named Queen of the prom and instead of walking away, takes the crow and gives a speech. Those characters had 1000 times more courage than that lesbian.
And I like the response David Skidmore would give: “I think your religion is wrong – deal with it.” If we responded like that then the anti-gay people woudln’t be able to say that we’re insecure and seekign special protections in the workplace. Firing that HR manager does nothing to improve the workplace, I’m sure he had friends and all those friends are going to be hating the lesbian that got him fired. And if the lesbian has people who supervise her and didn’t agree with what happened, they will be checking out her work closely and the minute she makes a mistake she will be fired.
Thus in the end the lesbian loses.
posted by jimmy on
I would agree with you had the exchange between these two people happened outside of the professional work environment. But, employers have the right to place limits on speech and have an interest in holding people accountable for a policy they accepted when they became an employee.
posted by Term Papers on
Arguments were somewhat convincing initially but later you seemed to have lost track and releid on emotive thinking. this emotive thinking took you away from reality and influenced you to come up with recommendations (most) that are unrealistic.Otherwise a very well written article