Friday, December 20, 2013

Gay rights groups defend Duck Dynasty firing with fractured logic

It is truly amazing what passes for logic in the Orwellian world of gay activism.

The firing of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty isn't about free speech, says Time Magazine's James Poniewozik. So I guess that means that the firing of gays isn't about discrimination either, right?

The arguments now being deployed by gay rights groups to defend A&E's treatment of a Duck Dynasty star are completely at odds with their stated positions about how everyone else should be required to treat them.

Here is the statement of a representative of GLAD,a gay rights group, on the Megan Kelly' show on Fox News last night in defense of the firing of Robertson: "We all have to answer to our employers."

Say whut?!!!

That is precisely the exact and utter opposite of their position on the treatment of gays themselves. In other words, their position is that it's absolutely unacceptable to fire someone (this is the whole point of gay rights laws) because they engage in homosexual behavior, but it's perfectly fine (and in fact laudable) to fire someone because he doesn't agree with the lifestyle gays lead.

If you're gay, no one can fire you for it. But if you disagree with gays, not only can they fire you for it, but they should.

In case you haven't read 1984 lately—or if you have just forgotten your Orwellian terminology, this is called "Doublethink": the holding of two mutually exclusive thoughts in your mind at the very same time.


14 comments:

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

I'm so old, I can remember when offending people's sensibilities was "bold", "audacious", "iconoclastic", "makes us question our presumptions".

Oh, sorry! That was when Christians were the ones being offended! My mistake!

P.C. does not mean being inoffensive. It means being inoffensive to those people who *matter*.

KyCobb said...

Boy, what a bad post. How many errors? First, Robertson wasn't fired, he was suspended. Second, he wasn't suspended for disagreeing with gays lifestyle; he was suspended for making offensive comments. Third, homosexuals can be suspended or fired for making offensive comments as well. Anyway, this was a really bad week for homophobes. First, the President selected openly gay Americans to represent the country at the Sochi Olympics. Second, the New Mexico Supreme Court legalized ssm in NM, then today a US District Court judge legalized ssm in Utah. Ironically, he cited Scalia's dissenting opinion in Windsor that its reasoning required state ssm bans be struck as unconstitutional. he one bad piece of news was the terrible law passed by the Ugandan parliament. I hope the President pressures the Ugandan President to veto it.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Boy, what a bad post. How many errors? First, Robertson wasn't fired, he was suspended.

I notice you that you conveniently left of "indefinitely" from "suspended indefinitely." Nice try.

Tell me the difference between being "suspended indefinitely" from your job and "being fired."

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Second, he wasn't suspended for disagreeing with gays lifestyle; he was suspended for making offensive comments.

Right. What was offensive about his comments was that they disagreed with the gay lifestyle.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Third, homosexuals can be suspended or fired for making offensive comments as well.

So if a gay says he thinks homosexuality is moral and his employer takes offense at that and fires him, that's okay?

KyCobb said...

Martin

"What was offensive about his comments was that they disagreed with the gay lifestyle."

He compared it to bestiality. That's offensive.

"So if a gay says he thinks homosexuality is moral and his employer takes offense at that and fires him, that's okay?"

That's not an offensive comment; he's not insulting or denigrating anyone else. If that was the sole reason for a firing in a community in which sexual orientation is a protected class, the firing would likely result in reinstatement and a fine.

The world is changing again, Martin. If you want to treat homosexuals with contempt, there could be consequences. Homophobes are going to have to learn that they have to show LGBT people some courtesy, just as racists learned they could no longer call African-Americans the N-word. In a few years the lesson will have been learned and this sort of thing will rarely be an issue anymore.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

He compared it to bestiality.

This is the second time you have mis-portrayed what happened in order to justify your position. He didn't "compare it to bestiality." He was asked what sin was and he listed a whole bunch of them, including homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery, idolatry, male prostitution, greed, drunkedness, slander, and theft."

He no more "compared homosexuality to bestiality" than he compared it with greed. In fact, he included in the list one of the things he himself has suffered from, since he is a recovering alcoholic.

If you were asked a list of famous people during World War II and you included both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler on the list, would you be comparing Churchill to Adolf Hitler?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

That's offensive. Can you give me objective criteria by which we judge offensiveness?

And can I infer that if a television network fired one of its stars because he advocated gay rights and it found that offensive that you would support that decision?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

This is what I read he said: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph from there," Robertson, 67, said when asked what is sinful. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." Looks like a direct link from homosexuality to bestiality to me.

"Can you give me objective criteria by which we judge offensiveness?"

When you insult people, by, for example, comparing their love for their partner to having sex with animals. You would find that offensive, wouldn't you?

"And can I infer that if a television network fired one of its stars because he advocated gay rights and it found that offensive that you would support that decision?"

You already asked a version of this question, so the answer is the same. That comment does not insult or denigrate anyone else, so its hard to see how anyone could find it offensive.

Lee said...

> He compared it to bestiality. That's offensive.

Now you've done it. You've offended Minnie Mouse. And Jessica Rabbit.

But since bestiality is a victimless crime, why is it an offensive comparison?

Lee said...

> When you insult people, by, for example, comparing their love for their partner to having sex with animals.

So? What's wrong with animals? Should we alert PETA to your obvious anti-animal hatred?

Lee said...

I guess we could call such sentiments an 'animus'.

But such sentiments are so... Victorian.

Lee said...

> When you insult people, by, for example, comparing their love for their partner to having sex with animals. You would find that offensive, wouldn't you?

Is it okay to offend Christians?