A&E shoots itself in the foot

[gerryh]

The wonderful Mark Steyn.

The Age of Intolerance | National Review Online

"As Christian bakers ordered to provide wedding cakes for gay nuptials and many others well understand, America’s much-vaunted “freedom of religion” is dwindling down to something you can exercise behind closed doors in the privacy of your own abode or at a specialist venue for those of such tastes for an hour or so on Sunday morning, but when you enter the public square you have to leave your faith back home hanging in the closet."


It appears to me, that organizations like GLAAD, would prefer that Christians were in the closet. Talk about a 180.

 

[SLM]

one of many many comments on GLAAD's face book page concerning Phil

"There is no support from almost all of the gay community, they feel like this joke of an organization is way out of line and detrimental to the real gay movement. There are more gays supporting Phil than glaad! You people need to wake up and see the damage you are doing"

This is what I've been implying. GLAAD does NOT represent the majority of GBLT's. I know it doesn't represent me.

The problem that occurs with many advocacy groups is they become very cliquey and focus on their own self-importance. Advocates, to my way of thinking, are the most necessary when a group is almost categorically denied rights across the board throughout society. While there is still a hell of a long way to go when it comes to GBLT, they've already come so far. We're seeing laws against same sex marriage being struck down, the tolerance in society of discrimination is becoming less and less common place. So the 'fierce' advocacy groups start to become less and less relevant.

I'd actually liken it to the more militant feminist groups once discrimination against women started to become less common place. Not to say that there aren't still cases of discrimination against woman, there are, just as there are still many cases of discrimination against members of the GBLT community, but it's becoming less and less. More and more people simply won't tolerate it. GLAAD needs to refocus it's efforts or risk becoming obsolete to members of the community it purports to advocate for.

 

[BornRuff]

one of many many comments on GLAAD's face book page concerning Phil

"There is no support from almost all of the gay community, they feel like this joke of an organization is way out of line and detrimental to the real gay movement. There are more gays supporting Phil than glaad! You people need to wake up and see the damage you are doing"

This is what I've been implying. GLAAD does NOT represent the majority of GBLT's. I know it doesn't represent me.

I don't think a single post on Facebook really a good way to judge the views of the entire LGBT community.

It is not like their sexuality makes them all think alike. There are tons of different views within the LGBT community on pretty much every issue.

 

[gerryh]

I don't think a single post on Facebook really a good way to judge the views of the entire LGBT community.

It is not like their sexuality makes them all think alike. There are tons of different views within the LGBT community on pretty much every issue.

Really? Different views eh.....and yet..... you've been supporting GLAAD...who purports to be an advocate for the GLBT community. An organization that says they represent the GLBT community's views....... while I have been saying they don't support the GLBT community's views.... nice to see you have finally come around to what I have been saying.

 

[BornRuff]

"As Christian bakers ordered to provide wedding cakes for gay nuptials and many others well understand, America’s much-vaunted “freedom of religion” is dwindling down to something you can exercise behind closed doors in the privacy of your own abode or at a specialist venue for those of such tastes for an hour or so on Sunday morning, but when you enter the public square you have to leave your faith back home hanging in the closet."


It appears to me, that organizations like GLAAD, would prefer that Christians were in the closet. Talk about a 180.

Nobody is telling anyone to hide their religion. You just can't use your religion as an excuse not to follow the law.

After 9/11, when it was declared that the terrorist did it for religious reasons, nobody said "oh, your religion told you to do that? That's cool then".

So in your example, it is illegal for companies to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation. Claiming it somehow violates your religious beliefs isn't an excuse to discriminate.

Really? Different views eh.....and yet..... you've been supporting GLAAD...who purports to be an advocate for the GLBT community. An organization that says they represent the GLBT community's views....... while I have been saying they don't support the GLBT community's views.... nice to see you have finally come around to what I have been saying.

Seriously? Where on earth have you ever heard GLADD claim to speak for all LGBT people?

When you do not march and sing the way they want you to, what would you say about their tolerance.
Did the man express hatred towards them. Nope. His Religious beliefs are fairly basic.
GLADD just raising their profile and fundraising.
And it would only be a certain percentage of GLADD. The ones that got the Party line out quickly.

Their mission is to promote tolerance and inclusion of LGBT people. That naturally puts them at odds with people who promote messages against that.

It is such a fad now for intolerant people to whine that all these groups promoting tolerance are not tolerant of their views. Well, that is the whole point. Working to create a more tolerant and inclusive world requires fighting against the people who are intolerant and prejudiced.

 

[gerryh]

Nobody is telling anyone to hide their religion. You just can't use your religion as an excuse not to follow the law.

After 9/11, when it was declared that the terrorist did it for religious reasons, nobody said "oh, your religion told you to do that? That's cool then".

So in your example, it is illegal for companies to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation. Claiming it somehow violates your religious beliefs isn't an excuse to discriminate.

Yes, that is what is happening. Ones religious views should be kept in the closet, out of the publics eye.

Seriously? Where on earth have you ever heard GLADD claim to speak for all LGBT people?



Their mission is to promote tolerance and inclusion of LGBT people. That naturally puts them at odds with people who promote messages against that.

It is such a fad now for intolerant people to whine that all these groups promoting tolerance are not tolerant of their views. Well, that is the whole point. Working to create a more tolerant and inclusive world requires fighting against the people who are intolerant and prejudiced.

Phil Robertson was not being intolerant. He has stated the exact opposite. It appears that a very large number of the GLBT community is at odds, once again, with GLAAD and their agenda when it comes to Phil Robertson.

As for their stated mission, IMO and many others, they are doing the exact opposite.

 

[BornRuff]

Yes, that is what is happening. Ones religious views should be kept in the closet, out of the publics eye.

How so?

Everyone is more than free to express their religious views. On the same token, everyone is more than free to disagree with your views. Freedoms are not just for you and people you agree with.

Phil Robertson was not being intolerant. He has stated the exact opposite. It appears that a very large number of the GLBT community is at odds, once again, with GLAAD and their agenda when it comes to Phil Robertson.

As for their stated mission, IMO and many others, they are doing the exact opposite.

You scanned their facebook page, so I apologize but it is hard to take this seriously.

As I have already stated though, GLADD has never claimed to speak for all LGBT people. They are not a homogeneous group.

You also have to remember that GLADD is far from the only voice in opposition to this, so attacking them doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

[gerryh]

How so?

Everyone is more than free to express their religious views. On the same token, everyone is more than free to disagree with your views. Freedoms are not just for you and people you agree with.



You scanned their facebook page, so I apologize but it is hard to take this seriously.

As I have already stated though, GLADD has never claimed to speak for all LGBT people. They are not a homogeneous group.

You also have to remember that GLADD is far from the only voice in opposition to this, so attacking them doesn't really get us anywhere.

GLAAD has stated that THEY are the reason A&E has suspended Phil Robertson. That it was THEIR complaint that A&E acted on.

and what do you mean by "homogeneous"?

 

[BornRuff]

GLAAD has stated that THEY are the reason A&E has suspended Phil Robertson. That it was THEIR complaint that A&E acted on.

and what do you mean by "homogeneous"?

Google is your friend.

 

[gerryh]

Following calls from GLAAD, A&E Network has placed Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty on an indefinite filming hiatus after he made anti-gay remarks in a recent profile in GQ Magazine. The network said in a statement today:

Robertson's GQ comments - which included some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication and were littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation - included the below:

“It seems like, to me, a vag ina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.
​

really? A straight man not understanding how someone could prefer an anus over a vag ina is some of the vilest and most extreme statements? Really?

 

[BornRuff]

Following calls from GLAAD, A&E Network has placed Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty on an indefinite filming hiatus after he made anti-gay remarks in a recent profile in GQ Magazine. The network said in a statement today:

Robertson's GQ comments - which included some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication and were littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation - included the below:

“It seems like, to me, a vag ina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.
​

GLADD highlighted their call for action in this case. So what? Who is claiming that they didn't?

As I said, they are not the only voice that spoke out against this. Not even GLADD claims that.

 

[gerryh]

Google is your friend.

as is it yours....I'd suggest you use it more often to get a broader look and understanding of different issues. Especially when you have no direct involvement in those issues. Unless of course you are a member of the LGBT community. Are you?

 

[BornRuff]

as is it yours....I'd suggest you use it more often to get a broader look and understanding of different issues. Especially when you have no direct involvement in those issues. Unless of course you are a member of the LGBT community. Are you?

Lol, first you try to attack GLADD, now you try to attack my credibility on this issue. Just address the damn issue at hand.

If you are so interested in putting sexual orientation on the record, maybe you should start.

 

[gerryh]

Lol, first you try to attack GLADD, now you try to attack my credibility on this issue. Just address the damn issue at hand.

If you are so interested in putting sexual orientation on the record, maybe you should start.

My orientation is public record on this board, and I have on more than one occasion in this thread, stated that GLAAD does not speak for me. I have a vested interested in LGBT rights and equality, do you?

Even though I do not agree with Phil Robertson's interpretation of the Bible, nor with his assessment of vag inas and anus's, I respect the fact that he has stated that he loves all like he has been taught by Jesus. He does not condemn Homosexuals, he just feels that the bible says that the act is a sin and he doesn't understand the interest. He stated his beliefs without condemning anyone. Something GLAAD can't say.

 

[BornRuff]

My orientation is public record on this board, and I have on more than one occasion in this thread, stated that GLAAD does not speak for me. I have a vested interested in LGBT rights and equality, do you?

Even though I do not agree with Phil Robertson's interpretation of the Bible, nor with his assessment of vag inas and anus's, I respect the fact that he has stated that he loves all like he has been taught by Jesus. He does not condemn Homosexuals, he just feels that the bible says that the act is a sin and he doesn't understand the interest. He stated his beliefs without condemning anyone. Something GLAAD can't say.

If it's a matter of public record, and you are asking the question of me, why do you not come out and clearly say what is what.

BTW, when he says that "they wont inherit the kingdom of god" isn't he explicitly condemning them in the most literal way?

 

[gerryh]

If it's a matter of public record, and you are asking the question of me, why do you not come out and clearly say what is what.

BTW, when he says that "they wont inherit the kingdom of god" isn't he explicitly condemning them in the most literal way?

I'm BI. Now your turn.

And if you don't believe that being gay means you are condemned them what he says means nothing.

 

[BornRuff]

I'm BI. Now your turn.

And if you don't believe that being gay means you are condemned them what he says means nothing.

I'm straight.

What I believe isn't what is at issue here. It is what Phil believes. You said he doesn't condemn them, but......

 

[pgs]

I'm straight.

What I believe isn't what is at issue here. It is what Phil believes. You said he doesn't condemn them, but......

Just curious Mr. internet lawyer when are you going to start quoting case law ?

 

[gerryh]

I'm straight.

What I believe isn't what is at issue here. It is what Phil believes. You said he doesn't condemn them, but......

There is no "but".

 

[BornRuff]

Just curious Mr. internet lawyer when are you going to start quoting case law ?

Lol, when it makes sense?

There is no "but".

So you don't agree that he explicitly condemned them?