1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by sportbook, Aug 19, 2011.

  1. sportbook

    sportbook Member

    Interesting story.

    http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/08/18/teacher-opposed-to-gay-marriage-could-be-fired/
     
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Just so we know what we're talking about, here are the messages.

    “I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

    Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment:

    “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”


    It isn't policy opposition. It's hate, pure and simple.
     
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Active Member

    Facebook. Not private.
     
  4. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Just so we know what we're talking about, it's Fox Noise.

    Propaganda.
     
  5. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Would never have guessed Printdust to be a teacher.
     
  6. wedgewood

    wedgewood Member

    Bet his gay students love him. What an asshole.
     
  7. crimsonace

    crimsonace Active Member

    Shouldn't we be defending the right of people to voice their views, even if we don't agree with them? The First Amendment is mostly intended to protect political discourse -- and this guy is clearly commenting on a major political hot-button issue of the day. If we get to the point where we descend to having "right" and "wrong" views on a topic and people who hold the "wrong" viewpoints are being threatened with their jobs, then we've essentially descended into the same territory as the totalitarian dictatorships the United States spent much of the last century trying to eliminate from the face of the earth.

    But that's also why teachers -- even those of us who are right of center -- belong to unions. One should not be able to be fired for holding a political viewpoint that is unpopular with his superiors -- or for voicing that viewpoint. The union is required to provide representation and make sure the school system follows its process and procedures, and I'd be hard-pressed to see this one be able to stand up in court.

    Do I consider homosexual behavior to be sinful? I probably shouldn't say, because I'm a teacher and apparently could lose my job over it. Watching journalists -- people who are supposed to be defenders of the First Amendment -- crucify him for taking a position because they don't agree it with saddens me. The First Amendment applies to all of us, and if we don't defend it, nobody will.

    And why is this less of a story because it's being reported by Fox (it was also all over religious radio this afternoon). If it happened, we should be reporting it, not shooting the messenger because it's a right-of-center channel. Is a story that MSNBC breaks also less of a story because that network clearly leans left?
     
  8. Azrael

    Azrael Active Member

    If you're going to presume to lecture us on the applications of the 1st Amendment, you'd better bone up on it.

    He exercised his right to free speech. No one restrained his speech. No one curtailed it. No one censored it.

    His suspension is the consequence of that exercise. He spoke freely. If his employer has a policy against 'hate speech' they are well within their right to exercise it here.
     
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I have no problem with outlets reporting it.

    I have a big problem with dressing up discrimination as "freedom of speech" for someone who is in charge of teaching people about the world. Read what he wrote. He is not opposing gay marriage only. He is casting anyone who is gay as an immoral sinner. Enormous, enormous difference, though I am not surprised that Fox News and religious radio aren't framing it that way.

    And if you're a teacher, you know by now that the First Amendment does not prevail in a school, as witnessed by the censorship of student newspapers and the repeated stories of kids being sent home with offensive shirts.

    This would easily cost him his job in the private sector. There is no problem with the First Amendment here. He is not being prosecuted for his beliefs, he is merely being told that they don't fit in with his employer's mission, and his employer's mission just so happens to be not promoting hate.
     
  10. albert77

    albert77 Well-Known Member

    If this is what passes for hate speech now, then we're in bigger trouble than I thought. The man has a religious objection to homosexuality and expresses it rather colorfully. But at no point in these two posts is he threatening anyone in any way. IMO, to get to hate speech from this is a pretty big stretch.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Active Member

    “I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying Jewish unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two Jews kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

    “I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying interracial unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed a black and a white kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

    “I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying Italian unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two Italians kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”


    Cesspool? Not hateful? Seriously?
     
  12. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Hateful or not, it was private communication on private time. I know that the law and precedent are on the school's side, but I don't have to like it.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page