Heterophobia on the rise????

[Bonnie]

Heterophobia is on the rise -- just witness the latest episode by
homosexual D.C. council member Jim Graham. Last week Washington Metro
board director and practicing Catholic Robert J. Smith appeared on a
local cable show as the Republican pointman to discuss gay marriage.
Smith commented that as a Roman Catholic he believed homosexual behavior
to be ?deviant? in comparison to heterosexual behavior.

?As an openly gay elected official,? Graham demanded Smith?s resignation
from the transit authority board. Smith refused, explaining that his
remarks had nothing to do with his job and were made in public outside
of his job. He also reiterated his support for Metro?s
non-discrimination policy and his respect for differing views on
homosexuality. Nonetheless, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich Jr. bowed
to Graham and fired Smith because the governor wants ?inclusiveness? and
?tolerance.?

In the past, Graham has made intolerant and non-inclusive comments about
ex-gays and Catholics, yet unlike Smith, Graham still has his job. For
example, in 2003, when he was a chair of the Metro Board, Graham
remarked that he found PFOX?s subway advertisements urging tolerance for
ex-gays to be ?offensive? and ?deplorable.? What if those same remarks
had been made about gays? Do you think Graham would still have his job?


To ensure that PFOX?s ex-gay ads would no longer appear in the subway
systems of our nation?s capitol, Graham and the Metro Board eliminated
free non-profit ad space which had enabled PFOX and other non-profits to
place ads. Nonetheless, Graham proposed an amendment to extend the
deadline for free ad space so that two gay activist organizations could
take advantage of the free space.

In addition to his anti-ex-gay comments, Jim Graham has also made
anti-Catholic remarks in his official role as a D.C. councilmember. In
2000, when the D.C. City Council rejected a ?conscience clause? to
exempt Catholic organizations from being forced to purchase health
insurance employee plans that covered artificial birth control, Graham
lashed out at the Pope and the Washington Archdiocese for practicing the
Catholic religion.

In a now infamous session of the D.C. council meeting, Graham remarked
that he had ?spent years fighting church dogma? and reportedly called
the Roman Catholic church a ?homophobic church.? Catholic Bishop
William Lori said he viewed the session as ?evidence of anti-Catholic
bigotry.?

We know we?re in trouble when homosexual politicians advocate tolerance
and inclusion for their own but cannot respect the views of
heterosexuals.

This column can be found online at:
http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=274&zoneid=2

 

[5stringJeff]

It's lunacy that people can be fired from their public-sector jobs for exercising their right to free speech.

 

[acludem]

It's not lunacy when their comments endanger their ability to be seen as fair and unbiased public servents. This column is lunacy. Heterophobia??!! You've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry PFOX is whining about it's ability to spread around it's lies on Subways. The people they claim to save aren't ex-gay, they are ex-practicing gay. They have made a choice to ignore their homosexual feelings and carry into heterosexual relationships because they are ashamed of being gay. This isn't "curing" them, this is browbeating and shaming them into performing an act of submission. PFOX and organizations like it engage in junk science. This, in my opinion, is akin to the sterilization of "undesirables" that went on in this country and was sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court in the 1930s.

Heterophobia? No, try veritaphobia, fear of the truth.

acludem

 

[GotZoom]

It's not lunacy when their comments endanger their ability to be seen as fair and unbiased public servents. This column is lunacy. Heterophobia??!! You've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry PFOX is whining about it's ability to spread around it's lies on Subways. The people they claim to save aren't ex-gay, they are ex-practicing gay. They have made a choice to ignore their homosexual feelings and carry into heterosexual relationships because they are ashamed of being gay. This isn't "curing" them, this is browbeating and shaming them into performing an act of submission. PFOX and organizations like it engage in junk science. This, in my opinion, is akin to the sterilization of "undesirables" that went on in this country and was sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court in the 1930s.

Heterophobia? No, try veritaphobia, fear of the truth.

acludem

After reading your posts about the gay/bisexual penguin, I have a real hard time taking anything you say seriously any more.

 

[acludem]

I just read PFOX's "about us" section. They do a nice job of sugar coating what they are really about, "curing" gay people. This is like the KKK arguing that they don't hate black people, they just want to "preserve the white race". It holds no water. I don't hate anyone, if you are a gay person and choose to live as a heterosexual so be it. The idea of "ex-gay" is ridiculous.

acludem

 

[dmp]

if you are a gay person and choose to live as a heterosexual so be it. The idea of "ex-gay" is ridiculous.

acludem

If Jeff Dahmer never killed and ate people, would he still be a 'murderer' because he chose to never act on his illicit urges? Am I a 'speeder' because I resist my illegal urges?

People who never have sex with others of their gender cannot, by definition be homosexuals. To think otherwise smart people believe the bullshit stories about people being 'born gay' is beyond amazing.

"Uh...I can't help it...I was BORN this way!"

Otherewise smart person: "Oh. Okay. If you say so. In that case, lets go off your word AND NOT ON SCIENCE and write in for you all kinds of special rights...."

 

[5stringJeff]

It's not lunacy when their comments endanger their ability to be seen as fair and unbiased public servents.

Mr. Smith specifically qualified his comments to avoid what you're talking about:

"Graham demanded Smith's resignation from the transit authority board. Smith refused, explaining that his remarks had nothing to do with his job and were made in public outside of his job. He also reiterated his support for Metro's non-discrimination policy and his respect for differing views on homosexuality."

Exercising one's right to free speech off the job should not be grounds for firing.

I just read PFOX's "about us" section. They do a nice job of sugar coating what they are really about, "curing" gay people. This is like the KKK arguing that they don't hate black people, they just want to "preserve the white race". It holds no water. I don't hate anyone, if you are a gay person and choose to live as a heterosexual so be it. The idea of "ex-gay" is ridiculous.

acludem

Your comparison of sexual preference to race is ridiculous. The former is a description regarding action one takes by making a conscious choice, the latter is a characteristic that the person has no choice about.

 

[acludem]

I don't believe people have a choice about whether they are gay or not, they can chose not act "gay". How about if he said that he thought that Hitler's attempt to eradicate Jewish people was okay? And don't tell me religion isn't a "choice".

Even if you say it on your own time, when you are a public servant you have to be careful about what you say. It's different for a private sector employee. The public, including gay people, pay his salary. Public servants have free speech rights, but they also have a responsibility to the public they serve to use decorum.

acludem

 

[GotZoom]

I don't believe people have a choice about whether they are gay or not, they can chose not act "gay". How about if he said that he thought that Hitler's attempt to eradicate Jewish people was okay? And don't tell me religion isn't a "choice".

Even if you say it on your own time, when you are a public servant you have to be careful about what you say. It's different for a private sector employee. The public, including gay people, pay his salary. Public servants have free speech rights, but they also have a responsibility to the public they serve to use decorum.

acludem

Then you agree that people don't have the right to free speech.

 

[5stringJeff]

I don't believe people have a choice about whether they are gay or not, they can chose not act "gay". How about if he said that he thought that Hitler's attempt to eradicate Jewish people was okay? And don't tell me religion isn't a "choice".

If he wants to think that Hitler was a great guy, that's fine by me, as long as it doesn't inhibit his ability to do his job - which is exactly the case with his comments about homosexuality.

Even if you say it on your own time, when you are a public servant you have to be careful about what you say. It's different for a private sector employee. The public, including gay people, pay his salary. Public servants have free speech rights, but they also have a responsibility to the public they serve to use decorum.

acludem

I totally disagree. Just because one is a public servant doesn't mean their rights are somehow limited. For example, if I state that homosexuality is a sin (which I believe, as a Christian), should the federal government fire me?

 

[acludem]

Whether you should be fired depends upon your job in the government. If you are a paper-pusher in a bureaucratic office, then probably not, if you are, as this gentleman was, a member of an important policy-making body, then yes.

This is a matter of common sense. If a Congressman from Alabama came out and said "I hate Black people." Do you want him voting on civil rights legislation? How about a city councilperson who says "Jew bastards should have been killed off by Hitler." Do you want them voting on zoning for a synagogue?

Think about it.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

I don't believe people have a choice about whether they are gay or not, they can chose not act "gay". How about if he said that he thought that Hitler's attempt to eradicate Jewish people was okay? And don't tell me religion isn't a "choice".

Even if you say it on your own time, when you are a public servant you have to be careful about what you say. It's different for a private sector employee. The public, including gay people, pay his salary. Public servants have free speech rights, but they also have a responsibility to the public they serve to use decorum.

acludem

And what about Ward Churchill? He's an employee at a tax-funded state school, and the public want him fired for comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis. Does he get fired? No, because he's supposedly protected by the first ammendment. Why is this gentleman not afforded the same protection for saying something far less controversial on his own time, rather than saying something stupid and atrocious at a public speech while on the clock?

 

[acludem]

Academics don't make policy decisions. Ward Churchill is a moron. I don't defend what he says, but in an environment of academic freedom he has the right to say it.

This guy makes public policy decisions. He should have used some decorum. I don't know that he needs to be fired, but he should be reprimanded.

acludem

 

[Annie]

And what about Ward Churchill? He's an employee at a tax-funded state school, and the public want him fired for comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis. Does he get fired? No, because he's supposedly protected by the first ammendment. Why is this gentleman not afforded the same protection for saying something far less controversial on his own time, rather than saying something stupid and atrocious at a public speech while on the clock?

I think he will get fired, but not because of 'free speech' rather unethical professional behavior, including but not limited to plagarism:


http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1150612297/5

 

[dmp]

Whether you should be fired depends upon your job in the government. If you are a paper-pusher in a bureaucratic office, then probably not, if you are, as this gentleman was, a member of an important policy-making body, then yes.

This is a matter of common sense. If a Congressman from Alabama came out and said "I hate Black people." Do you want him voting on civil rights legislation? How about a city councilperson who says "Jew bastards should have been killed off by Hitler." Do you want them voting on zoning for a synagogue?

Think about it.

acludem

VERY VERY unfair comparison. If the guy said "I think people who Speed do so out of a lack of self-control" it'd be comparible to what the guy in this story said.

Again - what the HELL Is it with you equating RACE to BEHAVIOUR???

 

[acludem]

I'm not comparing "race to behavior" I'm comparing the implications of a public figure making statements of hating certain groups of people and then making public policy decisions that affect those poeple. This would include him saying "Cripples should be kept away from decent society" and then voting on accommodations for people with disabilities. Or "I hate smokers" and then voting on a smoking ban. It makes it impossible for the public to trust him to be fair in evaluating public policy. Why can't you understand that?

acludem

 

[dmp]

I'm not comparing "race to behavior" I'm comparing the implications of a public figure making statements of hating certain groups of people and then making public policy decisions that affect those poeple. This would include him saying "Cripples should be kept away from decent society" and then voting on accommodations for people with disabilities. Or "I hate smokers" and then voting on a smoking ban. It makes it impossible for the public to trust him to be fair in evaluating public policy. Why can't you understand that?

acludem

"Smoking isn't Natural. It's not a good thing. - That's my personal belief. However - I stand by City law saying anybody can smoke while at work. I fully support City Law.

THAT my friend, is what that guy got fired for - change out 'smoking' and apply 'homosexuality' and 'diversity' as apporpriate and that's it.

Seriously - I get very depressed when I think of people who LOVE lies and false statements and perversion, and call it 'good' and 'understandable'.



Pray hard my friend.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm not comparing "race to behavior" I'm comparing the implications of a public figure making statements of hating certain groups of people and then making public policy decisions that affect those poeple. This would include him saying "Cripples should be kept away from decent society" and then voting on accommodations for people with disabilities. Or "I hate smokers" and then voting on a smoking ban. It makes it impossible for the public to trust him to be fair in evaluating public policy. Why can't you understand that?

acludem

Maybe because people who have repeatedly bashed Christians and stated their undying loyalty to pushing abortion limits even past the point of birth are allowed to make policy decisions while those who lean even slightly the other way have their head handed to Nancy Pelosi on a silver platter. If people who say things like, "Organized religion is a blight on our society/an obstacle for progress" are allowed to make policy concerning the extent of the first ammendment, then people who say things like, "Homosexuality is a sin" should be able to, as well.

 

[GotZoom]

VERY VERY unfair comparison. If the guy said "I think people who Speed do so out of a lack of self-control" it'd be comparible to what the guy in this story said.

Again - what the HELL Is it with you equating RACE to BEHAVIOUR???

He tried equating something else to behaviour and was pretty much spanked.

Now he is trying Race.

 

[5stringJeff]

Whether you should be fired depends upon your job in the government. If you are a paper-pusher in a bureaucratic office, then probably not, if you are, as this gentleman was, a member of an important policy-making body, then yes.

This is a matter of common sense. If a Congressman from Alabama came out and said "I hate Black people." Do you want him voting on civil rights legislation? How about a city councilperson who says "Jew bastards should have been killed off by Hitler." Do you want them voting on zoning for a synagogue?

Think about it.

acludem

First, I know of no such test showing which public officials have limited free speech and which don't.

Second, the two examples you gave are of elected officials, who are put in office by voters. If they make such statements, it is the responsibility of the voters, not the PC Speech Police, to oust those people. In the case of this story, the board director served at the pleasure of the governor, who obviously took issue with his comments. Nevertheless, the governor should not fire someone for a comment made outside the job on an issue that has nothing to do with someone's job.

I'm really surprised that you, being an ACLU member, would not stand up for someone's right to freely express themselves.